In brief

  • The Constitutional Court dismissed as unfounded, unanimously, the plea asking that military judges and prosecutors be paid under two salary scales at the same time, that of magistrates and that of the army.
  • The rule remains the one in Article 69(1) and Article 70 of Chapter II of Annex no. VI to Framework Law no. 153/2017: military magistrates are paid as judiciary staff and receive, on top of that, only rank pay. The other increases available in the army, command pay included, are not due to them.
  • The decision was delivered on 16 October 2025 and published only on 2 September 2026, 321 days later. From the date of publication it is final and binding on all courts.
Act: CCR Decision no. 473 of 16 October 2025
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 737 of 2 September 2026
In force from: 2 September 2026, the date of publication, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, invoked by the Court itself as the basis of the decision

A military judge holding the rank of colonel asked to be paid under the army scale as well, on top of his magistrate’s salary, and the Constitutional Court dismissed his claim in full. Decision no. 473 of 16 October 2025 was published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 737 of 2 September 2026 and confirms that the two texts under challenge, Article 69(1) and Article 70 of Chapter II of Annex no. VI to Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the pay of staff paid from public funds, are constitutional. The same Annex no. VI, the one that governs pay in defence, public order and national security, also reached the Court in the summer of 2026, that time in a case about the class specialist allowance for police officers.

The two challenged articles take up three lines between them. Article 69(1) says that „for military judges and prosecutors the rules specific to judiciary staff shall apply accordingly”. Article 70 adds that, „by virtue of their status as serving military officers, the military personnel referred to in Article 69 shall also receive rank pay”. Those three lines set out the entire pay regime of a small category of people: the magistrates who judge or investigate in military courts and prosecutor’s offices and who hold a military rank at the same time.

The author of the plea, who died between the referral to the Court and the hearing, had raised the issue in administrative litigation proceedings started in 2018 to obtain certain salary entitlements. His argument had two arms. The first: Article 69(1) of Annex no. VI restates, in different words, a rule that already exists in Article 2(1) of Annex no. V to the same law, and such duplication is prohibited by Articles 13 to 17 of Law no. 24/2000 on the rules of legislative drafting and breaches the standards of quality of the law required by Article 1(3) and (5) of the Constitution. The second: the way the administration and the first-instance court read the texts discriminates against the military magistrate compared with any other member of the military, which would run counter to Article 16(1) of the Constitution and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The figures at stake were visible in the plea itself. As a judge who had served as acting president and as vice-president of a court, the author received an increase of his allowance of 10% and 8% respectively. A commanding officer of a military unit, with responsibilities the author considered equivalent on the military side, receives under Article 8(1) of Annex no. VI command pay of up to 25% of his post pay. The only entitlement of a military nature left to the magistrate was rank pay, amounting to 360 lei for the rank of colonel, according to the figure relied on in the file.

The Court did not go into the comparison of percentages. It referred to Decision no. 7 of 14 January 2021, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 418 of 21 April 2021, where it had already examined almost identical criticisms, raised by military prosecutors from the National Anticorruption Directorate, and where it had held, in paragraph 35, the conclusion that also closes the present case: military magistrates „do not benefit from a double pay regime, that is, as judiciary staff and as defence staff, but only from the one that concerns prosecutors as part of the judiciary”. Since, as the Court says in paragraph 24, no new elements have arisen, the outcome and the reasoning from 2021 remain valid.

On the substance of the discrimination claim, the reasoning is the Court’s classic one: equality does not mean uniformity, and objectively different situations call for different legal treatment. A military judge and a commanding officer of a military unit do not do the same work, so they may be paid according to different logics. On the right to property, the Court recalled the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 19 April 2007 in Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, paragraph 94, according to which the Convention does not guarantee the right to continue receiving a salary of a particular amount.

What it changes in practice

The first consequence is that nothing changes in the law. A decision that dismisses a plea leaves the text exactly where it was. Article 69(1) and Article 70 of Chapter II of Annex no. VI to Framework Law no. 153/2017 remain in force in the form published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 492 of 28 June 2017, a form the Court reproduces in full in paragraph 14 without noting any amendment made in the meantime.

The second consequence concerns the case itself. The decision is communicated to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Administrative and Tax Litigation Division, which may proceed with the trial in case no. 3.736/2/2018/a1. Since the author of the plea has died, the practical benefit of the outcome no longer goes to him, but to all the other military magistrates who might have wanted to take the same route.

The third consequence is the one that matters for anyone working in a military court or prosecutor’s office. From 2 September 2026 there is a second decision of the Court, after the one from 2021, saying the same thing. A court action seeking command pay, the general increase provided for by Article 19 of Annex no. VI or the class specialist increase in Article 28 of the same annex now starts with an extra handicap: it can no longer be built on the unconstitutionality of the text, because the text has been checked twice and has passed each time.

The fourth consequence is a practical one for finance departments. Payrolls drawn up on the model confirmed by the Court, with the magistrate’s allowance plus rank pay and without entitlements from the military scale, can no longer be challenged on the ground that the rule itself would be unconstitutional. Payrolls in the judiciary received a second confirmation in September 2026, when the Court accepted that the pension of a reinstated magistrate is cut by 85% while the appointment runs.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

As far as the text of the law goes, nothing. This is the important part and the one most often misunderstood when the Constitutional Court makes the headlines. A plea that is dismissed does not repeal, does not suspend and does not oblige Parliament to do anything. The law stays as it was, and the decision only adds a layer of binding interpretation on top of it.

What has changed is the density of the case law. In January 2021, when the Court delivered Decision no. 7, there was a single precedent on this question, and it had been delivered in a case brought by military prosecutors from the National Anticorruption Directorate. Now there are two decisions, and the second one also covers the situation of military judges who have run courts, that is, exactly the scenario in which the argument of equivalence with the commanding officer of a military unit looked strongest. The area in which an attack on constitutionality can still be attempted has narrowed.

The legislative context around the case has changed as well, although the Court does not mention it. The author of the plea had based his reasoning, among other things, on Article 74(4) and (5) of Law no. 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors. Law no. 303/2004 was repealed on 16 December 2022 by Law no. 303/2022, that is, almost three years before the decision was delivered. The plea was tried on reasoning that rested, in part, on a text that no longer existed. The status of magistrates reached the Court again in 2026, this time over the coordination of trainee prosecutors.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It closes an uncertainty that had lasted eight years. The substantive case was registered in 2018. Authorising officers in the military system and magistrates alike now know, without ambiguity, what is paid and what is not.
  • It confirms that rank pay remains an entitlement. Article 70 was not struck down, and the Court cites it as a valid text. Military magistrates lose nothing of what they were receiving, whatever the outcome might have been.
  • Unanimity, with no separate opinions. All eight judges who made up the panel voted the same way, which makes a change of case law in the coming years unlikely.
  • The reasoning can be checked. The Court refers explicitly to paragraphs 25 to 29 and 33 to 35 of Decision no. 7/2021 and to an identified paragraph of the ECtHR judgment in Vilho Eskelinen, so the argument can be followed by anyone, not merely asserted.

What remains a problem

  • The criticism of legislative duplication gets no answer of its own. The author argued that Article 69(1) of Annex no. VI repeats Article 2(1) of Annex no. V. The Court answers by referring to an earlier decision that dealt mainly with the capping of salaries at the 2022 level, not with the overlap between the two annexes.
  • The gap between the percentages is left undiscussed. Between 10% for the president of a military court and up to 25% for the commanding officer of a unit there is a ratio of 2.5 to one. The decision does not explain why that ratio is reasonable, only that a difference in treatment is, in principle, permitted.
  • Publication took 321 days. The outcome was delivered on 16 October 2025 and became binding only on 2 September 2026. Throughout that interval, the courts hearing similar cases had no access to the reasoning.
  • The author never sees the outcome. The Court tried a case in which the party had died, which is procedurally correct, but it shows how far the length of the procedure has drifted from the length of a human life.

Practical advice

  1. Check what „rank pay” means on your own payslip. It is the only element of a military nature added to the magistrate’s allowance. If it appears under another name or is missing, you have a concrete reason to write to the finance department, and that has nothing to do with this decision.
  2. Do not confuse a dismissal with a ban on going to court. The decision closes off the unconstitutionality route for Articles 69 and 70, but not disputes about the actual calculation, about indexation or about unpaid amounts. Those remain questions of interpreting the law, within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.
  3. If you have proceedings pending on the same subject, read Decision no. 7/2021 first. The Court said explicitly in paragraph 24 that it takes over that reasoning. Decision no. 473/2025 is understood correctly only together with the 2021 one, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 418 of 21 April 2021.
  4. Note the date from which the decision produces effects. It is 2 September 2026, the date of publication, not 16 October 2025, the date of delivery. The difference matters for procedural time limits and for written submissions filed between the two dates.
  5. For any reference to Annex no. VI, use the consolidated form of the law. The Court quotes the text as it was published in 2017. Framework Law no. 153/2017 has been amended dozens of times since then, and the numbering of an article is no guarantee that the text around it has stayed the same.

Frequently asked questions

What exactly did the Constitutional Court decide?
It dismissed the plea as unfounded and found that Article 70, read with Article 69(1) of Chapter II of Annex no. VI to Framework Law no. 153/2017, is constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised. The vote was unanimous.
Who is affected by the decision?
Military judges and prosecutors, that is, the magistrates who work in military courts and prosecutor’s offices and who at the same time hold a military rank. It is a category of a few dozen people across the whole country. Other magistrates and other members of the military are not concerned.
What is rank pay and why is it paid separately?
It is the amount paid for the military rank held, whatever the post occupied. Article 70 of Annex no. VI grants it to military magistrates precisely because they remain serving military officers. The plea states that, for the rank of colonel, it was 360 lei.
Do military judges lose any entitlement through this decision?
No. A decision that dismisses a plea does not change the law. They remain paid as judiciary staff, they continue to receive rank pay, and in any case they were not receiving before either the entitlements from the military scale that the author of the plea was claiming.
Why do they not also get the increases provided for other military personnel?
Because Article 69(1) refers as a block to the rules of the judiciary, and Article 70 makes a single exception, rank pay. The Court held, taking over Decision no. 7/2021, that there is no double pay regime, as a magistrate and as a member of the military at the same time.
What is command pay and why was it brought up?
It is the increase of up to 25% of post pay that Article 8(1) of Annex no. VI provides for commanding officers of military units. The author of the plea argued that his post as president of a military court involved comparable responsibilities but was paid with an increase of only 10%.
Why was this treated as discrimination and why did the Court reject that argument?
The argument rested on Article 16(1) of the Constitution and on Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court answered that the principle of equality also includes the right to differentiation, and that objectively different situations call for different legal treatment. A magistrate and a unit commander are not in the same situation.
What happens now with the case at the High Court?
The decision is communicated to the Administrative and Tax Litigation Division of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which may continue the trial in case no. 3.736/2/2018/a1. The plea having been dismissed, the court will apply the texts in their current form.
Are the challenged texts still in force?
Yes. The Court reproduces them in paragraph 14 in the form published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 492 of 28 June 2017 and notes no amendment or repeal in the meantime. Being a decision that dismisses the plea, it could not have removed the texts from the statute book anyway.
From what date does the decision apply?
From 2 September 2026, the date of publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, which the Court invokes as the basis of the decision. The decision is final and generally binding, so it applies to all courts and authorities.

Editorial analysis

The outcome is predictable and, judging by the references in the text, correctly built. The Court invents nothing: it takes over paragraphs 25 to 29 and 33 to 35 of Decision no. 7 of 14 January 2021, finds in paragraph 24 that no new elements have appeared, and closes the case unanimously. The problem with the decision is not what it says, but what it chooses not to say and how long it took to say it.

The first observation is about the calendar. Between delivery, on 16 October 2025, and publication, on 2 September 2026, 321 days went by. The precedent it relies on, Decision no. 7/2021, was delivered on 14 January 2021 and published on 21 April 2021, that is, in 97 days. The same court, the same subject matter, an interval 3.3 times longer. And if we count from the referral, that is, from the interlocutory judgment of 11 November 2021, to publication, we get 1,756 days, almost four years and ten months in which a three-line text sat with a question mark over it. The substantive case, registered in 2018, has meanwhile reached its eighth year.

The second observation comes out of combining two figures the Court has in front of it and does not place side by side. The president of a military court receives an increase of 10% of the allowance, while the commanding officer of a military unit receives command pay of up to 25% of post pay. The ratio is 2.5 to one in the commander’s favour, and for a vice-president, on 8%, it rises to 3.1 to one. The Court answers that a difference in treatment is permitted when the situations differ, which is true, but it does not check whether the difference is also proportionate. The proportionality test, which the constitutional court applies in other areas, is entirely absent here.

The third observation is one that not even the parties seem to have raised. The author of the plea based his reasoning, among other things, on Article 74(4) and (5) of Law no. 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors. That law was repealed on 16 December 2022 by Law no. 303/2022, so almost three years before delivery. Neither the Court nor the Public Prosecutor’s Office notes this anywhere in the text. In a case that waited four years, checking that the rules relied on still exist should have been a routine step.

What should be changed

  • A maximum time limit between delivery and publication for decisions on pleas of unconstitutionality. The practical effect: courts hearing identical cases would stop working with an outcome known from a press release and reasoning unavailable for months on end. A threshold of 60 days would be wide enough for drafting and tight enough to matter.
  • Merging Article 69(1) of Annex no. VI with Article 2(1) of Annex no. V. The practical effect: the very duplication complained of in the plea disappears. If the pay rule for military magistrates sat in a single place, disputes about which annex prevails would have no object.
  • Writing explicitly into Article 70 that the list is exhaustive. The practical effect: wording of the kind „rank pay only” would make pointless any future action on the increases in Article 8, Article 19 or Article 28 of Annex no. VI. The current text says „shall also receive rank pay”, and from „shall also” an open list can be argued at any time.
  • Recalibrating the increase for running military courts, or explaining the gap publicly. The practical effect: either the percentages move closer together, or the authorising officer explains once and for all why a management post is worth 10% in one place and up to 25% in another. Both options reduce the number of lawsuits.
  • Checking, at the drafting stage, the status of the rules relied on in the reasoning. The practical effect: a decision that refers to a law repealed three years earlier loses authority even when the outcome is correct. A one-sentence note in the reasoning would have solved the problem.
  • Publication by the Superior Council of Magistracy of the number of serving military magistrates. The practical effect: the budgetary impact of any proposal to amend Article 70 could be estimated on the back of an envelope. Right now the discussion takes place without anyone knowing how many people are involved.

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. 737 of 2 September 2026 16 pages PDF, 112 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.