EXCLUSIVE What happens if the CCR refers to the CJEU, as requested by Lia Savonea. The cases of Poland and Hungary

The former president of the CCR, Augustin Zegrean, said on Wednesday that if the CCR refers the pension reform for magistrates to the CJEU, "the reform will be delayed by about two years," based on the general experience of the duration of some procedures at the European Court, citing Poland and Hungary as examples. On the other hand, the precedents in Hungary and Poland took much less time.

If the CCR decides to refer the CJEU, the pension reform for magistrates enters a "tunnel" of two years, as Zegrean says, only if the constitutional judges choose a slow pace, because the precedents in Hungary and Poland show that Luxembourg can decide in 5-9 months.

What would it concretely mean for the CCR to refer the CJEU?

If the CCR accepts the request from the ICCJ and sends preliminary questions, the substantive solution in the internal case is suspended until the CJEU's response, and the former CCR president, Augustin Zegrean, estimates on Digi24 that "the delay will last about two years."

In the practice of the Constitutional Court, a preliminary referral means that the analysis of constitutionality stops at issues related to EU law, and the final decision will later integrate the CJEU's response; this shifts the focus of the debate from Bucharest to Luxembourg, at least for a while.

The law regarding the pensions of magistrates has already been delayed for the fifth time by the CCR, which explicitly invoked the need to analyze the ICCJ's request to refer to the CJEU, following the intervention of President Lia Savonea.

In this interval, a possible referral to the CJEU would strengthen the argument for suspending the effects until the compatibility with EU law is clarified.

Politically, the government pressures the Court, through the Prime Minister's letter, to take into account the impact on the PNRR milestone, while Zegrean warns that transforming the preliminary mechanism into a tool for strategic delay risks discrediting both the CCR and the CJEU.

How long did it take to resolve the cases of Poland and Hungary, which Zegrean talks about?

Unlike Poland and Hungary, where the stakes were the abrupt reduction of the retirement age to remove a large number of judges from the system in a short time, the Romanian project goes in the direction of increasing the age and capping the pension.

In both cases, it was not the states (their supreme courts) that "referred" the CJEU, but the European Commission initiated infringement procedures against Hungary and Poland, in the context of political reforms through which their governments abruptly lowered the retirement age for magistrates.

In an interview for Digi24, Augustin Zegrean argues that if the CCR sends preliminary questions, "the reform will be delayed by about two years." However, data from the cases of Hungary and Poland show a different picture: in the Hungarian infringement, the accelerated procedure was completed in five months, and in the Polish case, in eight to nine months, with a quick blockage through provisional measures.

The figure of "two years" is a maximal scenario, especially if no acceleration is requested or if the CJEU does not grant it; precedents regarding the retirement age of judges show that when the independence of justice is at stake, Luxembourg tends to significantly expedite the schedule.

In case C 286/12 Commission v. Hungary, the Commission referred the CJEU on June 7, 2012, regarding the reduction of the retirement age for judges from 70 to 62 years. The Court admitted the accelerated procedure, which "reduced the duration of the procedure to five months," the decision being pronounced on November 6, 2012. Internally, the law was already producing effects in 2012 (judges sent to retirement) and there was no total blockage of the legislative process or the reorganization of the courts; instead, the CJEU's decision later forced the revision of the framework and the granting of reparations, and the Hungarian Constitutional Court had partially repealed the criticized texts in July 2012, before the verdict from Luxembourg.

In case C 619/18 Commission v. Poland, the Commission initiated the infringement action in the fall of 2018 against the law that reduced the retirement age of the Supreme Court judges.

On October 19, 2018, the vice-president of the CJEU ordered provisional measures requiring Poland to immediately suspend the application of the new retirement age and not to appoint new judges to replace those forced to retire.

On November 15, 2018, the case was accepted in an accelerated procedure, and the substantive decision was given by the Grand Chamber on June 24, 2019, so approximately nine months between the initiation of the action and the final decision.

Hungary – the Commission's complaint against the abrupt reduction of the retirement age to 62 years

In Hungary, the Parliament amended in 2011 the law regarding the status of judges, prosecutors, and notaries, abruptly reducing the retirement age from 70 to 62 years and obliging all magistrates reaching the new age to retire in 2012 (within 6-12 months). The reform was part of a broader package through which the Fidesz government sought to "rejuvenate" the judiciary and free up key positions, but the concrete effect was the removal from the system of a large number of experienced judges in a very short time. The European Commission considered that this scheme violates Directive 2000/78, namely the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age, and initiated an infringement procedure: a letter of formal notice on January 17, 2012, followed by the referral to the CJEU in case C-286/12 Commission v. Hungary. In its application, the Commission requested the Court to find that Hungary violated Articles 2 and 6 of the Directive by imposing mandatory retirement at 62 years without transition, which created an unreasonable difference in treatment between the targeted magistrates and younger ones. In press release 139/12, the CJEU clearly summarizes the context: Hungary "radically lowered the retirement age" for these professions, and the Commission contests the justified and proportional nature of the measure; the Court agrees and declares that Hungary "has failed to fulfill its obligations" under Directive 2000/78.

Poland – the Commission attacks the PiS reform of the Supreme Court

In Poland, after 2015, the PiS government promoted a comprehensive reform of the judicial system; a central element was the law on the Supreme Court, which lowered the retirement age of judges from 70 to 65 years and applied the new limit to judges already in office. Additionally, the law gave the president of the republic a broad discretionary role to decide who can remain in office beyond the new age, without clear criteria and without effective judicial control, which opened the way for selective replacements. In this context, the European Commission considered that Poland violates Article 19 TFEU (the obligation to ensure independent courts that apply EU law) and, additionally, norms regarding equal treatment (for example, age differences between women and men). On October 2, 2018, the Commission introduced the infringement action C-619/18 Commission v. Poland at the CJEU, asking the Court to find that the reduction of the retirement age and the discretionary power of the president undermine the independence of the judges of the Supreme Court. The order of October 19, 2018 (case C-619/18 R) explicitly reiterates the Commission's complaint: by "lowering the retirement age" and applying it retroactively to judges in office, plus granting a wide margin to the president regarding the extension of the mandate, Poland would have violated the obligations arising from Article 19 TFEU. The final decision of June 24, 2019 confirms this diagnosis: the Court finds that Poland has violated EU law through the reform of the Supreme Court, thus setting an important precedent for the link between retirement age and judicial independence.

What impact could a CJEU ruling have on the Romanian reform?

If the CJEU is referred, it will analyze not only the arithmetic of pensions but also the combined impact of increasing the retirement age, modifying the calculation formula, and the comparative treatment with other service pensions on the independence of magistrates and legitimate expectations. For Romania, the stakes are double: internally, a possible finding by the CJEU that the reform, in its current form, affects independence may force the modification of the law or adjustment of its application. At the European level, compatibility with the jurisprudence of C 286/12 and C 619/18 will weigh heavily in the evaluation of the PNRR milestone. If, on the contrary, the CJEU validates the reform as proportional and non-discriminatory, the CCR will have a strong anchor to reject the criticisms of the magistrates, and the executive power will be able to invoke this decision both internally and in dialogue with the Commission.

Lia Savonea repeatedly blocks the law on magistrates' pensions

On December 4-5, 2025, the United Sections of the ICCJ, convened by President Lia Savonea, unanimously decided (102 judges) to refer to the Constitutional Court regarding the new project of the Bolojan Government concerning the reform of magistrates' pensions. The ICCJ argues that the act creates a disadvantageous and discriminatory legal regime for magistrates compared to other beneficiaries of service pensions and that, in reality, it effectively eliminates the service pension.

The current draft of the reform of magistrates' pensions is still under analysis by the CCR, in the form of the unconstitutionality objection filed by the ICCJ; the Court has postponed the ruling five times: on December 10, 28, and 29, 2025, on February 11, 2026, and most recently, on February 11, 2026. Some postponements were motivated either by the lack of quorum (four judges left the meeting in December) or by the need to study additional documents, including the accounting expertise submitted by the ICCJ and Lia Savonea's new request to refer to the CJEU.

The ruling on the ICCJ's objection has been rescheduled for February 18, 2026.

In its contested form, the project provides for the modification of the calculation method of the service pension (55% of the average gross allowances over the last five years, maximum cap of 70% of the last net allowance) and the increase of the retirement age, elements that the ICCJ considers a "confiscation" of the rights of magistrates.

Summary prepared with the help of a data monitoring flow provided by the NewsVibe Romania media monitoring platform. The analysis was enhanced with the help of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence tools.