In brief
- Nothing changes in the law. The Constitutional Court dismissed the challenge, so the article stands exactly as it was written in 2018. Anyone who expected a correction from this decision does not get one.
- The date that decides everything is 31 December 2015. The second recalculation of the pension, the one that uses the shorter contribution period allowed to people who worked in work group I or II, is carried out only for those to whom that shorter period had already been recognised on that date, by law or by a court judgment. Anyone who obtained recognition later stays outside the rule.
- A delay by the pension house does not take away your right, however. The Court says the article applies to everyone whose pension had to be recalculated in the first round, the one started by the 2015 law, even where the pension house never carried out that recalculation. The reading is binding on all courts from 18 September 2026.
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial), Part I, no. 792 of 18 September 2026, pages 7-9
In force from: 18 September 2026, the date of publication; from that date the decision is generally binding, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution
The Constitutional Court dismissed a challenge to an article that decides who gets the second recalculation of the pension, so the rule remains in force exactly in its 2018 form. Decision no. 731, delivered on 9 December 2025 and published on 18 September 2026 in the Official Gazette of Romania, concerns Article 1692(1) of Law no. 263/2010 and was sought by a pensioner in a case pending before the Galați Court of Appeal. It is the same answer the Court gave to those who complained that the same number of points leads to different pensions depending on the year in which you retired: a difference in calculation between two generations of pensioners is not automatically discrimination. Where a decision dismisses a challenge, though, the weight lies in the reasoning, and here the reasoning changes something in practice.
The article under challenge is a single sentence, but money hangs on it. In the official text it says that „pensionarii sistemului public de pensii cărora li s-au aplicat prevederile art. 1691 beneficiază de recalcularea pensiei cu utilizarea, la determinarea punctajului mediu anual, a stagiilor complete de cotizare avute în vedere, potrivit legii sau a unor hotărâri judecătorești, la stabilirea/recalcularea pensiei aflate în plată sau, după caz, cuvenite la data de 31 decembrie 2015”. Put in plain terms for someone drawing a pension: whoever went through the first round of increases in the point score receives a second recalculation, in which the pension is divided by the shorter contribution period he actually benefited from instead of the ordinary one. The less you divide by, the higher the pension comes out, so the difference is not theoretical.
To see where this article comes from, the story has to be picked up in the middle of the 1970s. Article 14 of Law no. 3/1977 gave those who had worked 20 years in work group I, or 25 years in work group II, a reduction in the length of service required for a pension and a lower retirement age. After Law no. 19/2000 required all pensions established before it to be recalculated, both the pension houses and the courts read that article as an ordinary rule rather than an exception, and used the longer contribution periods from the general law. The High Court of Cassation and Justice held the opposite twice, in Decision no. 40 of 22 September 2008 and in Decision no. 11 of 25 May 2015, but, as the present decision acknowledges, the pension houses did not apply those rulings ex officio and people had to go to court. Law no. 192/2015 then introduced Article 1691, with an increase in the point score of 50% for work group I and 25% for work group II, and Law no. 221/2018 added Article 1692, which combines the additional points with the shorter contribution period.
The author of the challenge, a pensioner with 48 years of work, more than 20 of them in work group I, argued that the article cuts out precisely the people in his position. The courts read the rule as meaning that the second recalculation concerns only pension decisions in payment on 31 December 2015 in which the shorter contribution period had already been recognised by a special provision or by a court judgment. Anyone who worked in the same period and in the same conditions but did not manage to obtain a judgment by that date is left out. His argument, based on equality before the law under Article 16(1) of the Constitution and on the right to property under the First Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, was that the difference comes from procedural luck rather than from the work done.
The Court answered that the two categories are not in identical situations and that the legislature’s choice stays within its wide margin of appreciation. It relied on Decision no. 549 of 29 October 2024, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 586 of 24 June 2025, in which it had already dismissed almost identical criticisms, and found that no new elements had appeared that would call for a change of case-law. The useful part comes immediately afterwards. The first recalculation, the one laid down in Article 1691, was a procedure applied ex officio to everyone covered by the rule, which is stated expressly in Article 134(14) of the implementing rules approved by Government Decision no. 257/2011, a paragraph added by Government Decision no. 291/2017. From this the Court draws the conclusion that shifts the balance in a court case: the failure of some pension houses to perform their duty in time cannot be held against the pensioner, and Article 1692(1) applies to everyone whose pension had to be recalculated, as a matter of obligation, under Article 1691.
That sentence is not in the operative part of the decision but in its reasoning, and it is binding all the same. 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 same rule is restated in Article 11(3) of Law no. 47/1992, republished. The Court bases its decision on that very article of the Constitution, and in the last paragraph of the reasoning it says plainly that both the solution and the grounds of the earlier decision remain valid, „atât soluția, cât și considerentele”. So from 18 September 2026 any court hearing a similar case works with this reading, not with the letter of the article.
There is one more detail the reader is entitled to know before building up hopes. The basis of the whole discussion, Law no. 263/2010, is no longer in force. It was repealed by Article 168(1)(a) of Law no. 360/2023 on the public pension system, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 1089 of 4 December 2023, which entered into force on 1 September 2024. The Court ruled all the same because, under Decision no. 766 of 15 June 2011, constitutional review also covers rules that continue to produce legal effects after they cease to be in force. A check of the current form of the new law shows, however, that Article 1691 and Article 1692 are absent from Law no. 360/2023, both as text and under any other numbering. The rule the decision speaks about now lives only in the cases begun under the old law.
What it changes in practice
For a pensioner who has already received the second recalculation, the effect is zero. The decision changes neither his point score, nor the amount, nor his pension decision, and it opens no new route for him. Equally, anyone who has definitively lost a case on this article reopens nothing: a decision of the Constitutional Court has effect only for the future, and a court judgment that has become final is not resumed on the basis of it.
For anyone with a case in progress, the effect is concrete and usable. The pension houses’ usual defence, that Article 1691 was not applied to the person and that he therefore cannot come under Article 1692, no longer holds. The reasoning of the decision says the article covers everyone whose pensions had to be recalculated as a matter of obligation in the first round, and the pension house’s failure to perform that duty does not turn against the pensioner. Anyone in that situation has, from 18 September 2026, an argument the court cannot ignore.
For anyone who did not have the shorter contribution period recognised on 31 December 2015, either by law or by a court judgment, the door stays shut. This is the part that does not change, and the dismissal of the challenge confirms it. The difference between two people who worked the same years in the same conditions, but where only one reached court in time, remains a valid difference in law.
One effect that is easily overlooked is the safety net. Article 1692(2) provides that, if the recalculation produces an average annual point score lower than the one in payment, the earlier score and amount are maintained. Nobody can come out of this operation with a smaller pension, so the risk of making a claim is only the time and the cost of the case, not the pension itself. And Article 1692(4) sets 1 October 2018 as the date from which the recalculated entitlements are due, which brings the period elapsed since then into the discussion as well.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
In the text of the law absolutely nothing has changed. Article 1692(1) has had the same wording since 30 July 2018, when Law no. 221/2018 was published, and not a comma of it has been touched. Anyone looking for an amendment to the article will not find one, and anyone who read the title of the decision and understood that the rule had fallen understood the opposite.
What has changed is the state of the dispute. The decision itself describes, in its reasoning, how the courts had read the article narrowly, that is only for pension decisions in payment on 31 December 2015 in which the shorter contribution period had already been applied. That reading remains valid as far as the reference date is concerned, but it can no longer be used against people whom the pension house skipped in the first round. Before publication, a court could choose the literal reading of the article, because nothing obliged it to take another. From 18 September 2026 it no longer can.
Compared with Decision no. 549 of 29 October 2024, which is the direct precedent, neither the solution nor the reasoning has changed. What has changed is their weight: the same text, the same criticisms, the same dismissal, twice in a row and unanimously. A line confirmed twice is not overturned at the third referral, and that is practical information for anyone weighing up whether it is worth raising the same plea.
And compared with the moment when the dispute arose, the substantive law itself has changed. When the Galați Court of Appeal referred the matter to the Constitutional Court, in April 2021, Law no. 263/2010 was the pension law. By the time the decision was published it had been repealed for two years, and the articles discussed have no successor in Law no. 360/2023.
The same sitting of the Court, that of 9 December 2025, also produced the answer to the question that comes before any recalculation: who establishes that a workplace fell under special working conditions. A court cannot find special working conditions on its own, in the absence of the approval the law requires the employer to seek, and that decision was published on 23 September 2026 as well.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- It closes off a defence that was costing real people. The pension house can no longer refuse the second recalculation on the ground that the first was not carried out, when the first was obligatory and was done ex officio.
- The reasoning binds, it does not merely suggest. Article 147(4) of the Constitution makes the decision generally binding from publication, so courts can no longer reach different outcomes on the same argument.
- It puts the source of the ex officio duty in writing. The decision refers to Article 134(14) of the implementing rules approved by Government Decision no. 257/2011, so anyone with a case knows exactly what to invoke.
- It sets a predictable line. A second dismissal in a row on the same article, unanimously, says plainly what is no longer worth a case and five years of waiting.
- The pension cannot go down as a result of the recalculation. Paragraph (2) of the same article maintains the point score and the amount in payment where the new calculation comes out lower.
- It confirms an old payment date. Paragraph (4) ties the recalculated entitlements to 1 October 2018, not to the date on which the case ends.
What remains a problem
- The person who brought the case wins nothing. His plea was dismissed, and the difference between him and a colleague from the same section who reached court sooner still stands.
- The useful rule sits in the reasoning, not in the operative part. The operative part says only that the article is constitutional, without any interpretative reservation, so the hurried reader does not see the part that counts.
- The letter of the article says something different from the binding reading. The text requires that the provisions of Article 1691 have been applied, in the past tense, while the Court reads it as covering those to whom they should have been applied.
- How many people are in this situation nobody says. Neither the decision nor any public document shows how many pensions were left unrecalculated in the first round, although the whole reasoning rests on the assumption that the round had been completed.
- The right is still obtained through litigation. The decision requires nobody to reopen the skipped files ex officio, so the route remains a claim to the pension house and, on refusal, the court.
- Four decisions cited have no publication reference. Decisions no. 61 of 16 February 2016, no. 718 of 9 December 2014, no. 182 of 16 March 2021 and no. 169 of 9 March 2021 appear without the number of the Official Gazette of Romania, although others in the same text have it.
- The new law takes over nothing. There is no equivalent of Article 1691 or Article 1692 in Law no. 360/2023, so the rule dies out with the last case begun under the old law.
Practical advice
- Look for one thing only in your pension file: whether on 31 December 2015 you had the shorter contribution period recognised, by law or by a court judgment. That is the threshold that decides whether the article concerns you, not the year you retired and not the number of years worked in a work group.
- If you worked 20 years in work group I or 25 years in work group II and never received any recalculation decision after 2015, ask the pension house, in writing, for the position on the recalculations carried out in your case under Article 1691 and Article 1692 of Law no. 263/2010. Whatever the answer is, it is your starting point.
- In a case in progress, ask the court to take account of Decision no. 731 of 9 December 2025, giving the reference of the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 792 of 18 September 2026. The reasoning, not the operative part, is what you rely on.
- Do not confuse the two rounds of recalculation. The first, under Article 1691, increases the annual point scores by 50% or by 25%. The second, under Article 1692, divides by the shorter contribution period. They are different operations, with different legal bases, and the claim has to state clearly which one you mean.
- Do not fear a lower result. Paragraph (2) of the article provides that, if the recalculation gives a lower point score, the one in payment is kept. The pension does not fall as a result of this operation.
- If you are at the start of the road, find out in advance about the time limits for challenging a pension decision. A decision of the Constitutional Court restores no time limit and reopens no case that has been definitively closed.
- Check which law your situation is judged under. The repeal of Law no. 263/2010 took effect on 1 September 2024, and the articles discussed here do not appear in Law no. 360/2023, so they apply only to relationships that arose under the old law.
Frequently asked questions
Does my pension go up because of this decision?
What did the person who challenged the article actually ask for?
Why does the date of 31 December 2015 matter?
The pension house never did my first recalculation. Do I lose the second one as well?
Does a decision that dismisses a challenge still bind anyone?
Can I lose money if I ask for the recalculation?
Was Law no. 263/2010 not repealed?
Was the rule taken over into the new pension law?
Will the case I lost definitively be reopened?
From what date are the entitlements paid, if the case is won?
Editorial analysis
The decision is correctly drafted and there is nothing in it to put right. The legal bases are cited accurately, the operative part answers the criticism raised, and the thirty numbered paragraphs are complete. The difficulty is the date on which it came to say it. It was delivered on 9 December 2025 and published on 18 September 2026, that is 283 days later. For the precedent it rests on, Decision no. 549 of 29 October 2024, the road from delivery to publication took 238 days. Since a decision becomes generally binding only from publication and has effect only for the future, during those 283 days the courts hearing identical cases were bound by nothing, and that time cannot be recovered.
What makes the comparison awkward is that no rule imposes a deadline. We read both Article 11(3) of Law no. 47/1992, republished, and Article 147(4) of the Constitution: both say that decisions are published in the Official Gazette of Romania and become generally binding from publication, and neither says by when they have to be published. The contrast with the rest of the file is hard to miss. The pension houses had 24 months for the first recalculation, counted from 1 January 2016, that is until the end of 2017, and 12 months for the second, from 1 October 2018. The State set them deadlines in the law. Nobody set any for the institution that judges their delay.
The second thing that reading the act from end to end does not reveal comes out of two dates in the law laid one over the other. The deadline for the first recalculation ended at the close of 2017, and the second round was to begin on 1 October 2018, that is 274 days later. The whole reasoning rests on that window: on 1 October 2018 the first round „se putea considera finalizată”, could be considered completed, so the condition in the article made sense. In the same paragraph the Court accepts that, for objective reasons, some pension houses had not performed their duty. The rule therefore survives through the way it is read, not through what it says. The text requires that the provisions of Article 1691 have been applied, in the past tense, and the Court turns that into „should have been applied”. A pensioner who opens the law and reads only the article gets the opposite of the correct answer.
One more figure puts the whole thing in proportion. The Galați Court of Appeal referred the matter to the Constitutional Court by its order of 22 April 2021, and the answer became binding on 18 September 2026, that is 1,975 days later, five years and four months. In that interval the law was repealed, on 1 September 2024, and by the date the decision was published the rule had been out of force for 747 days. The entitlements under discussion are due, under paragraph (4) of the article, from 1 October 2018, that is 2,909 days before publication. A binding interpretation that reaches its addressee almost eight years after the date from which it produces effects is a partial repair.
What should be changed
- A legal deadline for publishing decisions of the Constitutional Court. It would turn the 283 days in this case into a measurable breach rather than a mere observation, and it would shorten the period in which courts judge the same question without the binding reference.
- The binding interpretation should go into the operative part, not only into the reasoning. Where a decision dismissing a challenge saves the rule through a particular reading, the formula „is constitutional in so far as” shows on the spot what has been decided, without the reader having to go through thirty paragraphs to find what concerns him.
- The National Public Pension House should reopen ex officio the files skipped in the first round. If the duty was an ex officio one, and the delay cannot be held against the pensioner, the natural consequence is an administrative reopening, not a court case for each person separately.
- The number of pensions left unrecalculated should be public. The whole reasoning rests on the assumption that the first round had been completed on 1 October 2018. Neither the decision nor anyone else says how many files were left, so the assumption cannot be verified.
- Every decision cited should come with its publication reference. In this text four decisions appear only with their number and date, while others carry the number of the Official Gazette of Romania, and anyone wanting to check the reasoning wastes time looking for what should have been written once.
- Law no. 360/2023 should state expressly what happens to the rights arising from Article 1691 and Article 1692. The new law takes over nothing and replaces nothing, so a pensioner who reads only the law in force has no way of learning that the rule still concerns him.
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. 792 of 18 September 2026, pages 7-9 16 pages PDF, 151 KB the act starts on page 7
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.