The stakes of the boycott of the CCR meeting where a decision had to be taken on the magistrates' pensions / When did the four judges supported by the PSD realize that they were in the minority

The four constitutional judges who boycotted Sunday and Monday's Court hearings regarding magistrates' pensions argued their decision by the fact that the Government should have publicly clarified that the new legislation “will repeal the service pensions of magistrates”. How does this translate?

CCR sources explained to HotNews that, in fact, the dissatisfaction is related to the percentage of 70% of the last net salary, which would be the pension of a magistrate after the entry into force of the new law.

Even today, the Constitutional Court could not take a decision regarding the reform of magistrates' pensions, after four of the constitutional judges, all appointed at the PSD proposal, boycotted the meeting. It is about Cristian Deliorga, Gheorghe Stan, Bogdan Licu and Mihai Busuioc.

Accused of intentionally blocking the adoption of a law that should have entered into force on January 1, the four constitutional judges published a joint press release in which they said that their absence “did not mean a blockage of the Court's activity, but a decision related to compliance with the rules of operation and the legal framework that governs the activity” of the CCR.

What do the four judges claim?

First of all, they are dissatisfied that the President of the Court, Simina Tănăsescu, gave too tight deadlines for judging the referral to the High Court of Justice and Cassation regarding the unconstitutionality of the Bolojan Government's law that reduces the retirement age of magistrates and changes the way pensions are calculated. Sources from the CCR say that on December 10, the four requested a longer term, of 30 days, to discuss the referral made to the High Court.

Then, the CCR judges also say that “the reason for the postponement concerned the request for a point of view through which the Government would publicly clarify that the law does not change aspects of the service pension, but effectively abrogates this right of magistrates, consolidated over time through a rich jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court”.

What does it mean that “a right of the magistrates is abrogated”

Sources from the Constitutional Court explained to HotNews that the judges claim that, according to the law initiated by the Bologna Government, the magistrate's pension will represent 70% of the last net salary, compared to 80% of the last gross salary, as is currently the case (this has led to the situation, unprecedented in Europe, for pensions to be higher than the salaries of magistrates).

“If we also take into account the fact that the retirement age will gradually increase, up to 65 years, which means that the contribution period of the magistrate will also increase, then the pension will be based more on contribution and not on service, as it is currently. The part of the pension paid by the state will decrease a lot”, say the sources consulted by HotNews.

However, they also specify that no Romanian law or European practice stipulates that service pensions must be paid by the state and are not based on contributions.

“The European norms say that the magistrate's pension must be as close as possible to the last salary obtained by him, but in accordance with the level of pensions in the respective country. Here, now there is a major discrepancy: if a German magistrate has a pension about three times higher than the average pension, in Romania the magistrate's pension is 7-8 times higher than the average pension”, HotNews sources also explained.

Moreover, the pension in the amount of 70% of the last net salary was also one of the High Court arguments invoked in the appeal submitted to the CCR against the law initiated by the Bolojan Government.

“There was an expectation, a hope, among the magistrates, that the new draft law initiated by the government will stipulate for the pension a percentage of 80% of the net salary. I think that if there was this percentage, the law would have passed, but this is just a personal opinion”, the sources said.

What will happen next?

The four constitutional judges who were absent from the hearing on Monday, December 29, will most likely ask for another postponement on January 16 to a later date, January 28, the sources said. The reason would be that the judges, who want the rejection of the law initiated by the Bolojan Government, no longer hold the majority in the CCR.

They realized that they no longer have the majority, so the appeal filed by the High Court would have been rejected on December 10, and for this reason they then asked for a postponement of a decision, the quoted sources said.

Law 47 / 1992 provides that if three judges request the postponement of a decision, it is postponed, but it does not specify how many times this can be done, HotNews sources also explained: “It can also reach Easter, with these postponements, who knows what will happen until then”.

We remind you that the first draft law on the reform of magistrates' pensions was rejected by a vote of 5 to 4. However, sources from the CCR say that after the new draft law also had the advisory opinion of the CSM, only four magistrates are still opposed to it, that is, those appointed by the PSD.

This topic will also be addressed in the Tuesday, December 30, edition of the “Ration, back” newsletter, created by journalist Gabriel Bejan. If you want to receive it by email, you must subscribe here: