High Court Against the Draft Law on Magistrates’ Salaries: Parliament Should Not Vote on It

The High Court has reacted sharply to the way the Committee on Legal Affairs conducted the parliamentary procedure for the draft law affecting the salaries, status, and constitutional guarantees of magistrates.

In a statement, the Court describes the process as a disregard of institutional consultation and calls for the draft law not to be put to a vote at the September 17 plenary session.

The High Court says judiciary representatives were notified less than two hours in advance to appear before the Committee on Legal Affairs, but despite the short notice they took part in the consultation.

According to the High Court, the judiciary’s representatives were not provided with all the amendments that changed the draft law, and full information on the Government’s financial opinion was also missing.

The Court argues that institutional consultation cannot be merely formal and that the positions presented must be genuinely examined before a draft law is sent for a vote.

At the heart of the objections are issues related to the magistrates’ reference salary, the 0.38 coefficient of the President of the Republic’s salary, back pay, the salary hierarchy within the judiciary, and the implementation of Constitutional Court decision no. 15/2026.

The High Court stresses that Constitutional Court decisions are not respected merely by citing their numbers, but by implementing the content and constitutional reasoning they set out.

In the statement, the Court also raises concerns about the new changes made to the draft law, arguing that they place the judiciary in a more unfavorable position. According to the Court, the lack of transparency and genuine consultation raises questions that the Committee must clarify.

The High Court asks Parliament not to pass the draft law in its current form and calls for several steps to be taken before any further procedure.

Parliament must clarify the regularity, timing, and manner of the deposit and review of the amendments, as well as why they were not made known to the judiciary during the consultation.

The Court also calls for the publication of the Council of Ministers’ opinion on the financial effects of the draft law, verification of parliamentary procedures and deadlines, and a real opportunity for the judiciary to express its views on the latest version of the draft law.

Finally, the Court asks that the draft law be reassessed in its entirety in relation to Constitutional Court decision no. 15/2026 and the positions presented by the judiciary.

“The judiciary has spoken. The Constitutional Court has decided. Now the responsibility lies with Parliament,” the High Court’s statement says.

The Court emphasizes that it does not seek superiority over Parliament, nor submission to it, underlining that the separation of powers defines competences, limits, and constitutional control.