In brief

  • The Constitutional Court rejected, by unanimous vote, the plea through which the police union of the Ministry of Internal Affairs challenged the freeze on public sector pay in 2021 and 2022.
  • All the contested measures remain constitutional: base salaries kept at the level of December of the previous year, bonuses capped, the meal allowance frozen and, in defence, public order and national security, food entitlements paid at the level of January 2019.
  • Those concerned are the police officers and contract staff of the Ministry of Internal Affairs with pending cases, but also, through the precedent it sets, any category of staff paid from public funds challenging a pay austerity measure adopted by emergency ordinance.
Act: CCR Decision no. 457/2025
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 596 of 21 July 2026
Delivered: 16 October 2025

Fifteen case files, four years of litigation and a single answer: the freeze on public sector pay in 2021 and 2022 was constitutional. The Court ruled unanimously and did not go back over its arguments, because it had already given them three times. Decision no. 457 of 16 October 2025, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 596 of 21 July 2026, rejects as unfounded the plea of unconstitutionality raised by the National Union of Police Officers and Contract Staff of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (M.A.I.). It follows the same line of case law in which the Court confirmed, a few days later, the cap on pay rises for public sector employees as well.

The contested provisions belong to the two emergency ordinances by which the Government extended pay austerity in the public sector: Government Emergency Ordinance no. 226/2020, for 2021, and Government Emergency Ordinance no. 130/2021, with an almost identical content, for 2022. Both derogated from Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds, that is, from the timetable of increases the law had promised.

The mechanism was simple and repeated year after year. The base salary, the position pay or the position allowance stayed at the level of December of the previous year, provided that the person held the same post and worked under the same conditions. Bonuses, premiums, compensations and the other components of the monthly gross salary were capped at no more than the December amount. The meal allowance remained at the previous year’s value. And in the institutions of defence, public order and national security, the cash compensation and the food entitlement allowance were paid at the level of January 2019, that is, two and then three years earlier.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is immediate and concerns those who brought the cases. The fifteen joined cases, pending before the courts of appeal of Pitesti, Craiova, Iasi, Timisoara and Bucharest and before the Constanta County Court, will now be tried without the legal ground on which the claims for pay increases rested. The courts can no longer set the provisions aside as unconstitutional.

The second effect is the one that matters beyond this dispute. The Court expressly held that the solution and the reasoning in its earlier rulings, namely Decision no. 631 of 7 November 2024, Decision no. 544 of 29 October 2024 and Decision no. 388 of 17 September 2024, remain valid, because no new elements had emerged. In practice, the line of case law on freezing pay by emergency ordinance is consolidated, and a fresh challenge on the same arguments has no prospects.

The third effect concerns a procedural question with real consequences. The criticised provisions were no longer in force, because they had been adopted with an application limited to a single financial year. The Court nevertheless ruled on them, relying on Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011: an expired provision is examined if it continues to produce legal effects in the cases in which the plea was raised. Without that rule, the State could escape any constitutional review by adopting measures valid for one year only.

The fourth effect is a signal for pay negotiations in the public sector. The arguments put forward by the union covered almost the entire constitutional register available: the principle of legality, non-discrimination and equality before the law, protection of the right to property, the right to a decent standard of living, the conditions for restricting the exercise of rights and the conditions under which the Government may adopt emergency ordinances. None of them was upheld.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In legislative terms, nothing changes: the decision confirms, it does not amend. The ordinances stand as they were, and 2021 and 2022 remain years in which the increases promised by Framework Law no. 153/2017 were not applied.

What does change is the outlook of the pending cases. Until this decision was published, a claimant could hope that the constitutional court would revisit its case law, all the more so as the union had persisted with files lodged between 2022 and 2024. The decision closes that route in the most categorical way possible, unanimously and by reference to its own precedents, without a fresh examination of the arguments on the merits.

Something else becomes clearer too, a detail that used to go unnoticed: the food allowance of staff in defence, public order and national security stayed pegged to the level of January 2019 for several years in a row. The decision does not correct that gap, it confirms that the delegated legislator was entitled to maintain it.

One procedural detail is worth noting. The presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, the Government and the Ombudsman submitted no points of view on the plea. The Court ruled on the submissions of the public prosecutor, who asked for the plea to be rejected. The same public-sector pay austerity reached other benefits too: the 2018 ban on bonuses and gift vouchers for public employees received its own ruling of constitutionality.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It brings a long series of disputes to a predictable close and spares the courts from repeatedly trying the same question of constitutionality.
  • It confirms the rule, useful to every litigant, that an expired provision remains subject to constitutional review for as long as it produces effects in pending cases.
  • It gives the public budget a stable legal footing: pay austerity measures adopted by emergency ordinance will not be overturned retroactively.
  • Unanimity removes any ambiguity. There is no dissenting opinion to feed a new round of challenges.

What remains a problem

  • Framework Law no. 153/2017 promised a timetable of pay increases from which the Government derogated year after year, through successive ordinances. The decision validates that practice without calling it into question.
  • Employees who went to court in 2021 and 2022 receive the final answer only in 2026, once the decision is published. Four years of uncertainty, with real litigation costs.
  • The Court does not re-examine the arguments on the merits but refers back to its own earlier rulings. For the claimants, the reasoning is therefore brief in relation to what is at stake.
  • Food entitlements pegged to January 2019 went unchanged for years, in a period of high inflation. The effect on purchasing power is not addressed by the decision.

Practical advice

  1. If you have a pending case seeking pay increases for 2021 or 2022 based on the unconstitutionality of these ordinances, discuss with your lawyer how to redirect the claim. That legal ground can no longer be used.
  2. Check whether your claim also has a separate head, for example an incorrect grading in the post or a change in working conditions. The ordinances kept pay unchanged only in so far as the person held the same post and worked under the same conditions, so a genuine change of situation remains arguable.
  3. Do not confuse the rejection of the plea with the rejection of the case. The main dispute continues, and the court rules separately on your claim.
  4. For future collective bargaining, bear in mind that the constitutional court has validated derogation by emergency ordinance from the timetable in Framework Law no. 153/2017. The legal argument is spent, so what is at stake now moves to negotiation and to the budget law.
  5. If you work in defence, public order or national security, check on your payslip the level at which your food entitlement allowance is calculated. Any updates after 2019 are to be read from the legislation adopted after the period covered by these ordinances.
  6. Decisions of the Court take effect from publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, not from delivery. Here there are nine months between the two moments, a gap that matters when calculating procedural time limits.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide?
It rejected the plea of unconstitutionality as unfounded and found that the contested provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 226/2020 and Government Emergency Ordinance no. 130/2021 are constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised. The ruling was adopted by unanimous vote.
What did the contested provisions actually say?
They kept base salaries, position pay and position allowances at the level of December of the previous year, capped bonuses and the other components of the monthly gross salary, froze the meal allowance and, in defence, public order and national security, paid food entitlements at the level of January 2019.
Why did the Court rule on provisions that are no longer in force?
Because the ordinances applied for one year only, yet they continue to produce legal effects in the cases in which the plea was raised. The rule comes from Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011 and allows expired provisions to be reviewed in such situations.
Who raised the plea?
The National Union of Police Officers and Contract Staff of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in the name and on behalf of its members, in fifteen cases pending before the courts of appeal of Pitesti, Craiova, Iasi, Timisoara and Bucharest and before the Constanta County Court.
Which constitutional provisions were invoked?
The principle of legality, non-discrimination and equality before the law, protection of the right to property, the right to a decent standard of living, the conditions for restricting the exercise of rights and the conditions for adopting emergency ordinances. The Court upheld none of the arguments.
Can I still challenge these ordinances in another case?
In practice, not on the same arguments. The decision is final and generally binding, and the Court stated that it maintains its earlier case law in the absence of new elements. An identical new plea would be rejected.
What happens to my own case for pay increases?
It continues to be tried on the merits, before the courts that referred the matter to the Court. They can no longer set aside as unconstitutional the provisions that froze pay in 2021 and 2022.

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. 596 of 21 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 112 KB the act starts on page 7

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.