The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) postponed again, until 18 February, a ruling on the referral submitted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) regarding Bolojan Government's new draft law on the reform of magistrates' pensions, officials told AGERPRES on Wednesday.

Sources within the court said the postponement was decided in order to examine a request from the High Court to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the proposed amendments to magistrates' special pensions. The High Court argues that the government's measures could lead to discriminatory treatment of magistrates compared with other categories benefiting from service pensions.

This is the fifth time the Constitutional Court has delayed a decision in the case. At a hearing on 16 January, all nine judges were present, but the ruling was deferred to allow further study of several documents, including an independent accounting report submitted by the High Court a day earlier. Two previous hearings were unable to proceed after four judges failed to attend, citing various reasons including being called to work on non-working days and short notice of the meetings.

The High Court, led by Lia Savonea, announced on 15 January that an expert report indicated that, under the government's proposals, magistrates' service pensions could fall below pensions calculated solely on the basis of contributions.

The draft law provides for a gradual increase in the retirement age to 65 and stipulates that pensions cannot exceed 70 per cent of the net salary received in the final month of service. The Superior Council of Magistracy issued a negative opinion on the proposal. Judges and prosecutors called for pensions to remain close to their final salary, while Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan insisted on the 70 per cent ceiling.

An earlier version of the reform was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on 20 October following a challenge by the High Court, which argued that the government had failed to seek the consultative opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy within the legally required timeframe.

In early December, the High Court's United Sections voted unanimously, with all 102 judges present, to challenge the new draft as well.

The High Court maintains that the bill effectively abolishes service pensions for magistrates who do not meet retirement conditions at the time of its entry into force and could result in future pensions falling below those in the public system. It also argues that the legislation undermines judicial independence and contradicts previous rulings of the Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.

The High Court further contends that the explanatory memorandum accompanying the draft lacks a clear financial justification. It notes that of more than 200,000 service pension beneficiaries, around 90 per cent belong to the defence and public order system, while just over 10,000 come from other professional categories, including magistrates. The court argues that the financial impact of magistrates' pensions is significantly lower than that of military pensions and accuses the government of singling out magistrates without sufficient grounds. AGERPRES (RO - writing by: Mihai Stoica; EN - writing by: Adina Panaitescu)