In brief

  • The Constitutional Court has unanimously rejected a challenge brought by staff of the justice system against the 30% cap on bonuses laid down in the law on public sector pay.
  • The claimants argued that the cap strips them of rights won through final judgments and that it produces differences between colleagues holding the same post, depending on the institution they work for.
  • The Court answered that bonuses are not fundamental rights but supplementary salary rights, that capping them is a choice for the legislature and that it does not amount to a reduction of the basic salary.
Act: CCR Decision no. 38/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 572 of 13 July 2026
Delivered: 20 January 2026

Two court clerks holding the same post, the same grade and the same step can end up being paid different amounts, because they work at tribunals with different staffing structures. The Constitutional Court was asked whether that is discrimination and answered that it is not, through Decision no. 38 of 20 January 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 572 of 13 July 2026. This is the third time this year that the caps in the pay law have reached the Court, after the decision under which money won in court by public sector employees continues to be paid in instalments over five years. The Court returned to bonuses in Decision no. 180/2026, which places them outside equal pay for equal work.

The text at the centre of the dispute is Article 25(1) of Framework Law No 153/2017. It provides that the total of all bonuses, compensations, increments, premiums, awards and allowances, including those for meals and holiday, granted cumulatively across the whole budget of each authorising officer, may not exceed 30% of the total of basic salaries.

Two further texts were challenged alongside it: Article 1(3), which provides that from the entry into force of the law salary rights are and remain exclusively those laid down by it, and Article 9, which refers to the annexes setting out salaries and bonuses for the seven occupational families.

What it changes in practice

The 30% cap stays in force exactly as drafted. The decision is final and generally binding, so the solution applies to all courts, not only to the two case files from which the plea of unconstitutionality originated.

Court judgments won before 2018 do not reopen the discussion. The authors of the plea had obtained, through final judgments, recognition of a particular method of calculation, by reference to a sectoral reference value. After 1 January 2018, the paying authority applied the 30% cap on top of that calculation, even though their bonuses amounted to 45% of the basic allowance. The Court found nothing unconstitutional in that.

Differences between institutions remain lawful. The Court held that the law does not create differences in basic salaries or in position allowances, and that duties, powers, specific tasks, responsibilities and the importance of the work may differ even for staff appointed to identical or similar posts, but at different public authorities or institutions.

Responsibility passes to the authorising officer. The Court referred to Article 3(1) and (4) of the same law: the pay system is managed by each authorising officer, who is under a duty to set salaries and bonuses so as to remain within the sums approved for that purpose in their own budget. The concrete setting of bonuses therefore takes place at institution level, within the limits of the law.

Bonuses are classified as supplementary salary rights. The Court recalled that capping bonuses, compensations, increments, premiums, awards and allowances does not amount to a reduction of the basic salary, and that the State has full constitutional legitimacy to grant them according to the budget revenue it collects. They are not fundamental rights.

A bonus is a maximum limit, not a guaranteed sum. The Court pointed out that, as the legislature sees it, bonuses do not always have a fixed amount but a variable one, set by reference to a maximum limit laid down in the law and in Annexes No I to VIII. In concrete terms, a bonus of „up to 15%” does not mean a right to 15%.

Article 41 of the Constitution is of no help where bonuses are concerned. The Court repeated that laying down the principles and the concrete conditions for granting salary rights to public sector staff falls within the exclusive powers of the legislature, and that Article 41(2) provides for the establishment of a national minimum gross wage without saying anything about supplementary salary rights.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In legislative terms, nothing. The decision rejects the plea, so the texts remain in the form published in 2017 and applied ever since. The change is of a different order: one of the few remaining routes disappears through which justice system staff still hoped to recover the difference between the bonuses provided for in Annex No V, of up to 45% for the „Justice” occupational family, and the general 30% cap per authorising officer.

The Court did not build a new line of reasoning. It took over in full the grounds of three earlier decisions: Decision no. 697 of 31 October 2019, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 26 of 15 January 2020, Decision no. 85 of 2 March 2023, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 710 of 2 August 2023, and the decision of 9 April 2024, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 1055 of 21 October 2024. The formula used is the standard one: since no new elements have arisen, both the solution and the grounds retain their validity.

What is nonetheless added to the case law is explicit confirmation for the situation in which the cap is applied on top of a final judgment. The authors argued that the judgments recognising the sectoral reference value did not concern particular factual situations but the application of general provisions to an entire occupational family. The Court rejected that line without treating it separately, by reference to case law already settled.

One calendar detail is worth noting: the decision was delivered on 20 January 2026 and published on 13 July 2026, almost six months later. Until publication, it produced no general effects.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It brings predictability: after four decisions to the same effect, the courts have a clear answer for pending cases raising the same criticism.
  • It confirms that the cap applies uniformly to all staff paid from public funds, with no exceptions by occupational family, which closes the discussion about sectoral privileges.
  • It makes clear, for any public sector employee, that a bonus expressed as „up to” a given percentage is not a guaranteed sum but a maximum limit.
  • It places responsibility with the authorising officer, who is under a legal duty to distribute bonuses within their own budget, so complaints have an identifiable addressee.
  • The decision was delivered unanimously, with no dissenting opinions, which narrows the room for a return to the same criticism.

What remains a problem

  • The problem raised by the authors remains real and unresolved: two employees holding the same post, the same grade and the same step can be paid different amounts, depending on the staffing structure of their institution.
  • The Court answers that duties may differ from one institution to another, but the criticism concerned precisely the case where they are identical and the difference comes from the arithmetic of the cap.
  • The bonus for difficult, harmful or dangerous working conditions and the one for people with disabilities may go unpaid if the institution’s other bonuses have already reached the 30% threshold.
  • Neither Parliament, nor the Government, nor the Ombudsman submitted any observations, even though the case raised a systemic problem with the pay framework.
  • The nearly six months between delivery and publication left the cases awaiting the solution in suspense.

Practical advice

  1. If you have a pending case raising the same criticism, discuss with your lawyer whether to change the legal basis. The constitutional route is closed on these texts, on the ground that no new elements have arisen.
  2. Check on your pay slip which bonuses you have actually been granted and at what percentage. A bonus that the law sets at „up to” a given level does not mean you receive it at the maximum level.
  3. Ask your institution, in writing, how compliance with the 30% cap across the whole budget is calculated. The duty to stay within it lies with the authorising officer, so they must be able to explain the distribution.
  4. If you work in difficult, harmful or dangerous conditions, or if you hold a disability certificate, ask explicitly for the institution’s position on the corresponding bonuses. The Court has confirmed that they fall within the same cap.
  5. Do not confuse this cap with the capping of pay rises or with the staggered payment of sums won in court. These are different mechanisms, each with its own decisions of the Court.
  6. To compare your situation with that of another institution, request the approved staff costs budget under the law on access to public interest information. The difference between institutions starts there.

Frequently asked questions

What exactly did the Court decide?
It rejected the plea of unconstitutionality as unfounded and found that the provisions of Article 1(3), Article 9 and Article 25(1) of Framework Law No 153/2017 are constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised. The decision was taken unanimously.
What does the 30% cap mean?
The total of bonuses, compensations, increments, premiums, awards and allowances, including those for meals and holiday, granted cumulatively across the whole budget of each authorising officer, may not exceed 30% of the total of basic salaries, service pay and position allowances.
Why do two colleagues holding the same post end up paid differently?
Because the cap is calculated on the total budget of each authorising officer. If two institutions of the same rank have different proportions of staff who do not receive certain bonuses, the 30% threshold is reached differently and the capping bites differently. The Court held that this does not run counter to the principle of equality before the law.
Does a final judgment not protect me?
The authors of the plea relied on exactly that argument, pointing out that final judgments had recognised a particular method of calculation for them. The Court rejected the criticism by reference to its earlier case law, without finding any breach of the Constitution.
Is a bonus of „up to 15%” guaranteed?
No. The Court held that bonuses do not always have a fixed amount but a variable one, set by reference to a maximum limit laid down in the law and its annexes, and that the actual amount is set by each authorising officer, within the limits of the law and of their own budget.
Can the text still be challenged in the future?
Formally, a new plea is possible, but the Court pointed out that no new elements have arisen such as to warrant reconsidering its case law. An identical criticism therefore has minimal chances.
From when does the decision produce effects?
From publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, that is from 13 July 2026. It was delivered on 20 January 2026, but the decision becomes generally binding only on publication.

Errors and inconsistencies in the published text

  • The number of one of the case files differs in the operative part from the rest of the decision. In the introductory part, at points 3 and 8, the case file of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Administrative and Tax Litigation Division, in which the plea was raised, is identified as nr. 2.186/2/2019/a1. In the operative part, which rejects the plea and states to whom the decision is communicated, the same file appears as nr. 2.816/2/2019/a1. The digits 1 and 8 are transposed. The operative part is the binding part of the decision and the one by which the court identifies the case file to which the solution applies, and it is also the basis on which the decision is communicated. The published text does not make it possible to establish with certainty which of the two numbers is the real one, and a case file bearing the number from the operative part cannot be found if that is the wrong one.

Editorial analysis

The outcome was predictable and, within the logic of Romanian constitutional case law, hard to argue with. Bonuses genuinely are not fundamental rights, and a cap applied uniformly across the whole public sector is exactly the kind of choice the Court leaves to the legislature. The decision has the merit of being short, unanimous and free of promises of future reinterpretation.

The trouble is that the answer does not fit the question. The authors of the plea did not complain that their bonus was too small, but that two people holding the same post, the same grade and the same step, doing the same work, receive different sums because of the way the cap is calculated, namely on the institution’s total budget. The Court answers that duties and responsibilities may differ from one institution to another. Perhaps; but the criticism concerned the case where they do not differ, and the difference comes strictly from the arithmetic of the cap. The argument is lifted from Decision no. 697/2019, where the situation under discussion was a different one.

The second weak point is the mechanism itself, which the decision leaves untouched. A cap calculated on the total budget turns bonuses into a limited resource, distributed by the authorising officer. The consequence, correctly flagged by the authors, is that bonuses meant to compensate a real risk, difficult working conditions or a disability, may go unpaid because the institution’s budget has already been consumed by other bonuses. A right that depends on how many colleagues already hold other bonuses is no longer quite a right.

What should be changed

  • Taking bonuses with a compensatory function out of the cap. The bonus for difficult, harmful or dangerous conditions and the one for people with disabilities compensate an objective situation, not performance. Excluding them from the 30% would make them effective without opening up the cap for everything else.
  • A statutory criterion for distributing the cap inside the institution. Today the law says only that the authorising officer must stay within budget. A written criterion would make their decision verifiable and would narrow the differences between comparable institutions.
  • A duty to publish how compliance with the cap is calculated. An annual statement on the institution’s website would turn an invisible figure into one every employee can check, without forcing anyone into litigation.
  • A statutory time limit between delivery and publication of the Court’s decisions. Almost six months from 20 January to 13 July means as many months in which the courts awaiting the solution could not use it, although it existed.
  • A review of the cap wherever the law already provides a sectoral maximum. For the „Justice” occupational family, Annex No V provides for bonuses of up to 45%, and the general 30% cap makes that maximum inapplicable. Either the annex is corrected or the cap is; the contradiction between them helps no one.

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. 572 of 13 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 114 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.