The CCR decision on the magistrates' pension law, expected on Wednesday, after four postponements. The reasons that can block the verdict again

The pronouncement of a solution in the case of the magistrates' pension law, expected on Wednesday at the Constitutional Court, remains uncertain, after four successive postponements. The situation is complicated both by the possible absence of judge Gheorghe Stan, who is on paternity leave, and by the recent request of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) that the CCR refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In parallel, the Bucharest Court of Appeal is to rule on the suspension requests regarding the appointment of judges Dacian Dragoș and Mihai Busuioc.

The CCR decision on the magistrates' pension law, expected on Wednesday PHOTO: Inquam photos/ Octav Ganea

According to some judicial sources, quoted by News.ro, judge Gheorghe Stan would have requested paternity leave from Monday, which makes his presence at Wednesday's session of the Constitutional Court unlikely. However, the sources do not exclude the possibility that the magistrate cancels his leave to be able to participate in the deliberations, given that, theoretically, the presence of all nine judges who participated in the beginning of the debates is necessary.

Even in its absence, the same sources claim, the deliberations could be resumed if the minimum quorum of six judges is met. At the previous meeting, on January 16, the CCR decided to interrupt the deliberations for “a better study of the issues that form the subject of the case” and the accounting expertise submitted by the ICCJ, the author of the notification.

ICCJ request: referral to the CJEU and allegations of discrimination

Another element that weighs on the CCR decision is the request of the High Court to refer the Court of Justice of the European Union. The ICCJ argues that the magistrates' service pension law would deal with “discriminating” judges in relation to other beneficiaries of service pensions and ar “reduces the financial security of judges below the appropriate level”.

In the arguments sent to the CCR, the High Court shows that the normative act would perpetuate a state of “legislative instability” and would institute “an unequal transitional regime, difficult to justify objectively”. Also, according to the ICCJ, the law would violate European Union law, as it would not respect the principles of proportionality, equality, legal security and the protection of legitimate expectations.

A disputed law, after four postponements

The Constitutional Court is to rule on Wednesday, February 11, on the constitutionality of the Law on the service pensions of magistrates, promoted by the Bolojan Government, which provides for the reduction of pensions and the increase of the retirement age. The normative act was challenged at the CCR by the ICCJ.

On January 16, the constitutional judges decided, for the fourth time, to postpone the ruling, setting the deadline of February 11. Then, all nine judges of the CCR were present at the meeting, including Dacian Dragoș and Mihai Busuioc, whose appointments are contested in court.

Decisions also expected at the Bucharest Court of Appeal

Also on Wednesday, the Bucharest Court of Appeal is expected to rule on the requests to suspend the documents appointing judges Dacian Dragoș and Mihai Busuioc to the CCR, submitted by lawyer Silvia Uscov. The meeting is scheduled at 9:00 a.m., one hour before that of the Constitutional Court.

The day before, on February 10, CAB rejected as unfounded another request to suspend the decree signed by Nicușor Dan regarding the appointment of Dacian Dragoș. Regarding the request to cancel the document, the court is to set a later deadline.

In the same file, the Court of Appeal admitted the referral request of the CCR made by the lawyers of the Presidency, requesting the clarification of the phrase “legal activity or in higher legal education”regarding the seniority conditions for constitutional judges. Other exceptions raised in the lawsuit were dismissed.

Tense context and warnings related to European funds

The tensions surrounding this file are not new. At the deadline of December 29, 2025, the quorum could not be met, although Simina Tănăsescu had canceled her leave to be present. Four judges – Cristian Deliorga, Gheorghe Stan, Bogdan Licu and Mihai Busuioc were absent, after, the previous day, they had left the session during a break. Later, they explained that they requested the postponement of the ruling to obtain a Government point of view and an impact study of the law.

On January 15, 2026, the ICCJ submitted to the CCR an expert opinion showing that the contested law “cancel service pension”as this would become lower than the pension calculated on the basis of contribution.

Last week, Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan sent a letter to the president of the CCR, in which he informed that the members of the European Commission consider Milestone 215 unfulfilled, which could lead to the loss of 231 million euros for Romania. “However, the Commission will not send a formal letter of information on the results of the evaluation before 11 February 2026“, stated the prime minister.

The president of the ICCJ, Lia Savonea, reacted by stating that “the explicit warning regarding the loss of European funds in the event of an unconstitutional solution (…) represents an interference incompatible with the principle of separation of powers in the state”.

Later, Ilie Bolojan rejected the idea of ​​pressure on CCR judges, claiming that he did not ask them to “to give one sentence or another”, but considered “common sense to know these things,” whereas, when “the money or any other kind of money will be lost”, “those responsible will be sought”.