In brief

  • Two magistrates challenged before the Constitutional Court the provision which, in their view, deprived them of the management allowance. The Court dismissed the plea as inadmissible, because the text they attacked actually says something else.
  • The criticised article is a rule in the magistrates’ favour: it lets them keep the allowance attached to their non-management position where that is more favourable. Their real grievance concerned a different paragraph and, above all, the way it is applied, which is not a matter for constitutional review.
  • Those directly concerned are judges and prosecutors holding management positions, but the procedural lesson applies to anyone raising a plea: unconstitutionality lies in the wording of the law itself, not in the way a court applies it in a given case.
Act: CCR Decision no. 127/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 595 of 21 July 2026
Delivered: 12 February 2026

Two magistrates took a legitimate grievance about management pay all the way to the Constitutional Court, but challenged the wrong paragraph. The Court pointed out that the text they were contesting in fact worked in their favour. Decision no. 127 of 12 February 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 595 of 21 July 2026, dismisses as inadmissible the plea raised by Adriana Nicolae and Catalin Jigau. This is the second time within the same period that a supreme court has closed a file on admissibility grounds, after the High Court dismissed a referral because the question raised no genuine difficulty of interpretation.

The practical stake was concrete. A judge may hold a professional rank higher than that of the court where they sit, for example the rank of a court of appeal, while serving at a county court, where they also hold a management position: head of division, deputy president or president. The authors of the plea argued that, in such a situation, the allowance for the management position is not granted to them, even though their managerial duties are the same as those of colleagues whose rank corresponds to that court.

The substantive argument had two limbs. On the one hand, discrimination compared with people holding management positions in other public authorities and institutions. On the other hand, discrimination within the same professional category, between the magistrates who run a court. To these was added an argument based on the right to work: a financial restriction that discourages magistrates of higher rank from applying for management positions.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the two cases pending before the High Court of Cassation and Justice and before the Bucharest Court of Appeal continue on the merits, without the challenged provision being set aside. A dismissal as inadmissible says nothing about the merits of the claims for financial entitlements.

The second effect is that it clarifies what the provision actually says. The Court explains the distinction between the two paragraphs of the same article. Paragraph (1) lays down the rule: judges and prosecutors holding management positions receive the maximum monthly position allowance corresponding to the level of the court or prosecutor’s office where they exercise that management role, plus an increase at a variable percentage rate. Paragraph (2), the one challenged, adds a safety net: if the allowance and the entitlements attached to the non-management position are more favourable, the magistrate keeps them.

The third effect is the most important one in practice and goes beyond the remuneration of magistrates. The Court found that the authors’ grievance concerned the way the rules on the management increase are interpreted and applied, not the content of the challenged provision. Yet, under Article 126(1) of the Constitution and Article 2(2) of Law no. 47/1992, the interpretation and application of the law belong to the courts of law, not to the Constitutional Court.

The fourth effect is a statement of principle worth remembering for anyone preparing a plea: the unconstitutionality of a provision lies in its own wording, in its normative substance, and cannot be inferred from the way it has been interpreted or applied in a particular case. This is exactly the line taken in Decision no. 81 of 2 March 2023, relied on by the prosecutor.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In legislative terms, nothing changes. The provision remains in the form published in 2017, and the regime governing magistrates’ management allowances is the one set out in Annex no. V to Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds.

What does change is the map of available remedies for this grievance. Until now, a magistrate in the situation described could hope that the provision would be set aside as unconstitutional and that the trial court would apply the principle of equality directly. The decision shows that this route is closed, because the problem does not lie in the wording. Two paths remain: the correct interpretation of paragraph (1) before the trial court and, if case law is inconsistent, the mechanisms for the harmonisation of case law.

A substantive misunderstanding is also cleared up. The authors of the plea described paragraph (2) as a rule that takes an entitlement away from them. The Court shows the opposite: paragraph (2) was designed to protect the rights already acquired in the non-management position, so that appointment to a management position does not result in a drop in income. It is a protective rule, not a restrictive one.

One procedural detail that recurs in files of this kind: the presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, the Government and the Ombudsman submitted no observations. Both courts that referred the matter to the Constitutional Court took the view, by contrast, that the provision is constitutional.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It states publicly that the challenged paragraph is a rule protecting acquired rights, not one that cuts the management allowance.
  • It reaffirms the boundary between constitutional review and the interpretation of the law, which helps any lawyer build a plea around the right provision.
  • The cases on the merits remain open. A dismissal as inadmissible does not prejudge the entitlement to the sums claimed.
  • The solution was adopted unanimously, leaving no ambiguity as to the ground of inadmissibility.

What remains a problem

  • The underlying question goes unanswered. Whether a judge whose rank is higher than that of their court receives the management increase remains a matter of interpretation, and therefore a source of inconsistent case law.
  • The files waited from 2021 until 2026 only to learn that the plea was inadmissible, on a ground that turns on identifying the provision challenged.
  • Magistrates are left without a direct route to the Constitutional Court for this grievance, while harmonising case law calls for a different mechanism and more time.
  • The decision does not address the argument about the chilling effect on applications for management positions, since it fell outside the challenged provision in any event.

Practical advice

  1. Before raising a plea, check that the provision you point to really contains the rule you object to. Here, the criticised paragraph said something other than what the authors complained about, and that alone was enough for inadmissibility.
  2. Keep the two questions clearly apart: “is the provision unconstitutional?” and “was the provision applied wrongly in my case?”. The first goes to the Constitutional Court, the second stays with the trial court and the ordinary remedies.
  3. If your grievance stems from case law that differs from one court to another, the mechanisms for the harmonisation of case law are the right route, not a plea of unconstitutionality.
  4. Magistrates appointed to management positions should check exactly what applies to them: the maximum allowance for the level of the court they run plus the increase under paragraph (1), or the entitlements attached to their non-management position, where those are more favourable.
  5. Remember that a dismissal as inadmissible does not carry the same weight as a dismissal as unfounded. The first says nothing about the substance of the issue, so it does not block a plea properly framed around the right provision.
  6. When claiming financial entitlements in court, build your case on the interpretation of the applicable provision as well, not only on the assumption that it will be set aside as unconstitutional. Here, that assumption has gone.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide?
It dismissed as inadmissible the plea concerning Article 10(2) of Chapter VIII of Annex no. V to Framework Law no. 153/2017. The solution was adopted unanimously and does not rule on the substance of the issue.
What does the challenged provision actually say?
That judges and prosecutors appointed to management positions keep the monthly position allowance and the other salary entitlements corresponding to the non-management position they hold, where those are more favourable. It is a rule protecting acquired rights.
Why was it dismissed as inadmissible rather than as unfounded?
Because the authors’ grievance concerned a different set of rules, those on the increase in the allowance attached to the management position, and the way they are interpreted. The interpretation and application of the law belong to the courts of law, not to the Constitutional Court.
What was the magistrates’ concrete problem?
A judge holding a professional rank higher than that of the court where they sit, but who holds a management position there, argued that they do not receive the allowance attached to the management position, unlike colleagues whose rank corresponds to that court.
What happens to their court cases?
They continue before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, on appeal on points of law, and before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, on appeal. The courts will determine for themselves how the rules on the management increase are to be interpreted and applied.
Can anyone still challenge the same rules before the Constitutional Court?
Yes, provided the plea targets the provision that actually governs the increase in the management allowance and provided the criticism concerns the substance of the rule, not the way it is applied in a particular case.
What does it mean that unconstitutionality lies in the wording of the provision?
That the flaw must be found in the legal rule itself, in what it lays down. If the rule is sound but was applied wrongly in a case, the remedy is the ordinary appeal, not constitutional review.

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. 595 of 21 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 99 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.