Dominic Fritz, after the Constitutional Court rejected the law on the pensions of magistrates: the Government will not give up on “abolishing these privileges”
Dominic Fritz. Inquam Photos / Octav Ganea
The president of the USR, a party that is part of the governing coalition, had a first reaction to the CCR's decision to declare the magistrates' pension law unconstitutional: “The majority of Romanians demand that this injustice be eliminated, and we, the parties, have the duty to find a solution.”
“The Constitutional Court today rejected the law on cutting the special pensions of magistrates. We will have to read the reasoning carefully.
If the law is rejected on a procedural issue, we redo it. If the law is rejected on its merits, that is, if it is not constitutional to abolish special pensions, then the USR will propose a referendum to amend the Constitution”, the USR leader wrote on Facebook.
He also said that the Bolojan Government will not give up on “abolishing these privileges” and that “special pensions are the test of courage and endurance of the Government”.
“The majority of Romanians demand that this injustice be eliminated, and we, the parties, have the duty to find a solution”, Fritz also wrote in the message on the social network.
The CCR rejected as unconstitutional the law on magistrates' pensions
The nine judges of the CCR accepted, on Monday, the notification of unconstitutionality of the High Court of Cassation and Justice on the law that modifies the pension system for judges and prosecutors and for which the Bolojan Government assumed responsibility in Parliament on September 1.
The supreme court charged, among other things, that “once again, the importance of service pension in the economy of the principle of judicial independence has been ignored”.
The reasons invoked by the CCR concern the lack of approval of the Superior Council of the Magistracy (SCM), which could mean extrinsic reasons, i.e. of form, but not of content (intrinsic reasons), according to HotNews sources.
Prior to the CCR decision, former CCR judge Tudorel Toader explained what unconstitutionality would mean on grounds of form:
“If the admission of the referral is due to extrinsic procedural reasons, such as, for example, problems with the CSM's opinion, then the Parliament can resume the law and adopt it, respecting the procedure. If there will be intrinsic substantive unconstitutionality, then the legislative solutions declared unconstitutional cannot be resumed, because there is a principle of constitutional rank”.
BREAKING The Law of the Bologna Government amending the magistrates' pensions, rejected by the Constitutional Court for procedural reasons. What does this mean?
