In brief

  • The Constitutional Court rejected the unconstitutionality objection raised by a military pensioner and confirmed, once again, that the cap on state military pensions remains constitutional: the net pension cannot exceed the average of the net monthly pay corresponding to the calculation base.
  • The decision changes nothing in current payments for military pensioners: the rule introduced in 2017 through Government Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017 remains applicable exactly as before.
  • This is the third time, after Constitutional Court Decisions No. 844/2021 and No. 723/2023, that the Court has confirmed the same solution on the same constitutional grounds invoked.
Act: Decision CCR No. 5/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 639 of 3 August 2026
Delivered: 15 January 2026

The Constitutional Court dismissed, as unfounded, the unconstitutionality objection raised by a military pensioner from Galați against the rule that caps the state military pension at the average net pay used in the calculation base. Decision No. 5/2026, published in Official Gazette of Romania No. 639 of 3 August 2026, confirms for the third time the constitutionality of Article VII, point 3 of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017, which introduced this cap in 2017. In practice, nothing changes for military pensioners: the rule remains in force exactly as it has been applied so far.

The author of the objection, whose service pension had been recalculated under the new rule, argued that Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017 was adopted without an extraordinary situation to justify the urgency, that the cap discriminates between military pensioners depending on the date their pension was set, and that it affects the property right over a monetary benefit linked to the “Honorary Sign In the Service of the Homeland for 25 Years of Activity” decoration. The Court dismissed each of these arguments in turn, citing its constant case law from 2021 and 2023 on exactly the same texts.

What it changes in practice

For military pensioners whose pensions were or will be set after Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017 entered into force, the decision produces no new practical effect: the capping rule remains applicable exactly as before the ruling. The Constitutional Court does not annul, amend or suspend any legal provision; it merely confirms, with generally binding effect, that the challenged text is constitutional.

For those intending to challenge the military pension cap in court using exactly these arguments (lack of urgency when adopting Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017, discrimination between generations of pensioners, breach of the property right), the decision closes off, at least for now, one avenue: the Court held that the solution and reasoning from its earlier decisions (No. 844/2021 and No. 723/2023) remain valid, since no new elements have emerged that would justify a change in case law. A further confirmation came in September 2026: the Court held that the cap stands even where it erases a supplement paid for twenty years through the contribution for the supplementary pension.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

  • Nothing changes in current payments: the cap introduced in 2017 remains unchanged and applicable to all state military pensions set after that date.
  • The case law is reinforced: this is the third decision of the Court (after 844/2021 and 723/2023) confirming the same solution on the same objections, which reduces the chances of success of similar future challenges.
  • The scope of review is clarified: the Court retained as the subject of the objection both Article VII, point 3, and Article VII of Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017 as a whole, thereby also addressing the extrinsic unconstitutionality objections (the procedure for adopting the ordinance).

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It offers predictability: military pensioners and the relevant institutions know that the capping rule remains stable, without the risk of a sudden change through a finding of unconstitutionality.
  • It confirms a mechanism that limits budgetary spending on state military pensions, an objective the Government invoked back in 2017 when adopting the emergency ordinance.
  • It reinforces constitutional case law, reducing legal uncertainty for courts hearing similar pending cases.

What remains a problem

  • Military pensioners affected by the cap still have no constitutional avenue of redress on these arguments, even though some consider the ratio between gross pay and the capped net pension inequitable.
  • The decision does not address any new arguments, not raised in this case, that other military pensioners might invoke in future cases.
  • It remains an open question whether the legislature will ever reconsider the calculation formula through legislative means (not constitutional review), in the broader context of discussions on reforming special pensions.

Practical advice

  1. If you are a military pensioner and your pension has been capped under Article VII, point 3 of Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017, you now know that a challenge based on the lack of urgency when adopting the ordinance, discrimination between generations of pensioners, or breach of the property right has limited chances of success, as the Court has consistently confirmed the same solution since 2021.
  2. If you have a pending case with similar arguments, 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, ask your Sectoral Pension House for the document showing the average net pay used as the cap, so you can verify the rule was applied correctly in your particular case.
  4. Do not confuse this decision with a legislative change: the rule remains exactly the one from 2017; only a new law passed by Parliament could change the calculation formula.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide through Decision No. 5/2026?
It dismissed, as unfounded, the unconstitutionality objection to Article VII as a whole and to Article VII, point 3 of Government Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017, and found that these provisions, which cap the state military pension, are constitutional.
Does the amount of state military pensions change after this decision?
No. The decision confirms the existing rule from 2017; it does not change it. State military pensions continue to be capped exactly as before the ruling.
What does capping the state military pension mean in practice?
The net pension cannot exceed the average of the net monthly pay corresponding to the gross monthly pay included in the pension calculation base, a rule introduced by Article VII, point 3 of Emergency Ordinance No. 59/2017, which amended Article 60 of Law No. 223/2015 on state military pensions.
Can this rule still be challenged before the Constitutional Court in the future?
Theoretically yes, if new constitutional arguments not yet examined arise. On the arguments already analysed (lack of urgency when adopting the ordinance, discrimination, the property right), the Court showed that its consistent case law from 2021 and 2023 remains valid.
Is the decision final?
Yes. Under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, Constitutional Court decisions are final and generally binding from the date of 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. 639 of 3 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 123 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.