Romania's specific pension overhaul could potentially be invalidated by the Constitutional Court
Romania's government bill to reform magistrates' special pensions is facing a significant risk of being struck down by the Constitutional Court due to procedural issues. This risk arises because there is already a separate bill on the same subject under parliamentary debate.
The proposed bill aims to raise the retirement age for magistrates to 65 years and limit the pension amount to a maximum of 70% of their last net salary. These reforms have sparked fierce protests from magistrates and professional associations, who have warned of constitutional challenges and destabilization of the judiciary.
To avoid being struck down, the coalition would need to reject the existing bill in a Senate plenary before proceeding with the new government bill. Senate president Mircea Abrudean and PNL senator leader Daniel Fenechiu stressed that rejecting the older project is a prerequisite for the government’s assumption of responsibility to pass the new reform.
The coalition's decision to assume responsibility, if made, could lead to a new bill being introduced or a different approach being taken to the special pension reform bill. If the coalition decides to assume responsibility, they would need to organize an extraordinary session of the Senate to reject the old project initiated by the former coalition leaders.
The coalition's decision is crucial in the process of proceeding with the special pension reform bill. Prime minister Ilie Bolojan's cabinet has proposed assuming responsibility before Parliament to pass the measure. However, the risk of the Constitutional Court's decision arises because a separate bill on the same subject is already under debate in Parliament.
Interim Social Democratic Party (PSD) leader Sorin Grindeanu has demanded the immediate adoption of the special pension reform. However, PSD has not attended governing coalition meetings for the past two weeks, delaying the second package of reforms. The "privilege elimination" package includes reducing state agencies, cutting the size and allowances of boards of directors, and abolishing other benefits.
The Constitutional Court's 2010 ruling found that assuming responsibility to pass a bill with similar provisions while another bill with the same subject is already in the legislative process is unconstitutional. Therefore, unless the procedural issue of two simultaneous bills is resolved—specifically, by rejecting the currently debated older bill—the Constitutional Court is likely to strike down the new magistrates’ pension reform bill again on procedural grounds.
- The coalition's decision to either reject the currently debated older bill or introduce a new one in the Senate is vital to the constitutionality of the new magistrates’ pension reform bill, as the Constitutional Court's 2010 ruling states that assuming responsibility to pass a bill with similar provisions while another bill with the same subject is already in the legislative process is unconstitutional.
- In the realm of policy-and-legislation, the ongoing debates about magistrates' special pensions and the reforms proposed are significant political matters (politics) that are also a part of the general-news landscape, given the protests, Constitutional Court risks, and coalition maneuvers surrounding the bills.
