Romania's supreme court, headed by Lia Savonea, asked the Constitutional Court of Romania on Tuesday to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the government's draft legislation amending special pensions for magistrates.

The request comes as the Constitutional Court is scheduled to hold a new hearing on Wednesday to debate the proposed changes to special pensions.

'Today, 10 February 2026, the High Court of Cassation and Justice submitted to the Constitutional Court of Romania a request to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, through a preliminary ruling procedure based on Article 267 TFEU. The request seeks verification of the compatibility of the national measures under review with the requirements established by European Union law and the case-law of the Court of Justice. Within this approach, the view is expressed that the provisions under analysis may fail to comply with the principles of proportionality, equality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations - fundamental principles of the EU legal order that are relevant to assessing the lawfulness of any reform affecting the status and guarantees of judicial independence. This obligation derives from Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with the rule-of-law values enshrined in Article 2 TEU,' the High Court said in a press release.

In essence, the supreme court considers that the measures contained in the government's draft 'may lead to discriminatory treatment of magistrates in comparison with other categories of beneficiaries of service pensions'.

'In this context, taking into account the analysis of the five objections raised, we maintain that the measures examined raise issues from the perspective of EU law, as they: (1) may result in discriminatory treatment of magistrates compared with other categories of service pension beneficiaries; (2) are not accompanied by a rigorous and transparent justification that would allow for a proportionality test, given the lack of necessary data; (3) may reduce judges' financial security below an adequate level; (4) perpetuate a state of legislative instability; and (5) establish an unequal transitional regime that is difficult to justify objectively. This approach reflects a constant concern for protecting the independence of the judiciary as a fundamental principle of the rule of law, by making use of all legitimate legal avenues provided for under the national constitutional framework and EU law. At the same time, the use of the mechanism for referring questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union is an essential tool for ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of European law and for strengthening cooperation between national courts and the EU judiciary,' the High Court explained.

At the beginning of December 2025, judges at the supreme court unanimously decided to refer the new government draft on magistrates' pensions to the Constitutional Court.

At the time, the court said that 'the draft effectively abolishes service pensions, creating for magistrates who do not meet the retirement conditions at the time the law enters into force a reduction amounting to the elimination of the service-pension character, while for future generations it would become even lower than pensions under the public system. The law infringes judicial independence in light of the standards established by the decisions of the CJEU, the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court. All these courts have issued explicit and clear rulings that render the legislative solution incompatible with guarantees of judicial independence. The law also violates previous Constitutional Court decisions that expressly sanctioned identical normative solutions to those included in the current draft, thereby breaching the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution and the binding nature of Constitutional Court rulings.'

The new draft law amending magistrates' pensions adopted by the government provides for a gradual increase in the retirement age to 65, while the pension amount may not exceed 70% of the net remuneration received in the final month of activity. AGERPRES (RO - writing by: Eusebi Manolache; EN - writing by: Simona Iacob)