In brief

  • The rule is unchanged: sums won in court by staff of public institutions, under judgments that became enforceable between 2019 and 2021, are paid in five annual instalments of 5%, 10%, 25%, 25% and 35% Employees of cultural institutions receive money won in court under a similar scheme, described in Order of the Minister of Culture no. 3.195/2026..
  • The Constitutional Court dismissed the challenge as inadmissible, not as unfounded. The difference matters: the Court did not rule on the merits, because the objection did not say which article of the Constitution was breached.
  • The ground for dismissal is formal but final in that case: two of the three mandatory elements of any objection were missing, the constitutional reference provision and the reasoning of the contradiction.
Act: Constitutional Court Decision No. 58/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 659 of 10 August 2026
In force from: 10 August 2026

A public employee wins salary rights in court. The judgment is final, the sum is set, but the money arrives over five years, 5% in the first year and 35% only in the fifth. A judge challenged the mechanism before the Constitutional Court. The Court never told her whether she was right, because she had not said which article of the Constitution was breached. Decision No. 58 of 22 January 2026 was published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 659 of 10 August 2026, almost seven months after delivery. It is the second recent decision in which the Court confirms, directly or indirectly, measures deferring monetary entitlements, after the one on postponing the increase of the pension point.

Two texts were challenged. Article 39(1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 114/2018 sets the calendar: for court judgments concerning salary entitlements of staff in public institutions and authorities, which became enforceable between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021, 5% of the value of the enforceable title is paid in the first year, 10% in the second, 25% in the third, 25% in the fourth and 35% in the fifth. Article 34(2), in the form at publication, froze at December 2018 level the amount of bonuses, allowances, compensations and premiums, for as long as the person holds the same post under the same conditions.

The author of the objection, Liliana Maria Biscan, was challenging the order of the Minister of Justice setting salary entitlements, in a case before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. Her criticism concerned a practical situation: what happens when the staggering must be applied simultaneously to several enforceable titles from different years, and for some of them the value of the title is not even determinable. To this is added the overlap with other staggering rules, among them Article 6(1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 9/2017.

The problem, from the Court’s perspective, was not whether the argument was good but that it had not been framed as a constitutional challenge. The author did not identify the constitutional reference provisions allegedly breached, and the objection contained no reasoning of unconstitutionality, as required by Article 10(2) of Law No. 47/1992.

What it changes in practice

The staggering stays in force, untouched. Nothing in the 5%, 10%, 25%, 25% and 35% calendar changes. Public institutions continue to pay at that rhythm, and holders of judgments face the same deadlines.

Inadmissible does not mean constitutional. The Court did not say the texts comply with the Constitution, only that it cannot examine an objection framed elliptically. A future challenge, properly reasoned and tied to specific constitutional provisions, remains theoretically possible.

The Court recalled the three mandatory elements of any objection. Under Decision No. 1,313/2011, every objection requires the contested legal text, the constitutional reference provision allegedly breached, and the reasoning of the contradiction between them. The first two can be determined absolutely; the third carries a degree of relativity but cannot be missing altogether.

The Court does not substitute itself for the author. It held that it cannot examine an elliptically reasoned objection, since that would mean formulating the criticisms itself, an ex officio review not permitted by Article 29(4) of Law No. 47/1992.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Nothing changes in law. As a decision of inadmissibility, it produces no effect on the provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 114/2018, which remain applicable as they stand.

What is clarified is the threshold at which the Court agrees to engage. The representative of the Public Ministry invoked Decision No. 521/2024, in which the Court had already found that matters of this kind concern the interpretation and application of the law, which exceeds its competence. The referring court, for its part, considered the texts constitutional, invoking Decision No. 451/2020 and Decision No. 114/2018.

The practical question raised by the author and left untouched by the decision remains open: how the staggering applies where there are several enforceable titles from different years and the value of some is not determinable. That is a matter of interpretation, hence for the ordinary courts rather than the Constitutional Court.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It sets out clearly what a constitutional objection must contain, which helps any litigant who wants to use it effectively.
  • It maintains the separation between constitutional review and interpretation of the law, preventing the former from becoming an extra appeal on questions of application.
  • It does not close off a future challenge on the merits: since the dismissal was for a drafting defect, the texts have not received definitive constitutional validation.
  • It implicitly confirms that the problem flagged, the overlap of several enforceable titles, is resolved before the court hearing enforcement, where it can be examined concretely.

What remains a problem

  • The person who raised the objection is left without an answer on the merits after years of litigation, and the dismissal is final in that case.
  • The real problem flagged, the simultaneous application of the staggering to several titles from different years, some of undeterminable value, remains unresolved in principle.
  • Publication almost seven months after delivery means the procedural benchmark was missing precisely when it could have guided similar objections.
  • For public employees waiting for money won in court, the decision brings nothing: the final instalment, the 35%, still arrives in the fifth year from the date the judgment became enforceable.
  • Neither the Government, nor the Ombudsman, nor the presidents of the two chambers submitted views, although the mechanism affects a large number of public sector employees.

Practical advice

  1. If you raise a constitutional objection, expressly identify the article of the Constitution you consider breached. Without it, the case closes on form, however good the substantive argument.
  2. Reason the contradiction, not just the grievance. The Court requires you to explain why the legal text conflicts with the constitutional norm, not merely that the outcome seems unfair.
  3. If your problem concerns how the staggering is calculated or applied, the place for that argument is the enforcement or administrative court, not the Constitutional Court.
  4. Check the date your judgment became enforceable. The 5%, 10%, 25%, 25% and 35% calendar runs from that moment, not from the date of delivery nor from the payment request.
  5. If you hold several enforceable titles from different years, ask the institution for a written schedule of instalments for each title separately. It is the only way to check whether payments follow the legal calendar.

Frequently asked questions

What does it mean that the objection was dismissed as inadmissible?
That its formulation did not meet the minimum conditions to be examined: it lacked identification of the constitutional provision allegedly breached and the reasoning of the contradiction. The Court did not rule on the merits.
Are the provisions of Emergency Ordinance No. 114/2018 now constitutional?
The decision does not say so. A dismissal as inadmissible is not equivalent to a finding of compliance with the Constitution, unlike a dismissal as unfounded.
How are salary rights won in court paid?
For judgments that became enforceable between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021, payment is made over five years: 5% in the first year, 10% in the second, 25% in the third, 25% in the fourth and 35% in the fifth.
When do the five years start running?
From the date the court judgment became enforceable, under Article 39(1) of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 114/2018.
Can the same objection be raised again, properly framed?
A dismissal as inadmissible does not have the authority of a ruling on the merits. A fresh objection identifying the constitutional reference provisions and reasoning the contradiction may be examined, if the other admissibility conditions are met.

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. 659 of 10 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 185 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.