In brief

  • The Constitutional Court dismissed the objection through which a pensioner sought to reinstate the second appeal (recurs) in public pension litigation, confirming that only the ordinary appeal remains available in this field.
  • The Court also dismissed the request to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, finding it irrelevant to resolving the case.
  • Although the reviewed text was meanwhile repealed by Law No. 360/2023, the Court examined it anyway, since it continued to produce legal effects in cases begun under it.
Act: Decision CCR No. 151/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 639 of 3 August 2026
Delivered: 17 February 2026

The Constitutional Court dismissed, as unfounded, the unconstitutionality objection through which a pensioner challenged the removal of the second appeal (recurs) from public pension disputes, leaving the ordinary appeal to the court of appeal as the sole avenue of judicial review. Decision No. 151/2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 639 of 3 August 2026, confirms the constitutionality of Article 155 of Law No. 263/2010 on the unified public pension system, as amended by Law No. 76/2012. In practice, two levels of jurisdiction (tribunal plus court of appeal, via an ordinary appeal) remain the only legal route in social security matters, with no possibility of a further recurs to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

The author of the objection, involved in a pending pension dispute before the High Court, argued that replacing the recurs with the “appeal only” rule violates the right to a defence, free access to justice and equality before the law. He also asked for a preliminary question to be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union, invoking the crisis in Romania’s public pension system. The Constitutional Court dismissed both requests, holding that the legislature is free to set the number of remedies per field, and that the question proposed for the CJEU was not necessary to resolve the case.

What it changes in practice

For everyone involved in public pension litigation (challenges to pension decisions, recalculations, reviews), the rule stays unchanged: the tribunal’s ruling can only be challenged through an ordinary appeal to the court of appeal, and the court of appeal’s ruling is final, with no further recurs to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

Although Article 155 of Law No. 263/2010 was repealed by Law No. 360/2023 on the public pension system, the Court held that the provision keeps producing legal effects for cases begun under the old rules, in line with its own case law (Decision No. 766/2011). Anyone with a pension case opened before the repeal therefore remains subject to the “appeal only” rule, without a recurs.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

  • Nothing changes: as in Decision No. 50/2024 on similar objections, the Court confirms that two levels of jurisdiction (tribunal plus appeal) remain constitutionally sufficient in social security disputes.
  • For the first time in this case, a request to refer a question to the CJEU was dismissed on the topic of remedies in pension litigation, the Court finding the question too general and not directly tied to a necessary interpretation of EU law.
  • It is confirmed that the provision remains applicable to proceedings started before the repeal by Law No. 360/2023, even though it no longer applies to new cases.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • Keeps pension litigation faster, with only two levels of jurisdiction, matching the urgency required by social security matters.
  • Confirms predictability: no additional remedy appears midway through cases already pending.
  • Clarifies the relationship between domestic law and EU law on procedural matters, showing the limits of the duty to refer questions to the CJEU.

What remains a problem

  • Pensioners who consider a court of appeal ruling wrong no longer have any way to ask the High Court to review its legality, regardless of how serious the alleged legal error might be.
  • The broader context invoked by the objection’s author (imbalances in the pension system, including judges’ and prosecutors’ special pensions) remains unaddressed by this decision, which concerns strictly procedure, not the substance of pension rights.
  • People with old cases, opened before 2023, remain under a different procedural rule than the one applicable to new litigation, which can cause confusion.

Practical advice

  1. If you have pension litigation pending, opened before 2023, note that the only remedy against the tribunal’s ruling is an ordinary appeal to the court of appeal, whose ruling is final.
  2. If your litigation started after Law No. 360/2023 entered into force, check the remedies regime applicable under the new law, which may differ from the one examined in this decision.
  3. Do not count on a possible referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union as a solution for general domestic procedural issues; the CJEU only steps in when interpreting EU law is strictly necessary for the case.
  4. Prepare your appeal arguments thoroughly, since it is your only chance to obtain a full re-examination of the case, both on the facts and on the law.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide through Decision No. 151/2026?
It dismissed, as unfounded, the unconstitutionality objection to Article 155 of Law No. 263/2010 on the unified public pension system and confirmed that the “appeal only” rule (no recurs) in pension litigation is constitutional.
Can a court of appeal ruling in pension litigation be challenged through a recurs?
No, under the rule confirmed by this decision. The court of appeal’s ruling is final, with no further remedy to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for cases governed by Article 155 of Law No. 263/2010.
Why did the Court examine a provision that had already been repealed?
Because Article 155 of Law No. 263/2010, although repealed by Law No. 360/2023, keeps producing legal effects in cases begun before the repeal, under the Constitutional Court’s settled case law.
Why did the Court dismiss the request to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union?
Because it found the proposed question (whether EU law precludes removing the recurs in pension litigation) too general, not directly tied to an interpretation of EU law necessary to resolve the case, and the CJEU has already held that Member States enjoy discretion in organising domestic remedies.
What happens to pension litigation started after 2023?
It is governed by the procedural rules of Law No. 360/2023 on the public pension system, which repealed Article 155 of Law No. 263/2010; the applicable remedies regime must be checked separately, under the new law.

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. 639 of 3 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 123 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.