In brief

  • The Constitutional Court has dismissed nine joined cases and confirmed that the State was entitled not to pay, between 2017 and 2021, the lump-sum benefits and allowances granted on leaving the service with a pension to military personnel, police officers, prison staff and magistrates.
  • The underlying reason: these sums are benefits attached to a special status, not rights with a constitutional basis, and the legislature may grant them, suspend them or abolish them.
  • The consequence that matters in practice: anyone who retired after 1 July 2017 no longer has the right at all, because the law that provided for it was repealed and the new pay law contains nothing equivalent.
Act: CCR Decision no. 31/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 600 of 23 July 2026
Delivered: 20 January 2026

Public sector retirement benefits remain unpaid, and the Constitutional Court says that this was lawful. Nine joined cases, brought by former military personnel, police officers, prison administration staff and magistrates, challenged four emergency ordinances by which the payment of these sums was suspended year after year, from 2017 to 2021. The Court dismissed them all as unfounded. It is the second time this summer that the constitutional court has refused to release money promised by law to public sector staff, after it also confirmed that sums awarded in court are still paid in five annual instalments.

What is at stake are the lump-sum benefits and allowances granted on retirement, on transfer to retired status, on termination of the service relationship or on transfer to the reserve. For magistrates, Article 81(1) of Law no. 303/2004 provided for seven gross monthly basic salaries. For military personnel, police officers and civil servants with special status in the prison system, the benefit was provided for by Article 20 of Annex no. VII to Framework Law no. 284/2010. Similar sums existed for the auxiliary staff of the courts and for parliamentary civil servants.

The suspension came in waves. Government Emergency Ordinance no. 99/2016 stopped the payment for the first two months of 2017, Government Emergency Ordinance no. 9/2017 for the rest of that year, Government Emergency Ordinance no. 90/2017 for 2018, and Government Emergency Ordinance no. 114/2018 for the period 2019 to 2021. Four texts, five years, the same wording: not granted.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the four texts remain valid. The Court found that they are constitutional in relation to the criticisms formulated, by unanimous vote. Decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and generally binding from publication, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, so the proceedings in which these sums were claimed for the period 2017 to 2021 are left without the constitutional basis the claimants were counting on.

The second effect is the harshest one and concerns the period after the suspension. Framework Law no. 284/2010 was repealed by Article 44(1) point 9 of Framework Law no. 153/2017, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 492 of 28 June 2017. The new pay law contains no provision similar to the one that established the benefits. The Court says plainly what this means: military personnel, police officers and civil servants with special status in the prison system who were transferred to the reserve, transferred to retired status, or whose service relationship ended, with entitlement to a pension, after 1 July 2017 no longer receive the benefits provided for by Framework Law no. 284/2010. This is not a deferred payment, but a right that no longer exists.

The third effect concerns the rule by which retirement entitlements are established. The Court restates the principle tempus regit actum: the law in force on the date when the right to a pension arises applies, not the legislation existing at an earlier date. Someone who retired earlier and received the benefit is not in the same legal situation as someone who retired later, so the difference between them is not discrimination.

The fourth effect is one of case law. The Court lists ten earlier decisions with the same outcome, between 2016 and 2025, and finds that no new elements have arisen. In practice, the line is closed: a new case built on the same arguments has minimal chances. A later ruling on the same money follows that line: in September 2026 the Court held that a retired judge called back to the bench keeps only 15% of the pension for as long as the reinstatement lasts.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

From the point of view of the legal texts, nothing. The four ordinances had already ceased to apply by the date of the judgment. The Court examined them nonetheless, because their legal effects continue to be produced in the proceedings still pending, in accordance with Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011, which established that provisions whose effects continue after they cease to be in force are also subject to constitutional review.

What has changed is the position of the arguments. The authors of the exception argued that, after 1 July 2017, an act of suspension could no longer suspend a right contained in a repealed law, because a repealed rule cannot be brought back into force. The Court replied, citing the High Court of Cassation and Justice, that the issue is not the suspension of a dead text, but the succession of laws over time: a repeal is definitive, and the right simply no longer exists for those who leave the service with a pension after that date.

A confusion repeated in proceedings of this kind has also been cleared up. Through Decision no. 16 of 8 June 2015, the High Court had established that the intention of the legislature was not to abolish the right, but to suspend the exercise of it. The authors read this as a promise of later payment. The Constitutional Court now shows that the suspension of the exercise between 2017 and 2021 and the disappearance of the right through the 2017 repeal are two different things, which happened in parallel.

Finally, the criticism specific to magistrates, the one linked to the independence of the judiciary, was also rejected. The Court restates what it said in 2015 and in 2016: not granting the allowance under Article 81(1) of Law no. 303/2004 does not affect the constitutional status of judges and prosecutors, because the allowance is a benefit attached to their special status, not a guarantee of independence.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The legal position becomes predictable: after ten decisions with the same outcome, no one can reasonably still hope for a change of case law on these arguments.
  • The Court says explicitly, not by implication, that the right has disappeared for those who retired after 1 July 2017, which spares people proceedings started on false expectations.
  • The public budget is protected from a retroactive expense covering five years, for several large professional categories.
  • A principle is confirmed which also protects in the opposite direction: retirement entitlements are those in force on the date when the right to a pension arises, so they cannot be reduced later for those who have already acquired them.

What remains a problem

  • People who worked under a law that promised them a benefit on leaving the service have been left without it, and the difference compared with colleagues who left a few months earlier can amount to several months of salary.
  • Suspension by emergency ordinance, repeated year after year, remains a valid instrument, even though the cumulative effect over five years resembles the abolition of the right.
  • The argument that a benefit without a constitutional basis can be withdrawn at any time applies equally well to any other salary right granted by a special law.
  • Proceedings take so long that some of them lose their purpose: the cases decided now had been opened between 2017 and 2022.

Practical advice

  1. Check first the date on which you left the service. If the transfer to the reserve, the transfer to retired status or the termination of the service relationship, with entitlement to a pension, took place after 1 July 2017, the right to the benefit under Framework Law no. 284/2010 no longer existed, regardless of the suspensions.
  2. If you left before 1 July 2017 and the payment was only suspended, check what the court decided in your own case: this decision concerns the constitutionality of the texts, not the way the civil courts interpret them.
  3. Do not build a new application on the same arguments of unconstitutionality. The Court listed ten identical earlier decisions and said expressly that no new elements have arisen.
  4. If you are a magistrate and retired during the suspension period, bear in mind that the argument of judicial independence has been rejected three times, in 2015, in 2016 and now.
  5. Keep the documents proving the exact date on which your service relationship ended and the legal basis of your retirement. In disputes of this kind, a few days of difference change the applicable law.
  6. If you nevertheless want the right restored, the route is legislative, not judicial: the Court said that there is no constitutional obligation on the legislature to regulate such benefits, but no prohibition either.

Frequently asked questions

Who was covered by these benefits?
Military personnel, police officers and civil servants with special status in the prison administration system, under Article 20 of Annex no. VII to Framework Law no. 284/2010; judges and prosecutors, under Article 81 of Law no. 303/2004; the specialised auxiliary staff of the courts and prosecutor’s offices, under Article 69 of Law no. 567/2004; parliamentary civil servants, under Article 73 of Law no. 7/2006.
Can the money still be recovered for the years 2017 to 2021?
Not on the basis of any unconstitutionality of the suspension texts, because those have been found constitutional. The specific situation in each civil case remains within the competence of the ordinary courts.
Why does the date of 1 July 2017 matter?
Because Framework Law no. 153/2017, published on 28 June 2017, repealed Framework Law no. 284/2010 and did not take over the provisions on these benefits. Anyone leaving the service after that date no longer has a legal text granting them this benefit.
Is this discrimination compared with those who retired earlier?
The Court says it is not. The different situation in which people find themselves depending on the law applicable on the date when the right to a pension arises is not regarded as a breach of equality before the law, because successive sets of rules may naturally have different content.
Is a suspension lasting more than ten years not equivalent to abolishing the right?
The authors of the exception argued exactly that, and a court of appeal agreed with them in its own opinion. The Constitutional Court replied that these benefits have no constitutional basis, so the legislature may even decide to end them, without having to meet the conditions for restricting a fundamental right laid down in Article 53 of the Constitution.
What does the European Court of Human Rights say about such benefits?
The Constitutional Court cited the case of Kechko v. Ukraine, in which the European Court held that the State is in a position to determine which benefits are paid to employees out of the public budget and may introduce, suspend or end their payment through legislative amendments.
Why did the Court rule on texts that were no longer in force?
Because, through Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011, it established that provisions whose legal effects continue to be produced after they cease to be in force are also subject to constitutional review. Otherwise, proceedings started under the old law would be left without a remedy.

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. 600 of 23 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 121 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.