In brief
- The Constitutional Court rejected, unanimously, as unfounded, the objection through which two retired servicemen challenged the rule that keeps a net military pension below the average net income of the period used for the calculation. The cap stands, and the two emergency ordinances that introduced it and then rewrote it, no. 59/2017 and no. 114/2018, are constitutional as a whole.
- What was at stake was not the cap itself, but what it swallows. The law promises a supplement of 3%, 6% or 9% to anyone who paid the contribution for the supplementary pension and an increase of 10%, 15% or 20% to anyone decorated with the Semnul onorific, the distinction the decision calls by its older name, the Ordinul „Meritul Militar”. The authors of the objection showed that the cap can wipe out both, even though the provisions granting them are still in force. On that point, the Court’s reasoning gives no separate answer.
- The text under review is no longer the one in force today. From 1 January 2024, Law no. 282/2023 rewrote the paragraph and added the updating of the base with the consumer price index. The decision therefore concerns pensions granted under the old wording and the lawsuits brought by their holders, not the calculation of pensions established since the beginning of 2024.
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 771 of 11 September 2026
In force from: 11 September 2026, the date of publication
A serviceman can pay for more than twenty years a contribution created precisely in order to raise his pension and then see nothing of it when he retires. The Constitutional Court has ruled that this situation does not breach the fundamental law. Decision no. 276 of 26 March 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 771 of 11 September 2026, rejects as unfounded the objection raised in two cases before the Teleorman Tribunal and confirms the cap in Article 60(1) of Law no. 223/2015. It is the second confirmation of the rules that keep military pensions in check in less than three weeks: on 24 August 2026 came Decision no. 283/2026, which closed 87 cases at a stroke on the neighbouring article, the one about updating the pension with inflation. Both decisions were delivered in the same sitting, on 26 March 2026.
The cap has a short wording and a long consequence. The text under challenge read: „When a state military pension is established, the net pension may not be higher than the average of the net monthly pay corresponding to the gross monthly pay included in the pension calculation base.” In other words, however much the formula produces, the pension that actually reaches the account cannot exceed the average net income the serviceman earned during the period used to establish the pension.
This is the second cap, not the first. Article 30 of the same law already provides that a pension established, recalculated and updated may not exceed 85% of the calculation base, and that cap works on the gross amount. Article 60(1) comes on top of it and cuts a second time, this time on the net. Between the two filters what is lost is, in this order, everything above 85% of the base and then everything that pushes the net pension above the average net income.
The two authors of the objection, Marius Georgescu and Ștefan Mardale, were challenging their pension decisions before the Teleorman Tribunal. The first case reached the Court through Civil Judgment no. 388 of 20 May 2021, the second through the Interlocutory Order of 7 September 2021. The Court joined them, under Article 53(5) of Law no. 47/1992, and heard them together.
The criticisms went in two directions. The first concerned the way the law was made: the Government had amended an organic law by ordinance, even though the field of military pensions did not appear in Law no. 161/2017 on empowering the Government to issue ordinances, and without the extraordinary situation required by Article 115(4) of the Constitution. The second author added a concrete argument: the reason given in the preamble to Emergency Ordinance no. 59/2017, the continuous rise in salaries and military pay, concerns the removal of updating, which is a different measure, not the capping.
The second direction gives the case its substance. Article 108 of Law no. 223/2015 grants a supplement of 3% for a contribution record to the supplementary pension fund of between 5 and 15 years, 6% for 15–25 years and 9% for more than 25 years. Article 11(3) of Law no. 80/1995 on the status of military personnel raises the pension by 10%, 15% or 20%, depending on the class of the distinction; the text in force uses the name Semnul onorific, while the decision speaks of the Ordinul „Meritul Militar”, the earlier name of the same award. The author in the second case showed that he had paid the contribution for more than twenty years, that it had never reduced his salary and that it had a single purpose: a larger pension. The cap cancels it at the very moment of retirement, precisely when the expectation should have been fulfilled.
The argument has an uncomfortable corollary, which the objection states outright. Because of the cap, the person who paid the contribution and the person who did not end up with the same pension, and so do the decorated and the undecorated. And the provisions promising the supplements have not been repealed; they remain in force alongside the cap that can neutralise them.
The Public Ministry, through prosecutor Ioan Laurențiu Sorescu, asked for the objection to be rejected as unfounded and invoked Decision no. 54 of 25 February 2025. The presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, the Government and the Ombudsman submitted no point of view, even though the referral documents had been sent to them under Article 30(1) of Law no. 47/1992.
On the procedural criticism, the Court answered briefly and correctly. Ordinances no. 59/2017 and no. 114/2018 are emergency ordinances, not simple ordinances. Only the latter need an enabling law and only they stop at the border of organic law. An emergency ordinance draws its basis directly from Article 115(4) of the Constitution and may regulate in fields reserved to organic law as well, so the absence of military pensions from the enabling law of the summer of 2017 changes nothing. On the extraordinary situation and on urgency, the Court referred to its own decisions no. 687/2019, no. 543/2020, no. 488/2023 and no. 550/2024.
On the merits, the answer rests on three ideas already set out in the Court’s case-law. People retire under the law in force on the date the right arises, in line with the principle tempus regit actum, so the difference between generations of pensioners is not discrimination. The categories of beneficiaries of service pensions and pensioners in the public system are not in identical situations, being governed by different legal acts. And the amount of the pension is guaranteed neither by the Constitution nor by the European Convention on Human Rights: „The amount of a pension constitutes possessions only in so far as it has become due”, the Court recalled in paragraph 45, citing Decision no. 1.284 of 29 September 2011 and Decision no. 977 of 12 July 2011. The legislature may set both a minimum level and a maximum cap.
What it changes in practice
The decision is final and generally binding from publication, that is from 11 September 2026, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution. Being a rejection, it removes no provision from force and changes no pension in payment. Anyone looking in it for a change in the calculation will find none.
The first effect occurs in the two cases before the Teleorman Tribunal. The challenges to the pension decisions continue to be heard, but the court can no longer set the cap aside as unconstitutional. For the two claimants, that route is closed.
The second effect concerns the lawsuits of other military pensioners, and here the number says everything. The same Court, in the same sitting, ruled through Decision no. 283/2026 on objections raised in 87 cases on the neighbouring article. The cap in Article 60(1) and the updating in Article 59 are the two ends of the same grievance, and both have now received the same answer. The courts that were waiting for clarification have it.
The third effect is the one most often underestimated: a rejection as unfounded does not lock the text. The prohibition in Article 29(3) of Law no. 47/1992 concerns only provisions already found to be unconstitutional, and here nothing was found. What is more, the operative part says the text is constitutional „in relation to the criticisms formulated”, a form of words that leaves open any new criticism built on a different ground. In practice, however, an objection that repeats the same arguments will receive the same answer.
The fourth effect is what was not settled. The question whether a cap may neutralise a benefit for which the insured person paid a separate contribution is left without an answer of its own in the reasoning. The Court deals with it through the general rule that a pension becomes possessions only when it is due, which closes the discussion about the right to property but does not touch the argument about the specific purpose of the contribution. The supplement in Article 108 and the increase in Article 11(3) of Law no. 80/1995 remain written in the law, and the cap remains written above them.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
The cap the Court reviewed is no longer, word for word, the one in the law today. The difference is small to read and large to calculate.
The version under challenge, given by Article VII point 3 of Emergency Ordinance no. 59/2017 and then amended by Article 84 point 2 of Emergency Ordinance no. 114/2018, stopped the net pension at „the average of the net monthly pay corresponding to the gross monthly pay included in the pension calculation base”. The version in force, given by Law no. 282/2023 and applicable from 1 January 2024, stops it at the average of the same net income, but „updated with the monthly consumer price index on the date the pension rights arise”.
The change does not abolish the cap, it raises its level. The calculation base is built from income earned while in service, therefore before retirement, and prices rise in the meantime. Updating with the consumer price index brings that income to the purchasing power of the day the pension right arises, so it lifts the ceiling under which the net pension settles. The older the interval chosen for the calculation base, the larger the difference. For anyone who retired by the end of 2023, this correction does not exist.
The Court nevertheless reviewed the old version, although it had been replaced more than two years before the ruling. The explanation lies in Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011, cited in paragraph 32: provisions that have ceased to be in force may also be reviewed, as long as they continue to produce effects in pending cases. Without that rule, anyone would have lost the right to challenge the text under which they retired as soon as the legislature changed it.
The subject matter of the case also changed along the way. The objection in the first case targeted Article 30 of Law no. 223/2015 as well, the provision with the cap of 85% of the calculation base. In paragraph 31 the Court found that the submissions in fact concerned only Article 60(1) and narrowed the subject matter of the objection to that provision. The relationship between the two caps, the gross one and the net one, thus remained outside the debate.
What has not changed at all are the provisions that promise the supplements. The supplement for the supplementary contribution, in Article 108 of Law no. 223/2015, and the increase for the Semnul onorific, in Article 11(3) of Law no. 80/1995, read today just as they did in 2017, and the cap above them works in the same way. The only difference is the height to which the ceiling has moved.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- It closes an uncertainty five years old. Courts hearing challenges to pension decisions now know that the cap cannot be set aside as unconstitutional, and those files no longer wait on the Court.
- It clears up a procedural confusion that comes back often: an emergency ordinance needs no enabling law and may regulate in the field of organic law too, unlike a simple ordinance. The argument of the missing empowerment, used constantly against emergency ordinances, is expressly rejected.
- It was delivered unanimously, by a panel of nine judges, with no dissenting or concurring opinion. No room is left for interpretation of what the Court meant to say.
- It reaffirms the principle tempus regit actum for pensions, useful beyond this case: the date the right arises fixes the applicable law, and the difference from a generation that retired under other rules is not, in itself, discrimination.
- It does not use up the text. A rejection does not trigger the prohibition in Article 29(3) of Law no. 47/1992, and the operative part refers expressly only to the criticisms formulated, so a new criticism remains possible.
What remains a problem
- The strongest argument in the objection, the one about the contribution paid for more than twenty years for a supplement the cap erases, takes up eight paragraphs of the authors’ submissions and none of the Court’s reasoning. The answer comes indirectly, through the general rule that a pension becomes possessions only when it is due.
- Article 41 of the Constitution, on work and the social protection of work, appears in the list of grounds invoked in paragraph 35 and never returns anywhere in the examination. Nor does the criticism on foreseeability and the quality of the law, based on Article 1(5), receive an answer on the merits, being dealt with only in its competence aspect.
- 169 days passed between the ruling and publication. Decision no. 283/2026, delivered in the same sitting, on the neighbouring article of the same law, was published after 151 days. The same day of delivery, 18 days’ difference in reaching the Official Gazette of Romania, with no rule that explains the order.
- The decision does not cite Decision no. 54 of 25 February 2025, which the representative of the Public Ministry had invoked as relevant case-law, and it does not mention Decision no. 283/2026 either, delivered the same day in the neighbouring field.
- Decision no. 5 of 8 February 2021 of the High Court, invoked by the author of the objection in support of the argument about the Semnul onorific, is not discussed. Anyone who opens it will find that the referral was rejected as inadmissible, so it contains no binding ruling, but that does not emerge from the text published now.
- The first author’s case appears under two different numbers in the same act: 447/89/2021 in paragraph 1 and in the operative part, 447/87/2021 in paragraph 7. The second case from the same tribunal carries the code 87 throughout.
Practical advice
- First check which version of the text you retired under. If the pension right arose by 31 December 2023, the version reviewed now applies, without the base being updated with the consumer price index. If it arose from 1 January 2024, the version given by Law no. 282/2023 applies and the cap is calculated on income brought up to date.
- Ask the pension house for the detailed calculation, not just the result. It shows where the money was lost: at the cap of 85% of the calculation base, set out in Article 30, or at the net cap in Article 60(1). These are two separate operations, and the final figure does not say which of them made the cut.
- Do not confuse a rejection as unfounded with a definitive end to the discussion. The text can still be challenged, because the prohibition in Article 29(3) of Law no. 47/1992 concerns only provisions already declared unconstitutional. A new objection does, however, need a ground the Court has not examined, not a repetition of the same arguments.
- If you challenge the pension decision in court, separate the calculation questions from the constitutional ones. How the pension house applied the supplement in Article 108 or the increase in Article 11(3) of Law no. 80/1995, the order of the operations and the interval chosen for the base are argued before the court for labour disputes and social insurance, not before the Constitutional Court.
- Read the provisions that grant the supplements together with those that cap them. The supplements in Article 108 of Law no. 223/2015 and in Article 11(3) of Law no. 80/1995 promise percentages, while Article 30 and Article 60(1) of Law no. 223/2015 set the limits beyond which the percentages produce no further effect. Read separately, the four provisions do not give the final amount.
- When you cite this decision in a submission, take the case number from the operative part and check it with the court of first instance. The published act contains two different numbers for the first case, and the difference is not visible if you read a single page.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Constitutional Court decide, in short?
What does the cap in Article 60(1) mean in practice?
Do I lose the supplement for the supplementary pension if my pension reaches the cap?
What about the increase for the Semnul onorific?
Does the decision change anything about my pension in payment?
Why did the Court review a text that had already been amended?
What does the text in force today look like?
Can I challenge the same text before the Constitutional Court again?
How long did the procedure take?
Where can I find the full text of the decision?
Editorial analysis
On the procedural criticism, the decision is solid and useful. The confusion between a simple ordinance and an emergency ordinance returns in almost every challenge to a Government act in pension matters, and the Court settles it in two sentences: the enabling law concerns simple ordinances, while an emergency ordinance draws its basis directly from the Constitution and may enter the field of organic law. Anyone raising an objection on the lack of empowerment now knows they will lose.
On the merits, however, the proportions are reversed. In paragraphs 18 to 25 the authors of the objection built an argument that did not look like the usual complaint against a cap. They were not saying the pension is too small, but that the State collected a contribution created precisely in order to produce a supplement and then suppressed the supplement, leaving in force the provision that promises it. Eight paragraphs of submissions, plus the discussion about the Semnul onorific, receive no reasoning of their own. The answer comes through the formula that a pension constitutes possessions only in so far as it has become due, cited in paragraph 45 from decisions no. 1.284/2011 and no. 977/2011. The formula is correct and disposes of the criticism based on the right to property, but it does not touch the question that was asked, which was about the destination of a contribution, not about guaranteeing an amount. Article 41 of the Constitution disappears at the same place, listed in paragraph 35 and never examined.
The observation that does not show itself when the decision is read from beginning to end emerges from placing side by side four provisions the Court never brings together. Article 29 of Law no. 223/2015 gives 65% of the calculation base at 25 years of service, plus a percentage for each additional year. On top of that, Article 108 adds up to 9% for the contribution to the supplementary pension, and Article 11(3) of Law no. 80/1995 a further 20% at most for the Semnul onorific. Above them all, Article 30 stops everything at 85% of the calculation base. The two supplements, taken at their maximum, raise the pension by 29%, so a serviceman with the minimum 25 years of service lands between 83.9% and 85.0% of the base, depending on the order in which the increases are applied, exactly at the edge of the gross cap. From 26 years of service upwards, however the calculation is done, the result exceeds 85% and the supplements begin to be cut by Article 30 before the net cap in Article 60(1) is even applied. This is the mechanism the objection complained of, and the Court took it out of the discussion in paragraph 31, when it removed Article 30 from the subject matter of the objection. The criticism was judged without half of itself.
The second observation calls for a calendar, not a reading. The first referral left Teleorman on 20 May 2021 and received an answer on 26 March 2026, after 1,771 days. Publication added another 169 days, and the decision produces effects only from then. On the date of the ruling, the text reviewed had not applied for 815 days, having been replaced from 1 January 2024; on the date of publication, for 984. The interval between ruling and publication is not even constant: Decision no. 283/2026, from the same sitting, on the neighbouring article of the same law, appeared 18 days earlier, after 151 days. And if we take the thirteen of its own decisions that the Court cites in the reasoning of this act, their interval runs from 19 days, for Decision no. 63/2017, to 281 days, for Decision no. 550/2024. An act that becomes generally binding on publication therefore has a moment of entry into force that varies by an order of magnitude, with no criterion visible from outside.
A note for anyone checking on their own. Decision no. 5 of 8 February 2021 of the High Court, invoked by the author of the objection in paragraph 24, rejected as inadmissible the referral from the Bacău Court of Appeal concerning precisely the interpretation of Article 60(1) in relation to the supplement in Article 11(3) of Law no. 80/1995. It therefore contains no binding ruling on the point of law. Anyone citing it on the strength of this decision, without opening it, risks attributing to it a force it does not have.
What should be changed
- Express correlation of Article 108 of Law no. 223/2015 and Article 11(3) of Law no. 80/1995 with the caps in Article 30 and Article 60. Either a statement that the supplements fall under the cap, or their exemption from it. Effect: anyone paying the contribution for the supplementary pension today would know in advance whether they will ever see the 3%, 6% or 9% promised, instead of finding out when the pension right arises.
- Refund or rearrangement of the contribution for the supplementary pension where the corresponding supplement is cancelled entirely by the cap. Effect: the State would no longer collect an earmarked contribution without delivering what it is earmarked for, and the discussion about its confiscatory character, which the Court closed with the argument that the pension must be due, would disappear altogether.
- A statutory deadline for publishing in the Official Gazette of Romania the decisions of the Constitutional Court delivered on objections. Effect: two decisions from the same sitting could no longer become binding 18 days apart, and the interval could no longer climb to 281 days, as it did with Decision no. 550/2024, cited in this very act.
- An obligation to answer each constitutional ground invoked, or to state why it is not examined. Effect: a ground such as Article 41, listed in paragraph 35 and absent from the reasoning, would no longer be left without a trace, and the author of a future objection would know whether the issue was rejected or merely sidestepped.
- A check of the case number in the operative part against the records of the referring court, before the decision is sent for publication. Effect: the situation in this act would disappear, where the first case appears as 447/89/2021 in the operative part and as 447/87/2021 in the reasoning, even though the second case from the same tribunal carries the code 87.
- Citation of the Court’s own decision delivered the same day in the neighbouring field. Effect: the reader would see at once the Court’s full answer on the capping and the updating of military pensions, instead of learning elsewhere that Decision no. 283/2026 closed 87 cases on the adjacent article in the same sitting.
Original text of the legal act
The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.
The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania
Official Gazette of Romania no. 771 of 11 September 2026 16 pages PDF, 107 KB the act starts on page 2
Open the official PDFDownload the PDF
The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.