Romania’s justice system has been thrown into turmoil as the government, led by Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan, pushes forward with sweeping reforms to magistrates’ pensions—a move that has sparked nationwide protests, high-stakes negotiations, and a heated public debate about justice, fairness, and fiscal responsibility.
On August 27, 2025, magistrates across the country initiated a strike, suspending the resolution of cases except for emergencies. Their demand? The urgent withdrawal of the government’s proposed pension reform, which they argue threatens both their financial security and the independence of the judiciary. According to the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM), all 16 appellate courts in Romania convened general assemblies the day before, unanimously calling for the withdrawal of the controversial draft law and denouncing what they described as an “aggressive campaign against judicial authority.”
The government’s reform package, as outlined by Prime Minister Bolojan in an interview with Antena 3 and detailed in HotNews, targets three core issues: the possibility of very early retirement for magistrates, the high level of special pensions, and the lack of clarity in salary laws. Bolojan did not mince words about the current system’s flaws, stating, “No justice system in Europe allows magistrates to retire at 48, as ours does, after just 25 years of service. This project extends the retirement age to 65, which is fair compared to other professions.”
Currently, magistrates can retire as early as 48 years old, a situation Bolojan labeled “an injustice.” The reform proposes a gradual increase in the retirement age—by 1 year and 6 months annually—until it reaches 65 by 2036. For instance, those meeting the service requirement between October and December 2025 can still retire at 47 years and 8 months, but by 2036, the minimum retirement age will be 64, with at least 34 years of total work experience. The plan also sets a minimum of 35 years of overall work and 25 years in magistrate roles to qualify for a pension, aligning judicial retirement more closely with Romania’s public pension system.
But the changes don’t stop at age requirements. The government’s proposal caps magistrates’ pensions at 70% of their last net salary, a significant cut from the current formula, which allows pensions to equal the last salary received. “Until now, it was an anomaly—the magistrate’s pension was equal to their last salary, which doesn’t happen anywhere else, not even in comparable European legal systems,” Bolojan explained. The average magistrate pension, according to government figures, currently sits between 4,800 and 5,000 euros (over 25,000 lei) per month. Under the new rules, this would drop to about 3,500 euros—a figure that, while still generous compared to the Romanian average pension of 550–600 euros, represents a marked reduction.
Yet, the government’s tough stance was quickly tested. As reported by Știrile ProTV, sources revealed that the magistrates’ strike yielded results: the government agreed to raise the pension cap to 75% of the last net salary, up from the initially proposed 70%. This last-minute concession, reportedly secured during tense negotiations, highlights the leverage magistrates still hold and the government’s willingness to compromise to restore order in the courts.
The reform package also introduces stricter eligibility and calculation rules. Magistrates must now have at least 35 years of work to qualify for the special pension, and the pension amount will be calculated as 55% of the average gross salary and bonuses over the last 60 months of activity, with the net amount still capped. Early retirement remains possible after 35 years of service, but with a 2% annual penalty until the standard retirement age is reached. Additionally, the reform brings a new schedule for assimilated work periods counting toward pensions until 2029 and restricts the awarding of certain pension bonuses and updates to only those who’ve already retired or meet all conditions before the law takes effect.
For many magistrates, however, these measures go too far. In their public statements, they argue that the reforms not only undermine their financial stability but also threaten judicial independence by subjecting judges and prosecutors to political pressure. The CSM, echoing the concerns of the broader judiciary, warned that “the aggressive campaign against judicial authority gravely affects the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of citizens, which can only be effectively guaranteed by an independent judiciary.”
The Ministry of Justice, for its part, expressed surprise at the scale and intensity of the protests—an indication, perhaps, of the deep disconnect between policymakers and those on the judicial front lines. Yet the numbers behind the reform tell their own story. According to Bolojan and HotNews, over the past years, magistrates have filed more than 23,000 lawsuits related to salary increases, most of which they won. These legal battles have cost the Romanian state at least 2 billion euros in back pay, with another similar amount still owed. “It is abnormal to have unclear salary laws that allow such approaches,” Bolojan remarked, emphasizing the need for “simple, clear, and predictable” legislation to prevent further costly litigation.
Indeed, the government’s broader aim is to bring clarity, fairness, and long-term sustainability to a system long plagued by legal ambiguities, legislative loopholes, and ballooning costs. With over 215,000 special pensions in Romania—though only about 5,000 for magistrates—the issue of public sector pensions has become a flashpoint in debates about fiscal discipline and social equity. The government plans to introduce new salary laws this autumn to further address these challenges, hoping to avoid the “cascade of lawsuits” that have become all too common.
Still, the reforms have not been universally welcomed. While some see them as a necessary correction to longstanding injustices and fiscal excesses, others warn of unintended consequences, including a potential exodus of experienced judges and prosecutors and a chilling effect on judicial independence. The phased transition, which allows for early retirement at various ages over the next decade and a half, is designed to soften the blow, but the underlying tension between reform and resistance remains palpable.
As the government prepares to assume responsibility for the draft law in Parliament, the nation watches closely. Will these reforms restore confidence in the justice system and put public finances on a sounder footing? Or will they spark further unrest and deepen the rift between the judiciary and the executive? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: the debate over magistrates’ pensions has become a defining issue for Romania’s democracy, its rule of law, and its future prosperity.
