The judges of the Supreme Court unanimously decided on Friday to refer to the Constitutional Court the new bill of the Bolojan Government on the reform of the pensions of magistrates.

The magistrates were called by Supreme Court president Lia Savonea to express their position, within the Joint Sections, regarding the legislative draft on the special pensions of judges and prosecutors. All 102 judges present at the meeting voted in favor of referring the matter to the Constitutional Court.

Court spokesman Victor Alistar said the law was based 'on a counterfactual reality' and lacked data on its economic impact. He explained that, in the view of the United Sections, the bill is incompatible with constitutional rules, as its urgency was not demonstrated and the reference to milestone 215 of the NRRP was taken out of context. According to European Commission documents, that milestone concerned overtaxation proposals, not retirement modalities, which had already been assessed as fulfilled, Alistar argued.

Among the intrinsic reasons for unconstitutionality, Victor Alistar listed the law's ambiguity and unpredictability.

'The law violates the constitutional obligations of clarity of regulation to ensure predictability and predictability enshrined in Article 1, paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Romanian Constitution. Specifically, the law uses legal terms that do not exist in the normative fund and are not defined in the content of the present normative proposal, creating ambiguity and unpredictability,' Alistar noted.

In addition, the Supreme Court considers that the project discriminates against magistrates in relation to other categories that benefit from special pensions.

Victor Alistar argued that the new law undermines the principle of legal certainty by abruptly changing magistrates' status without transition. He said that 66% of judges face sudden increases in retirement age, while the law also discriminates against magistrates compared to other service pension categories. Unlike others, magistrates' pensions are capped at 70% of net income, far below the 80% or more applied elsewhere, despite their constitutional status and relatively small budgetary impact.

In a press release, the Supreme Court listed several reasons why the law is unconstitutional: it discriminates against magistrates, violates judicial independence, effectively eliminates service pensions, contradicts CJEU, ECHR and CCR jurisprudence, ignores binding CCR decisions, and uses ambiguous terms that fail the standard of clarity required in a rule-of-law state.

The Court warned that the law de facto cancels service pensions, leaving future magistrates worse off than under the public pension system. It also criticized the explanatory memorandum for lacking financial substantiation, pointing out that magistrates represent only a small share of the 200,000 beneficiaries of service pension, with defense and public order accounting for 90% and a budget of over 14 billion RON in 2024, compared to 2.2 billion RON for all other categories.

Last week, the Government approved the draft piece of legislation raising the retirement age of magistrates to 65 and capping pensions at 70% of net salary. The Superior Council of Magistracy issued a negative opinion, while judges and prosecutors requested pensions closer to their last salary. Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan insisted on the 70% cap. The first draft of the reform was already declared unconstitutional by the CCR on October 20, following a complaint from the High Court of Cassation and Justice. AGERPRES (RO - writing by: Eusebi Manolache; EN - writing by: Simona Klodnischi)