The Romanian Government is petitioning the Constitutional Court (CCR) to resolve a legal conflict with the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) over unpaid magistrate salaries. Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan argues that the ÎCCJ cannot dictate state budget allocations, while the High Court claims the government’s refusal to pay salary arrears violates property rights and the separation of powers.
Why is the Romanian Government fighting the High Court?
The conflict centers on a lawsuit filed by the ÎCCJ, led by Lia Savonea, to force the Executive to pay salary arrears for judges and prosecutors. These debts stem from 2023 decisions by the High Court and the General Prosecutor’s Office, which increased salaries by 25% retroactively starting from 2018.
According to the Government, paying these arrears in full would require increasing the budget deficit, cutting spending in other sectors, or raising taxes. Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan stated it is not normal for a court to increase its own salaries and then decide the sentences regarding those payments.
How did the budget shift happen?
The funds intended for the judiciary were redirected to other priorities. According to government documents, Ilie Bolojan moved the additional allocations toward a 1,1 miliarde de lei social aid package for pensioners and to cover arrears for city halls, measures requested by the PSD.
The Executive argues in its briefing note that the judiciary lacks the “technical competence” and “legitimacy” to determine how public money is distributed from the general consolidated budget. The government claims that by forcing a specific allocation for one sector, the court is directly interfering with executive activity and disrupting the national budgetary balance.
What are the High Court’s legal arguments?
The ÎCCJ maintains that the government is violating the principle of the separation of powers. In its legal action, the High Court asserted that the failure to pay these sums affects the property rights of judges, some of whom have held unenforced executive titles for over ten years.
The court’s position is that the Executive’s refusal to honor these payments undermines the legitimacy of the courts. This creates a direct clash: the judiciary views the payment as a mandatory legal obligation, while the Executive views the demand as an illegal intrusion into fiscal policy.
Budgetary Contrast: Judiciary vs. Social Aid
| Allocation Target | Amount/Context | Government Action |
|---|---|---|
| ÎCCJ Budget 2026 | ~5 miliarde de lei | Funds cut/postponed |
| Social Aid Package | 1,1 miliarde de lei | Funds prioritized |
What happens next in the legal battle?
The matter now rests with the Constitutional Court. Bolojan warned that if the High Court is allowed to dictate budget distribution, it could “create a precedent for all institutions.” The CCR must determine if the ÎCCJ exceeded its authority or if the Government is illegally ignoring final court rulings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core of the conflict?
The conflict is over the government’s refusal to pay salary increases (25% retroactive to 2018) that were ordered by the High Court for judges and prosecutors.
Why did the government cut the funds?
According to Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan, funds were redirected to pay pensioner benefits and city hall arrears to maintain budgetary balance.
Can a court decide how a budget is spent?
The Romanian Government argues no, claiming this violates the separation of powers. The High Court argues that ignoring executive titles for payments is a violation of property rights.
Join the conversation: Should the judiciary have the power to mandate budget allocations if those allocations are based on final court rulings? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for updates on this constitutional clash.
Related reading