In brief

  • A police officers’ union asked the Constitutional Court to strike down the text that leaves the conditions for a salary supplement to the minister, because the order laying them down is classified secret and the person entitled to it cannot know the rules under which they receive it.
  • The Court rejected the plea as unfounded, although the prosecutor had asked for it to be upheld. The provisions of Annex no. VI to Framework Law no. 153/2017 remain in force unchanged.
  • The reason: the law writes the class specialist title with „li se poate acorda”, it may be granted to them, and not with „beneficiază”, is entitled to, so it is not a right but a possibility that the legislature deliberately left to the administration. The secret character of the order is, the Court says, a question of fact that it cannot rule on.
Act: CCR Decision no. 183/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 727 of 31 August 2026
Delivered: 26 February 2026

A police officer may receive a salary supplement under criteria they are not allowed to read, and the Constitutional Court has decided there is nothing it can do about it. Decision no. 183 of 26 February 2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 727 of 31 August 2026, rejects as unfounded the plea raised by the Europol Iași European Police Officers’ Union and by a third applicant, and finds that Article 28(2) and (4) of Annex no. VI to Framework Law no. 153/2017 are constitutional. It is the second time this summer that the Court has upheld a contested public-sector pay mechanism, after the decision by which the capping of allowances at their December 2018 level was left standing. The Court followed the same reasoning in Decision no. 180/2026, where it held that bonuses do not fall under equal pay for equal work.

Annex no. VI governs the pay of three categories of public-sector staff: military personnel, police officers and public servants with special status in the institutions of defence, public order and national security. Among the benefits provided for there is the class or functional-domain specialist title, ranked over three levels, from class 3 up to class 1, which carries a salary supplement.

The two contested paragraphs say who sets the conditions: the title „se obține/menține potrivit condițiilor, criteriilor și standardelor de performanță stabilite pentru clasa respectivă, prin ordin al ordonatorului principal de credite”, is obtained and kept under the conditions, criteria and performance standards set for that class by order of the principal authorising officer, while the specialisms, the conditions for granting and withdrawing it, demotion from one class to another and the performance standards „se stabilesc prin ordin al ordonatorului principal de credite”, are set by order of the principal authorising officer. In the case of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, that order, no. S/184 of 30 December 2020, was classified as secret.

On 3 September 2026 the Constitutional Court ruled on public sector employment again, holding that an employee who retires early for hard working conditions loses the employment contract automatically.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that nothing changes in the text of the law. Article 28(2) and (4) of Annex no. VI remain in force exactly as they are, and the minister keeps the power to set by order the specialisms, the criteria, the performance standards and the conditions for withdrawal or demotion.

The second effect is that the decision draws a line between two salary benefits that looked alike. The compensation for work involving a high degree of risk, in Article 14 of the same annex, was left in 2022 without the provision that set its conditions: by Decision no. 294 the Court declared Article 14(5) unconstitutional, precisely because the law granted the compensation as a right and then left the units, the categories of staff, the criteria and its amount to a ministerial order. The compensation itself remained in force. The specialist title does not meet the same fate, and the difference lies, the Court says, in a single word: the law says that staff „beneficiază”, are entitled to, the compensation, but that the specialist title „se poate acorda”, may be granted, to them.

The third effect concerns the route open to anyone who feels wronged. The Court says expressly that the way the principal authorising officer interprets and applies the provisions is a matter of applying the law, not of constitutionality, and that anyone dissatisfied may turn to the courts, whose judgments are binding on the Constitutional Court as well.

The fourth effect is a consideration that goes beyond this case. At paragraph 38, the Court states that in a State governed by the rule of law it is inconceivable for legal rules to be unknowable to those they address before they take effect, and that even acts of lower rank than a law, if they are binding on those they address, must be published, under Article 11(1) of Law no. 24/2000. The Court does not, however, draw the conclusion in the case before it, because, it says, establishing the facts is not within its powers.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In 2022, by Decision no. 294, the Court struck down Article 14(5) of the same Annex no. VI, the provision stating that „unitățile, categoriile de personal, condițiile, criteriile și mărimea compensației se stabilesc prin ordin al ordonatorului principal de credite”, the units, the categories of staff, the conditions, the criteria and the amount of the compensation are set by order of the principal authorising officer. The reason: the categories of staff concerned could not anticipate what criteria the authorising officer would set, which runs counter to the constitutional standards on the quality of legislation.

The authors of the 2026 plea asked for the same reasoning to be applied by analogy. The Court refused, and the explanation is the central mechanism of the decision. Risk compensation is worded in the indicative, „beneficiază”, so the legislature itself established it as a right; in that case, leaving the administration the power to shape its content means giving it discretionary power over an indisputable right, and the Court’s intervention was legitimate. The specialist title is worded, in the terms the Court uses, in the conditional-optative, „li se poate acorda”, may be granted to them, so the legislature did not create a right but instead gave the administration a direct part in shaping it. Overriding that choice would amount, the Court writes, to a defeat of Parliament’s power as the sole legislative authority.

The limits of the right to information are also clarified. The Court distinguishes between information of public interest, guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, which it defines as a social or natural fact, for instance the amount of a civil servant’s salary, and a legal rule, a provision concerning the future, which is not factual information. How a civil servant’s salary is calculated is laid down in a law, so it does not fall under Article 31. The publication of normative acts remains a separate requirement, one belonging to the rule of law rather than to the right to information.

The Court also rejects the criticism concerning organic law: the pay system, whatever the professional category, is not among the fields that Article 73(3) of the Constitution reserves to organic law.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The decision sets a clear criterion for distinguishing between salary benefits the legislature grants as a right and those it leaves to the administration’s judgment: the verb form used in the text of the law.
  • It confirms that those dissatisfied with how the provisions are actually applied may turn to the courts, and that their judgments are binding, including on the Constitutional Court.
  • It restates, at paragraph 38, the principle that even acts of lower rank than a law must be published if they are binding on those they address.
  • It was delivered unanimously, so it leaves no room for a quick reversal on the same reasoning.
  • Risk compensation, struck down in 2022, is left untouched by this reasoning: the distinction reinforces it rather than weakening it.

What remains a problem

  • The factual situation that gave rise to the litigation stays exactly as it was: the criteria for granting the supplement sit in a classified order, and the person receiving it cannot read them.
  • The Court acknowledges the principle that binding normative acts must be published, but declines to apply it, because checking whether an order is classified would mean establishing a question of fact.
  • The distinction between „beneficiază” and „se poate acorda” makes the constitutional protection of a salary benefit depend on a drafting choice by the legislature, not on the effect on income.
  • The authors also argued that police officers and prison police officers are treated differently on demotion after a disciplinary sanction, but the Court classified that criticism as a matter of application and so did not examine it on the merits.
  • More than six months passed between delivery, on 26 February 2026, and publication, on 31 August 2026, a period during which the suspended cases waited.

Practical advice

  1. If you have a case in which you raised the unconstitutionality of these provisions, expect the court to resume hearing it on the merits. The decision is final and generally binding, and the provisions remain in force.
  2. Move the argument onto the ground of application rather than constitutionality. The Court says expressly that the way the principal authorising officer interprets and applies the provisions is for the courts to decide.
  3. Ask in court for the criteria actually applied in your case to be disclosed. The classified status of the order does not prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of an individual administrative act, under the conditions of the administrative litigation law.
  4. Do not confuse the specialist title with the compensation for risk or particular danger. The second benefit has a different legal regime, and the provision leaving its conditions to a ministerial order was declared unconstitutional in 2022.
  5. If you have been demoted or lost the title after a disciplinary sanction, check which statute applies to you. The authors of the plea showed that the rule differs between police officers and prison police officers, and the Court left that question to the courts.

Frequently asked questions

What is the class specialist title?
A benefit provided for in Article 28 of Annex no. VI to Framework Law no. 153/2017, which may be granted to military personnel, police officers, public servants with special status in the prison administration system and civilian staff, by reference to professional performance standards. It is ranked over three levels: class 3, class 2 and class 1.
Does anything change in pay as a result of this decision?
No. The plea was rejected and the provisions remain in force unchanged. Neither the amount of the supplement nor the conditions for granting it are affected by the decision.
Why did the words „se poate acorda” matter?
Because, in the Court’s reasoning, they show that the legislature did not create a right but a possibility left to the administration. With risk compensation, where the law says „beneficiază”, is entitled to, the right exists by law, and leaving the conditions to an order was declared unconstitutional in 2022. Here, the legal nature being different, the analogy did not apply.
Is it lawful for the order setting the criteria to be secret?
The Court did not rule on that. It said that checking whether an order is classified means establishing a question of fact, which is not within its powers, because it rules only on primary legislation, that is on laws and ordinances.
What did the Public Ministry say?
The representative of the Public Ministry submitted that the plea should be upheld, relying on the Court’s Decisions no. 318 of 2019 and no. 294 of 2022. The Court did not follow those submissions.
Who raised the plea?
The Europol Iași European Police Officers’ Union, on behalf of two of its members, in cases before the Iași Tribunal, and a third applicant, in a case before the Bucharest Tribunal. The three cases were joined by the Court.
What else can those who feel wronged do?
They can turn to the courts. The Court points out that it falls primarily to the principal authorising officer to apply the provisions in particular situations, and that anyone dissatisfied with that interpretation may ask a court to decide, with final effect.
Was the decision taken unanimously?
Yes, unanimously, by a panel of seven judges presided over by Elena-Simina Tănăsescu. No dissenting or concurring opinion is attached to the decision.

Editorial analysis

The decision is well built in legal terms and deeply unsatisfying in practical ones, and the two are not in contradiction. The distinction the Court draws, between a benefit the law grants and one the law merely permits, is real and has consequences: it explains why risk compensation fell in 2022 while the specialist title survives in 2026. It is, moreover, the only route by which the Court could reject the plea without contradicting its own case law.

The problem is what is left on the ground once the reasoning ends. A police officer may receive or lose a salary supplement under criteria they have no right to read. The Court expressly acknowledges, at paragraph 38, that in a State governed by the rule of law binding rules must be knowable to those they address before they take effect, and that the publication requirement applies to acts of lower rank than a law as well. It then says it cannot check whether that order should have been classified, because that would be a question of fact. The result is a principle correctly stated and left with no addressee: the Court does not apply it, because it does not try facts, and the law does not breach it, because the law merely refers to an order without saying that the order may be secret.

The second thing that emerges from reading the considerations together is how much now hangs, in public-sector pay law, on the verb form the legislature chooses. The difference between a benefit protected by the standards on the quality of legislation and one left to the administration’s discretion has become, in the Court’s terms, the difference between the indicative and the conditional-optative. A legislature seeking to avoid constitutional review of a delegation now has a simple recipe: write „se poate acorda” instead of „beneficiază”. For the person being paid, the effect on income is identical.

The figure is worth putting on the table too: 186 days passed between delivery, on 26 February 2026, and publication, on 31 August 2026. Throughout that period the three cases from which the referral came, some of them started in 2022, stood still, and no court could apply the provision with any certainty. Law no. 47/1992 sets no deadline for drafting and publishing decisions delivered on pleas of unconstitutionality, even though the suspensive effect on the underlying cases is real.

What should be changed

  • An express ban on classifying acts that establish salary entitlements. It is not the order itself that needs declassifying by law, but the category: an act that conditions the income of a State employee cannot take effect if the person it addresses cannot read it. A provision of this kind in Framework Law no. 153/2017 would solve the problem without touching the regime for classified information.
  • Separate publication of the criteria, even if the rest of the order stays classified. The specialisms, the performance standards and the conditions for withdrawal do not concern operational capabilities but professional assessment. They can be set out in a public annex with no loss of security whatsoever.
  • A deadline for drafting and publishing decisions delivered on pleas of unconstitutionality. The 186 days in this case are time in which the trial courts cannot move forward. A deadline of 60 days from delivery would cut the dead interval to a third.
  • Uniform rules on demotion across the categories in the same annex. The authors showed that a disciplinary sanction causes the loss of the title for prison police officers but not for police officers. The Court classified that as a matter of application; the legislature can settle it in a single sentence, in the text of Annex no. VI.
  • Express reasoning for delegations to the authorising officer. If the distinction between „beneficiază” and „se poate acorda” decides constitutional protection, then the choice between them should not be made silently. The explanatory memorandum to any future amendment of Annex no. VI should say which benefits are rights and which remain at the administration’s discretion.

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. 727 of 31 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 557 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.