In brief

  • The Constitutional Court rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of Article 40 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2015, which changed the calculation rules for the state military pension: the calculation base, the amount of the service pension, and the ceiling of the military pension relative to that base.
  • The decision changes nothing in the pensions currently paid to military personnel and retired police officers covered by the state military pension system: the rules introduced in 2015 remain applicable exactly as before.
  • The Court relied on its own consistent case law from Decisions no. 237/2019, no. 43/2019 and no. 848/2019, delivered on the same constitutional arguments.
Act: Constitutional Court Decision no. 6/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 649 of 6 August 2026
Delivered: 15 January 2026

The Constitutional Court has rejected, as unfounded, the challenge to the constitutionality brought by a former police officer from Vaslui against the calculation rules for the state military pension introduced by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2015. Decision no. 6/2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania no. 649 of 6 August 2026, confirms the constitutionality of Article 40 of the ordinance as a whole, as well as of points 4, 5 and 6 of that article, which amended Articles 28, 29 and 30 of Law no. 223/2015 on state military pensions. In practice, nothing changes for pensioners under the state military pension system (military personnel, police officers, public officials with special status): the pension calculation rules remain exactly as applied until now.

The author of the challenge, whose dispute concerned an appeal against his pension decision, argued that by amending an organic law (Law no. 223/2015) through a government emergency ordinance, the Executive had encroached on Parliament’s authority, breaching the principle of separation of powers and the exclusive competence of organic law in matters of social protection. The Court dismissed both categories of complaints, those directed against the content of Articles 28-30 of Law no. 223/2015 and those concerning the procedure for adopting the emergency ordinance, reiterating its consistent case law from 2019.

What it changes in practice

For military personnel, police officers and other pensioners under the state military pension system, the decision has no new practical effect: the rules for calculating the base, the amount and the ceiling of the military pension remain applicable exactly as before this decision was delivered. The Constitutional Court does not annul, amend or suspend any legal provision; it merely confirms, with general binding effect, that the challenged texts are constitutional.

For those who intended to challenge in court the method of calculating the state military pension on the ground that the Government could not amend an organic law through an emergency ordinance, the decision closes off this avenue: the Court showed that an emergency ordinance may, within the limits of the constitutional legislative delegation, amend or repeal provisions of organic laws as well, since the prohibition applies only to simple ordinances issued under a special enabling law, not to emergency ordinances.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

  • Nothing changes in the pensions paid: the calculation rules for the state military pension introduced by Article 40 of GEO no. 57/2015 remain unchanged and applicable.
  • Case law is reinforced: the Court confirmed, based on the same reasoning as in Decisions no. 237/2019, no. 43/2019 and no. 848/2019, that no new elements exist to justify a change of solution.
  • The limits of legislative delegation are clarified: the decision recalls that the constitutional prohibition on extending delegated legislative power into the domain of organic laws applies only to simple ordinances, not to emergency ordinances, which have a distinct regime under Article 115(4)-(6) of the Constitution.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It provides predictability for military and police pensioners: the pension calculation rules remain stable, without the risk of a sudden change through a finding of unconstitutionality.
  • It reinforces constitutional case law on the limits of the Government’s legislative delegation, useful for courts hearing similar pending disputes.
  • It confirms a legal framework consistently applied since 2015, reducing legal uncertainty for the Sectoral Pension Houses when setting state military pensions.

What remains a problem

  • Pensioners dissatisfied with the state military pension calculation formula remain, for now, without a constitutional remedy on the arguments already examined by the Court.
  • The decision does not address any new arguments, not raised in this case, which other pensioners might raise later in other proceedings.
  • Only the legislative route (a new law passed by Parliament), not the constitutional one, remains open for those seeking a change to the calculation formula.

Practical advice

  1. If you are a military, police or other pensioner under the state military pension system and your pension was calculated under Articles 28-30 of Law no. 223/2015, as amended by Article 40 of GEO no. 57/2015, a challenge based on the argument that the Government could not amend these rules through an emergency ordinance has little chance of success, the Court having consistently confirmed the same solution since 2019.
  2. If you have a pending case raising similar objections to Article 40 of GEO no. 57/2015, check whether your court suspended proceedings pending this decision; publication in the Official Gazette of Romania allows the case to resume.
  3. For the concrete calculation of your pension, request from your Sectoral Pension House the document showing the calculation base, the amount of the service pension and the ceiling applied, to verify that the rule was applied correctly in your particular case.
  4. Do not confuse this decision with a legislative change: the rules remain exactly as they were in 2015; only a new law passed by Parliament could change the calculation formula.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide in Decision no. 6/2026?
It rejected, as unfounded, the challenge to the constitutionality of Article 40 as a whole, and of points 4, 5 and 6 of Article 40 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2015, and found that these provisions, which amend the calculation rules for the state military pension, are constitutional.
Does the amount of state military pensions change after this decision?
No. The decision confirms the existing rules from 2015; it does not amend them. The calculation base, the amount of the service pension and the ceiling of the state military pension continue to be set exactly as before the decision was delivered.
Why was Article 40 of GEO no. 57/2015 challenged?
The author of the challenge argued that the Government could not amend an organic law (Law no. 223/2015 on state military pensions) through an emergency ordinance, invoking the principle of separation of powers and the exclusive competence of organic law in matters of social protection.
Can the Government amend an organic law through an emergency ordinance?
Yes, according to the Constitutional Court’s consistent interpretation. The prohibition on extending legislative delegation into the domain of organic laws applies only to simple ordinances, issued under a special enabling law (Article 115(1)-(3) of the Constitution), not to emergency ordinances, which have a distinct regime under Article 115(4)-(6).
Is the decision final?
Yes. Under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and generally binding from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette of Romania.

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. 649 of 6 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 131 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.