CCR decision on magistrates' pensions: the procedure defeated the reform, the privileges remain

The Government requested the opinion too early, before the completion of the public debate and inter-ministerial consultations on the draft law on special pensions for magistrates, and therefore, the normative act was considered unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, according to the reasoning of decision 479/2025, published last Friday on the Constitutional Court's website.

The published reasoning clearly shows that the constitutional judges did not analyze the substance of the law and did not evaluate whether the proposed amendments were correct or equitable, but focused on a procedural issue: the way in which the opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy was requested and managed. In other words, the law was not rejected for what it provides, but for how it was adopted.

The High Court had argued that the Government had no real reasons to incur liability, but the Constitutional Court rejected this argument and emphasized that Romania risked losing almost 900 million euros from the PNRR, and the budgetary situation was critical. In addition, an emergency ordinance could not be adopted because the right to a pension is a fundamental right, so the Government needed a quick but constitutionally permissible procedure. At the same time, the CCR rejected the idea that the modification of service pensions would have violated the principles of legal certainty or the independence of the judiciary, showing that "legislative fluctuations are inherent” and that the adjustment for reasons of social equity "is not likely to undermine legitimate trust”.

What changed the direction of the decision, however, was the issue of the SCM opinion. The majority of the judges in the CCR considered that the opinion was requested prematurely and that the Government did not wait the entire legal period of 30 days in which the institution could express itself. Therefore, the decision of unconstitutionality was given exclusively on this procedural issue, not on the content of the law.

However, four judges of the Court formulated an extremely strong separate opinion, which radically changes the perspective. They argue that the Government acted correctly and that the institution responsible for the blockage was the Superior Council of Magistracy. In their opinion, the SCM not only failed to issue the opinion, but also used the legal time as an instrument of pressure and delay.

They state directly: "The Government fulfilled its legal obligation to request the opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy, and the Superior Council of Magistracy did not fulfill its legal obligation to provide an opinion”.

Furthermore, the separate opinion accuses the SCM of institutional lack of loyalty: "This absence of the opinion is part of the coordinates of the failure to comply with the legal attribution of the SCM, which reflects a lack of loyal collaboration in the lawmaking process”.

Another passage, even more directly, states that the opinion was used as an instrument of political blockage: "The 30-day deadline cannot be used for dilatory purposes, because it would grant the advising authorities an implicit decision-making power, not provided for by the Constitution”.

The four judges go further and argue that the majority decision represents an unjustified and dangerous change in the Court's jurisprudence: "The majority decision achieved a genuine jurisprudential reversal without the conditions enshrined in the Court's jurisprudence having been met."

Thus, the battle does not only concern the pension law, but the relationship of authority and responsibility between institutions. In this case, the question is no longer just whether special pensions should be reformed, but who has the real power to stop or allow this reform. Between a Government that wants to legislate, a SCM that can postpone, and a divided CCR, Romania remains at the same critical point: privileges are in an institutional protection zone that is difficult to penetrate, and real change is still postponed.