BREAKING The Law of the Bologna Government amending the magistrates' pensions, rejected by the Constitutional Court

The nine judges of the CCR admitted, 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 objection of unconstitutionality of the Law for the amendment and completion of some normative acts in the field of service pensions was admitted, the CCR announced.
• The appeal was admitted in its entirety, sources from the Constitutional Court told HotNews.
• The vote in the CCR was 5/4 for admitting the appeal to the supreme court, the same sources said.

The law declared unconstitutional by the CCR stipulates that the magistrates' pension cannot be higher than 70% of the last net salary received, compared to 80% of the last gross salary received, as it is now.

The normative act also provided for the establishment of the retirement age for magistrates at the standard age of the public pension system, namely 65 years. Now, magistrates can retire if they have 25 years of experience, and in the Bolojan law the provision was that in order to retire, magistrates must have 35 years of experience.

How the law of the Bolojan Government, declared unconstitutional by the CCR, looks like:

Who are the judges who ruled that the magistrates' pension law is unconstitutional

The decision of unconstitutionality was taken by the Constitutional Court after two postponements, on September 24 and October 8.

The Constitutional Court consists of 9 judges. Of these, four were proposed by PSD, two by former president Klaus Iohannis, one by PNL, one by UDMR and one by president Nicușor Dan.

Currently, the composition of the CCR is: Simina Tănăsescu (president), Cristian Deliorga, Gheorghe Stan, Mihaela Ciochină, Laura-Iuliana Scântei, Bogdan Licu, Marian Busuioc, Csaba Astzalos and Dacian Cosmin Dragoș.

It is the first major decision issued by the CCR in its current form, with Simina Tănăsescu as president and three new judges: Mihai Busuioc, Dacian Cosmin Dragoș and Csaba Asztalos.

What did Bolojan say when asked about the resignation in case of rejection of the law by the CCR

The project to amend the magistrates' pension system was initiated by the Bolojan Government, which assumed responsibility in Parliament for this law on September 1.

“We must restore justice, we must maintain respect for magistrates, but we must ensure a dose of equity. Romanian magistrates retire today at 48-49 years old, an average pension exceeds 24,000 lei, but many pensions even reach 35,000-40,000 lei, especially for magistrates who have also held leadership positions”, declared Bolojan in the plenary meeting of Parliament.

A day after pledging the Government's responsibility for the package of measures, Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan was asked by HotNews in a press conference if he would resign if the draft law on magistrates' pensions failed at the CCR.

“When you have an important project that is a milestone for making other similar decisions, if it doesn't pass, it's hard to assume that the Government still has the legitimacy to come up with similar measures in other areas,” answered Bolojan.

What did the ICCJ claim in the referral to the Constitutional Court

The High Court of Cassation and Justice – led by Lia Savonea – complained, in the referral to the CCR, that the law violates 37 mandatory decisions of the Constitutional Court and “numerous fundamental principles of the rule of law”.

The High Court said that through the decision to refer the CCR “the judges of the supreme court send a clear NO to any attempt to weaken the independence of justice and the constitutional status of the judiciary”.

“The independence of the judiciary cannot be negotiated, nor relativized through conjunctural arguments. It is a fundamental condition of democracy and the rule of law. The law violates no less than 37 binding decisions of the Constitutional Court and numerous fundamental principles of the rule of law”, accused the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

In the opinion of the ICCJ, the main grounds of unconstitutionality refer to: the violation of the rule of law, the independence of justice, legal security, the legality and non-retroactivity of the law, legitimate trust, the creation of discriminations without rational and objective justification, the disregard of imperative legal obligations, such as the request for the mandatory opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy regarding the final form of the law, disregarding the substantial constitutional provisions regarding the conditions under which the government can assume responsibility, as well as numerous mandatory decisions of the Constitutional Court, as well as the rules of legislative technique.

“The High Court reaffirms, with a united voice, that the constitutional status of the judge, of the judiciary in general, is not a privilege, but an essential guarantee of the rule of law, of democracy, which cannot be disregarded”, the ICCJ also said.

In the 39-page referral, the High Court detailed the reasons why, in its opinion, the new law on service pensions for magistrates is unconstitutional:

The law was harshly criticized including by the Superior Council of the Magistracy, which complained several times “the climate of hostility created against the magistrates, by taking positions of the political factor and through media campaigns that sought to discredit the judicial system and blame it for the economic and social situation in which Romania is”. Moreover, all the courts and prosecutor's offices in the country have been protesting since August, dealing only with “urgent files”.