In brief

  • Nothing changes in the pay of the police, the army and the prison service. The Constitutional Court dismissed, unanimously, the challenge brought by a police trade union, and the two contested texts stay in the form they were in. Those concerned are police officers, military personnel and public servants with special status in the prison service, plus the courts currently hearing claims for the recalculation of salaries.
  • What was at issue is the figure the pay is calculated from: 197.3387 lei. This is the sectoral reference value put into payment on 1 October 2008. The rule that introduced it ceased to be in force on 1 January 2010, and Parliament rejected the ordinance in 2012, but the figure has remained the base for the calculation.
  • The reasoning counts even when the plea is dismissed. Decisions of the Court are published in the Official Gazette of Romania and, from the date of publication, are generally binding, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution. A judge with a recalculation file on the desk can no longer accept the argument closed here.
Act: Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 420 of 30 April 2026 on the plea of unconstitutionality concerning the provisions of Article II of Government Ordinance no. 8/2008 amending and supplementing Law no. 138/1999 on the remuneration and other rights of military personnel in the public institutions of national defence, public order and national security, and on granting certain salary rights to civilian personnel in those institutions, and amending Government Ordinance no. 38/2003 on the remuneration and other rights of police officers and Government Ordinance no. 64/2006 on the remuneration and other rights of public servants with special status in the prison administration system, and of Article 38(2)(a) of Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial), Part I, no. 795 of 18 September 2026, pages 6-9
In force from: 18 September 2026, the date of publication, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution

The Constitutional Court dismissed the challenge by which a police trade union sought to have two texts underpinning the calculation of pay in the police, the army and the prison service declared unconstitutional. Decision no. 420, delivered unanimously on 30 April 2026, was published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 795 of 18 September 2026. The law one of the two texts comes from, Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds, has been through the Court’s filter once before over the money for a doctoral degree, and that challenge was dismissed too, again in a case from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. For people in uniform and for their families the practical consequence is simple: the payslip looks the same after 18 September 2026.

The plea was raised by the Romanian Police Officers’ Trade Union „Diamantul”, on behalf of and for its members, in two sets of proceedings begun in 2020 before the Hunedoara Tribunal and the Dolj Tribunal. The subject of those proceedings was not abstract: the claimants asked for their salary rights to be recalculated and for payment of the difference between what they actually received and what they should have received. The fact that the claim comes from a trade union rather than an individual shows the scale of the matter. This is not an isolated case but a group problem, raised by the same union in several files.

The first contested text, Article II of Government Ordinance no. 8/2008, contains a single figure, but a figure that enters every calculation. It sets the sectoral reference value, that is the number by which the coefficients in the grid are multiplied to obtain the post and rank pay of military personnel and the salaries of public servants with special status in the police and the prison service. From 1 April 2008 the value was 193.4694 lei, and from 1 October 2008 it became 197.3387 lei. The third paragraph adds a rule in the individual’s favour: the result is rounded up to a whole leu.

The second text, Article 38(2)(a) of Framework Law no. 153/2017, needs translating into everyday language. Article 38(1) says that the law on unified remuneration „is applied in stages, starting from 1 July 2017”. In stages means by instalments rather than all at once, and letter a) is the first instalment and at the same time the least generous one: in the second half of 2017 nothing moves, everyone keeps the amount received for June 2017, for basic salary as well as for bonuses and allowances, provided they hold the same post under the same conditions. The law that promised unified remuneration therefore began by freezing what already existed.

This is where the two texts connect, and where the union’s argument starts. Every year after 2010 calculated salary rights starting from the amount of the preceding year, which the Court itself acknowledges in its reasoning. The amount frozen in June 2017 had been built on the 2008 reference value, and that value is carried forward, year after year, to the present day. The union called the mechanism ultra-activity: a rule removed from the statute book on 1 January 2010 by Article 48(1) point 26 of Framework Law no. 330/2009, and then rejected by Parliament through Law no. 49/2012, continues to produce effects, even though Article 64 of Law no. 24/2000 on legislative drafting rules says that repeal is definitive.

A reader might wonder how the Court comes to rule on a text that has been out of force for sixteen years. The answer is in paragraph 20 and rests on Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 549 of 3 August 2011: provisions whose legal effects continue to be produced after they cease to be in force are also subject to constitutional review. The same reasoning covers the second text, which had a limited application, for 2017 only, but whose consequences are still visible in payment today.

What it changes in practice

For the police officer, the soldier or the prison officer looking at a payslip, the direct effect is zero. Nothing new becomes payable and nothing new becomes receivable, no avenue of challenge opens and none that existed before closes. Anyone who was paid on 17 September 2026 on the reference value of 197.3387 lei is paid the same way on 19 September 2026.

The real effect happens in the courtrooms. The two files before the Hunedoara Tribunal and the Dolj Tribunal now resume, and the decision is communicated to both, as its closing lines state. For every other set of proceedings in which recalculation of salary rights is claimed on the same argument, the constitutional route is closed: the reasoning of a decision of the Court binds in both situations, on an upholding and on a dismissal, because Article 147(4) of the Constitution makes the whole decision generally binding, not only the outcome at the end of it. A judge can no longer accept, from now on, that Article II of Government Ordinance no. 8/2008 should have been adopted by an organic law.

What the decision does not say matters. The Court did not say that pay in the public order and defence sector is correct, nor that a reference value of 197.3387 lei is appropriate in 2026. It said something much narrower, and the formula in the operative part shows it: the texts „are constitutional in relation to the criticisms formulated”. Other criticisms, brought from other angles, remain possible, subject to the caveat that they must genuinely be different ones, not the same ones in other words.

Equally important: the decision does not put Article II of Government Ordinance no. 8/2008 back into force. The text remains repealed as of 1 January 2010. What stays alive is the figure inside the rule, carried forward by a chain of rules which, each year, said that payment is maintained at the level of the previous year.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing has changed. Both texts read on 19 September 2026 exactly as they read on 17 September 2026. A decision dismissing a plea does not touch the law, it confirms it, and this one is no exception.

What has changed is the length of a series. In paragraph 22 the Court shows that the same two texts have already been reviewed on similar criticisms and lists five earlier dismissals: no. 108 of 23 February 2021, no. 214 of 20 April 2023, no. 508 of 5 October 2023, no. 155 of 21 March 2024 and no. 463 of 15 October 2024. With the present one that makes six decisions within five years, all dismissals, and paragraph 32 closes the discussion expressly: no new elements have arisen to justify reconsidering the case-law.

One silent change is worth flagging, for anyone who now opens the law to check. Article 12(2) of Framework Law no. 153/2017, a text that appears in the Hunedoara Tribunal’s referral, no longer has the content it had in 2021. In its current form it provides that, from 2023, basic salaries, post pay and employment allowances are set by multiplying the coefficients in the annexes by the national minimum gross basic salary guaranteed in payment. The original form of a law is not the same as its previous form, and in a law amended dozens of times that difference is no detail.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • Nobody loses anything in payment. The decision removes no text from force and reduces no amount currently being paid.
  • It closes an uncertainty that had left proceedings begun in 2020 in suspense. The courts now know what they can rely on and what they cannot.
  • The reasoning explains rather than merely deciding. Paragraphs 23 to 31 show why remuneration does not fall within the field of organic law and why maintaining amounts in payment was treated as a guarantee rather than a restriction.
  • The Court cites the decisions it relies on, with number, date and publication reference, which makes verification possible for anyone, not only for a lawyer.
  • The rounding-up rule to a whole leu, in Article II(3), remains untouched and continues to work in the staff’s favour.
  • The outcome was reached unanimously, with no separate opinion, so it leaves no room for talk of a fragile majority.

What remains a problem

  • The figure everything starts from is almost 18 years old and has not moved. The sectoral reference value of 197.3387 lei has applied since 1 October 2008, and the decision cannot change that, because it is not its job.
  • A rule that has been repealed and rejected by Parliament continues to produce effects. The Court confirms the mechanism but does not repair it, and indeed cannot: the repair is a matter of pay policy, that is for Parliament and the Government.
  • The text of Article 12(2) of Framework Law no. 153/2017 disappears from the decision without explanation, although one of the two courts had referred it to the Court as well.
  • The road took too long to help anyone in time. The Dolj referral was dated 4 March 2021, and the answer came on 30 April 2026.
  • The formula „in relation to the criticisms formulated” leaves the question open without saying what could be different. A union wanting to try again learns nothing from the text about where the edge lies.
  • Nothing in the decision tells the reader the effect, in lei, on an actual salary. The figure appears and the mechanism is described, but the amount is left for each person to work out.

Practical advice

  1. If you have proceedings pending for the recalculation of salary rights, ask your lawyer whether your argument is exactly the one dismissed here. If it is, the decision closes it. If you have other grounds as well, they are tried separately and are untouched.
  2. Do not expect a pay rise out of this decision. It contains none and cannot contain one, since the Court checks whether a text complies with the Constitution, not whether the amount is enough.
  3. When you check the texts on legislatie.just.ro, look at the version for the year you are interested in, not only at today’s. Framework Law no. 153/2017 has been amended many times, and so have Law no. 138/1999 and Government Ordinance no. 38/2003.
  4. If you receive a decision setting your salary rights and you disagree with it, the deadline is short: 20 calendar days from communication, lodged with the authorising officer, under Article 37(2) of Framework Law no. 153/2017. Missing it costs more than any constitutional argument.
  5. Keep your payslips and employment decisions from 2017 to 2026. In a dispute about maintaining amounts in payment, proof of the June 2017 level is the piece the whole calculation starts from.
  6. If you want to understand where your own figure comes from, find the coefficient for your post in the applicable annex, multiply it by the reference value, then round the result up to a whole leu. That shows which part of the salary comes from the law and which part from bonuses.

Frequently asked questions

Does anything change in my salary after this decision?
No. The Court dismissed the plea, so both texts stay as they were. No amount rises and no amount falls because of this decision.
What is Article 38(2)(a) of Framework Law no. 153/2017, in plain words?
It is the first stage in applying the law on unified remuneration. It says that between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2017 everyone keeps the amount received for June 2017, provided they hold the same post under the same conditions. In practice, the law began by freezing the existing level rather than raising it.
What is the sectoral reference value of 197.3387 lei?
It is the number by which the coefficients in the grid are multiplied to obtain a soldier’s post pay or the salary of a police officer or a prison officer. It was put into payment on 1 October 2008, by Article II(2) of Government Ordinance no. 8/2008.
How can a text repealed in 2010 be reviewed?
On the basis of Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011: rules no longer in force remain subject to constitutional review as long as their legal effects continue to be produced. Here they continue, because salaries are calculated in a chain, each year starting from the previous one.
Why did the Court say that remuneration did not have to be regulated by an organic law?
Because Article 73(3)(j) of the Constitution reserves the status of public servants to organic law, and the status of the police officer is Law no. 360/2002. Government Ordinance no. 8/2008 did not touch that status, only the reference value. The Court said the same in Decision no. 645 of 29 November 2005 and in Decision no. 627 of 22 September 2020, paragraph 42.
Does the reasoning of a decision dismissing a plea bind the courts?
Yes. Article 147(4) of the Constitution provides that decisions of the Constitutional Court are published in the Official Gazette of Romania and that, from the date of publication, they are generally binding and have effect only for the future. The binding character covers the grounds, not only the operative part, and does not depend on the outcome.
Can I challenge the same texts again, on other arguments?
The operative part says the texts are constitutional „in relation to the criticisms formulated”, which leaves room for new criticisms. In practice the bar is high: paragraph 32 finds that no new elements have arisen to justify reconsidering the case-law, and a criticism reworded runs into the same reasoning.
Who exactly is concerned?
Military personnel in the institutions of national defence, public order and national security, police officers, public servants with special status in the prison administration system and, indirectly, the civilian staff of those institutions. Plus the courts hearing pay disputes in those sectors.
How long did the road to this decision take?
The first referral came from the Dolj Tribunal, by order of 4 March 2021, the second from the Hunedoara Tribunal, by order of 16 December 2021. The decision was delivered on 30 April 2026 and published on 18 September 2026, so 2,024 days passed between the first referral and publication.
Can the union claim damages after this decision?
Not out of it. The decision finds no breach and creates no right to payment. The substantive proceedings continue before the Hunedoara Tribunal and the Dolj Tribunal, on the other grounds raised there.

Errors and inconsistencies in the published text

  • Article 12(2) of Framework Law no. 153/2017, contested and not ruled on. Paragraphs 1 and 7 show that the Hunedoara Tribunal referred this text to the Court as well. Paragraph 19, which establishes the subject matter of the plea, no longer includes it, the operative part says nothing about it, neither that it is constitutional nor that the plea is inadmissible, and the title of the decision leaves it out in the same way. The author of the plea in the Hunedoara file is left without an answer on one of the three texts they contested.
  • The joinder, ordered on a condition the text of the decision contradicts. Paragraph 5 joins the two files under Article 53(5) of Law no. 47/1992, which requires the subject matter of the plea to be identical. According to paragraphs 1, 3, 7 and 8, the subject matters were not identical: the Hunedoara file also covered Article 12(2) of Framework Law no. 153/2017, the Dolj file did not. The difference disappears only in paragraph 19, with no explanation.

Editorial analysis

On the substance, the reasoning is solid and needs no correction: the distinction between the status of the police officer and their remuneration is drawn accurately, the observation that Article 115(6) of the Constitution is irrelevant because the contested text is a simple ordinance rather than an emergency one is in its right place, and the distinction from Decision no. 654 of 17 October 2017 is made expressly. The trouble with this decision lies elsewhere: in how long it took.

The figures add up on their own. The Dolj Tribunal referred the matter by order of 4 March 2021, so the answer of 30 April 2026 came 1,883 days later, more than five years and two months. The Hunedoara Tribunal referred the matter on 16 December 2021, 1,596 days before delivery. And after delivery came a further stage that can be measured exactly: 141 days until publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, when Article 60(1) of Law no. 47/1992 provides that the drafting period is at most 30 days from delivery. The ratio is 4.7 to 1.

A comparison with the Court’s own case-law shows this is not an accident of one file. Decision no. 463 of 15 October 2024, cited in paragraph 22 itself, has the same author of the plea, the same two texts and the same referring court in Dolj, and from delivery to publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 233 of 17 March 2025 there were 153 days. Two decisions, 141 and 153 days, against a drafting period of 30. The pattern repeats.

Set beside another provision of the very law under challenge, the situation shows two speeds. Article 37 of Framework Law no. 153/2017 gives a police officer dissatisfied with a pay decision 20 calendar days to challenge it, gives the authorising officer 30 days to reply and gives the person another 30 days to go to court, while paragraph (4) requires the court to rule „as a matter of urgency and with priority”. The 141 days that passed between delivery and publication alone are seven times longer than the period in which the individual has to react, and the urgency written into the law is demanded in one direction only.

There is one more figure the act does not state but which a division yields. The two values in Article II of Government Ordinance no. 8/2008, 193.4694 lei from 1 April 2008 and 197.3387 lei from 1 October 2008, are not two separately chosen amounts: the second is exactly the first increased by 2 per cent, since 193.4694 multiplied by 1.02 gives 197.338788, cut at the fourth decimal. That 2 per cent increase of 1 October 2008 is also the last movement of the sectoral reference value. By 18 September 2026, 6,561 days had passed, that is 17 years and almost 12 months in which the number the calculation starts from stood still, while the actual amounts changed through bonuses, through percentage increases and through annual laws that referred back to the previous year.

What should be changed

  • The operative part should say what happened to each text in the referral. If a text leaves the subject matter of the plea, the reason has to be written down, in a single sentence. Otherwise the party who contested it is left without an answer, and the referring court does not know what to put in the file.
  • The joinder should be reasoned where the subject matters do not fully overlap. Article 53(5) of Law no. 47/1992 requires identical subject matter. Where one of the files has an extra text, the paragraph ordering the joinder should show how that difference is resolved, not let it vanish.
  • The drafting period in Article 60(1) of Law no. 47/1992 should be followed by a publication deadline. The law caps drafting at 30 days but says nothing about the road from drafting to the Official Gazette of Romania, and into that gap fit, measured on two decisions with the same subject matter, 141 and 153 days.
  • Decisions confirming settled case-law should get a shorter procedure. Where the same two texts have already been upheld five times on similar criticisms, a file should not sit on the docket for more than five years. A simplified procedure for repetitive cases would also free up the trial courts, which are waiting.
  • The sectoral reference value should be reopened by the legislature, not left to run through cross-references. A figure from 2008, carried to 2026 by annual rules maintaining amounts in payment, can no longer be checked by anyone against economic reality. Either it is updated, or it is replaced by an express mechanism, such as the one in Article 12(2) of Framework Law no. 153/2017.
  • The summary of the issue should also indicate the texts removed from the subject matter of the plea. Anyone searching the Official Gazette of Romania for what was decided about Article 12(2) of Framework Law no. 153/2017 finds nothing, although one file reached the Court precisely with that text.

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. 795 of 18 September 2026, pages 6-9 16 pages PDF, 110 KB the act starts on page 6

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.