Constitutional Court gives green light to new fiscal measures

The Constitutional Court of Romania unanimously rejected, yesterday, the objection of unconstitutionality formulated by several opposition deputies and confirmed the validity of the law on some fiscal-budgetary measures assumed by the Bolojan government in the plenary session of Parliament.

The Court considered that the Executive complied with the provisions of Article 114 of the Constitution, regulating a homogeneous field and convincingly justifying the urgency and necessity of legislative intervention. Regarding the substance of the objections, the constitutional judges emphasized, according to the press release issued by the CCR, that the state has the right to establish social health insurance contributions on any type of income, including those derived from pensions or allowances. This principle derives directly from the state's role in ensuring the sustainability of the public health system, in which the rule is the payment of the contribution, and the exception - the exemption.

At the same time, the exclusion from the contribution of certain foreign citizens, such as Ukrainian refugees, is not discriminatory, being motivated by the temporary protection status and humanitarian reasons, the members of the CCR stated.

The Court reaffirmed the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by the legislator in the field of social and fiscal policies, including in establishing the level of contributions and allowances, in the manner of granting sick leave or outstanding salary rights. Establishing differentiated percentages for sick leave allowances or a five-year system of phasing out the payment of rights won in court are considered to be in accordance with the Constitution, to the extent that they reflect a legitimate concern for budgetary balance and the avoidance of fiscal slippage.

In addition, other controversial measures, such as limiting bonuses and allowances in the military, police and prison sectors, capping rent compensation or increasing the teaching norm without salary compensation, were considered reasonable measures, which do not affect fundamental rights.

In the Court's opinion, salary rights do not benefit from the same constitutional protection as the right to life, health or education, and in the context of increased budgetary pressure, the state is entitled to make adjustments.

Also, limiting voluntary transfers of civil servants, by imposing a prior agreement of the head of the institution, is a justified measure to avoid administrative imbalances and to protect the functionality of public institutions.

The Court's decision represents a clear signal that in a democratic state, the general interests of society can justify specific adjustments to certain rights or benefits, as long as they fall within the limits of the Constitution and do not affect the essence of fundamental rights.

The CCR verdict comes at a critical moment for public finances and represents essential support for the Government, providing it with a framework of solid legal legitimacy in implementing the fiscal reforms necessary to avoid macroeconomic imbalances. In essence, the Court's decision not only validates the constitutionality of a contested law, but also sets the direction for future fiscal policies: balance between rights and obligations, between the sustainability of the public system and the protection of vulnerable categories.