Base salary in the public sector is left without a single definition: the Constitutional Court says the answer lies with the courts

The question that held up seven sets of proceedings for six years has received an answer that does not settle it: this is not a question of constitutionality. By Decision no. 42 of 20 January 2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania no. 564 of 9 July 2026, the Constitutional Court rejected as inadmissible the plea concerning the phrases „stabilită în anexele” (as laid down in the annexes) in Article 7(a) and „se va stabili” (shall be set) in Article 39(4) of Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the pay of staff paid from public funds. This is the second time this summer that a dispute about pay from public money has closed without an answer on the merits, after the referral on firefighters’ overtime, also rejected as inadmissible. In a later ruling the Court also settled the question of bonuses: Decision no. 180/2026 takes them outside equal pay for equal work.

The plea was raised by the Dolj Office of Cadastre and Land Registration in seven cases pending before the Craiova Court of Appeal, Labour Disputes and Social Insurance Division, concerning payment of the base salary set at the highest level corresponding to the posts held. The seven Constitutional Court files, the first registered in 2021 and the last in 2025, were joined, and the decision was taken unanimously.

The two phrases challenged are short, but they carry all the weight. Article 7(a) defines the base salary as the sum of money to which staff paid from public funds are entitled each month, corresponding to the post, the professional grade or step, the increment and the length of service in the speciality, „astfel cum este stabilită în anexele nr. I-IX” (as laid down in Annexes I to IX). Article 39(4) provides that, for institutions subordinate to the same authorising officer, with the same purpose and the same duties, the level of the base salary „se va stabili” at the highest level actually being paid across all those institutions.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the texts challenged remain in force, unchanged. A decision rejecting a plea as inadmissible does not touch the provision and does not oblige the legislature to intervene, unlike a decision upholding a plea.

The second effect concerns the reason for the rejection. The Court did not say that the phrases are clear, but that the point of law raised is in reality one of interpreting and applying the provisions in the specific case before the court. Under Article 2(3) of Law no. 47/1992, the Court rules only on the constitutionality of the acts referred to it, and interpreting the law is, the decision states, an indispensable stage in the process of applying it, one carried out by the courts.

The third effect is that the question stays open for the future. Being a finding of inadmissibility, the decision contains no reasoning on the meaning of the two phrases, so it gives the courts no binding reference point. The representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office had asked for the plea to be rejected as unfounded, arguing that the phrase „stabilite în anexele” has normative content that can be determined by the reference to the annexes and that the notion of base salary has a single meaning throughout the law. The Court never reached that discussion.

The fourth effect concerns everyday practice in public institutions. The author of the plea pointed out that there is no government decision and no order of a normative nature setting out the methodology by which a territorial office identifies the highest salary actually being paid in similar institutions and applies it to its own staff. The decision changes nothing in this respect: the regulatory gap stays where it was.

The fifth effect is procedural. The Court reformulated the subject matter of the plea starting from the author’s written submissions, holding that what is challenged is the phrase „stabilită în anexele”, in the singular, the form that actually appears in Article 7(a), and not „stabilite în anexele”, as it had originally been put. The operative part refers to the corrected form.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

As far as the text of the law goes, nothing. Framework Law no. 153/2017 keeps the same definitions and the same rule on alignment with the highest level actually being paid. What changes is the map of the routes still open to anyone with a dispute of this kind.

Until this decision, challenging the quality of the text before the Constitutional Court was one of the plausible options. After it, it is clear that the question „what does base salary mean in my case” is not one for the Constitutional Court. What remains are the courts hearing the merits and, if divergent case law emerges, the unification mechanisms at the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

The second change is one of context. The decision joins a series in which the Court has been called on to clarify the application of Framework Law no. 153/2017 piece by piece. Also in 2026, the Court ruled on the merits in another dispute arising from the same law, when it held that the bonus for working with classified information stays with certain categories of staff only. The difference between the two situations shows where the line runs: a criticism about the content of a provision gets an answer, one about the way it is applied does not.

The third change is one of pace. The first referral reached the Court following the order of 20 December 2021, and the decision was delivered on 20 January 2026, that is after 1,492 days. Publication in the Official Gazette of Romania added another 170 days. The Craiova Court of Appeal files bear numbers from 2020.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions

Editorial analysis