In brief

  • The High Court refused to give a binding answer to the question of when payment of the pension resumes for a female civil servant who asked for it to be suspended so that she could carry on working.
  • The reason for the dismissal: the question is no longer „difficult”, because the answer already follows from earlier rulings of the High Court and of the Constitutional Court.
  • What those rulings say: a woman cannot ask for her pension and for her working life to continue at the same time. Once the retirement decision has been issued at her own request, the service relationship is terminated by operation of law, even if payment of the pension is suspended afterwards.
Act: ÎCCJ Decision no. 76/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 694 of 21 August 2026
Delivered: 22 June 2026

A female civil servant cannot claim her pension entitlement and, at the same time, stay in her post until the age of 65, and suspending payment of the pension repairs nothing: the service relationship has already come to an end. That is the conclusion that emerges from Decision no. 76 of 22 June 2026 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Panel for the Resolution of Points of Law, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 694 of 21 August 2026. Formally, the High Court dismissed the referral as inadmissible, a mechanism the courts run into often, as when the Constitutional Court held that lowering the retirement age for polluted areas is a matter for Parliament.

The referral came from the Caraș-Severin Tribunal, First Civil Division, in a case seeking clarification of Article 102(1)(k) and Article 101(5) of Law No 360/2023 on the public pension system. The specific question: from what moment does payment of a pension suspended at the claimant’s request resume, if the employment relationship did not end after the old-age pension decision was issued.

The High Court’s answer is not „we do not know”, but „it is already known”. The referring court had sufficient guidance available in the case-law harmonisation mechanisms, and the concrete application of the law remains its exclusive prerogative.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that no new rule appears. The referral was dismissed as inadmissible, so no ruling was given on the substance, and the provisions of Law No 360/2023 stay exactly as they are.

The second effect is the confirmation of the existing guidance. The High Court refers expressly to Decision no. 91 of 25 November 2024 of the same panel, which established that suspending payment of the pension does not remove the termination by operation of law of the public service relationship, as long as the retirement decision was issued at the civil servant’s own request.

The third effect concerns the underlying reasoning, taken over from that ruling. Issuing a retirement decision at the civil servant’s request is a choice in favour of opening the pension entitlement and against keeping the public service relationship alive, even if actual payment was subsequently suspended.

The fourth effect comes from constitutional case-law. In Decision no. 112 of 23 February 2021 and Decision no. 891 of 16 December 2021, the Constitutional Court established that, on reaching the statutory retirement age, a woman has the right to choose: either to open her pension entitlement and end the service relationship, or to continue it until the age laid down for men. The two cannot be requested simultaneously.

The fifth effect is procedural. The ruling is binding under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, so the courts can no longer send up the same question hoping for a different answer. The Court notes, moreover, that a referral with similar content had already been dismissed as inadmissible. On the other side of the same question, pension against return to work, the Court found in September 2026 that a reinstated magistrate loses 85% of the pension throughout the appointment.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In law, nothing. What does change is the room for manoeuvre of the trial courts: they can no longer stay proceedings while waiting for a preliminary ruling on this subject, because the High Court has said plainly that the guidance already exists.

The second change concerns the way the difficulty of a point of law is assessed. The ruling explains that difficulty cannot be judged in isolation, but by reference to the answers previously given by the supreme court in similar matters, including their statements of principle.

The third change is a practical one for the people caught in this situation. There is no longer any prospect of a uniform clarification by way of a preliminary ruling, so each case is settled by the court seised of it, on the basis of the guidance that already exists.

What does not change is the right of a female civil servant to choose. It remains intact, in the shape the Constitutional Court gave it. What cannot be done is to exercise it both ways at once.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It gathers into a single act the guidance scattered across three earlier rulings, two of the Constitutional Court and one of the High Court.
  • It unblocks the cases that were stayed while waiting for a preliminary ruling on this topic.
  • It explains the test by which the difficulty of a point of law is measured, useful for courts preparing future referrals.
  • It confirms that a woman’s right to choose between retiring and carrying on working remains a genuine option, not an automatic consequence of the law.

What remains a problem

  • The concrete question, from what date payment of a suspended pension resumes, is left without a binding and uniform answer.
  • People in this situation still depend on the interpretation adopted by the court hearing their case.
  • The ruling says nothing about those who have already applied for retirement believing they could go back on that choice by suspending payment.
  • This is the second referral on the same subject dismissed as inadmissible, a sign that the problem exists in practice but is not finding the right procedural route.

Practical advice

  1. If you are a female civil servant approaching the statutory retirement age, decide from the outset what you want. An application for retirement and the choice to carry on until the age of 65 cannot be made in parallel.
  2. Do not count on suspending payment of the pension as a way back. Under ÎCCJ Decision no. 91/2024, it does not prevent the termination by operation of law of the service relationship.
  3. If you want to carry on working, put your choice in writing before asking for the retirement decision to be issued, and keep proof that it was registered.
  4. If you already have proceedings on this subject, discuss with your lawyer the guidance in Decision no. 91/2024 and in CCR Decisions no. 112/2021 and no. 891/2021. That is the framework within which the court will decide.
  5. Do not mistake inadmissibility for an answer on the substance. The High Court did not say when payment resumes, only that the question did not meet the conditions for receiving a ruling.

Frequently asked questions

What did the High Court decide?
It dismissed as inadmissible the referral from the Caraș-Severin Tribunal on the moment from which payment resumes for a pension suspended at the holder’s request, where the employment relationship did not end after the old-age pension decision was issued.
Why was the referral dismissed?
Because the admissibility conditions were not cumulatively met, in particular the one concerning the difficulty of the point of law. The High Court pointed out that earlier case-law already offers sufficient guidance for interpreting these provisions.
Can I claim my pension and stay in my post until the age of 65?
No. Under Constitutional Court Decision no. 112/2021, on reaching the statutory retirement age a woman may opt either to open her pension entitlement and end the service relationship, or to continue it until the age laid down for men. The two cannot be requested at the same time.
If I suspend payment of my pension, do I keep my post?
No. ÎCCJ Decision no. 91/2024 established that suspending payment of the pension does not remove the termination by operation of law of the public service relationship, as long as the retirement decision was issued at the civil servant’s own request.
Is the ruling binding?
Yes, under Article 521(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. What is binding, however, is the operative part dismissing the referral as inadmissible, not an answer on the substance of the question, which was not given.
What happens to the Caraș-Severin case?
It carries on before the tribunal. The concrete and effective application of the law is, according to the ruling, the exclusive constitutional prerogative of the court seised of the case.

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. 694 of 21 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 128 KB the act starts on page 12

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.