The freezing of magistrates’ salaries has brought into the open a direct clash between the justice system and executive institutions. The Union of Judges, the National Association of Judges and the Association of Prosecutors are demanding the immediate execution of payments, while casting doubt on the reasoning used to keep the implementation of decisions already in force on hold.
Three organizations oppose the blocking of payments
In their joint statement, the magistrates’ organizations say salaries cannot remain hostage to a new law that has not yet been approved. According to them, the responsible institutions are not allowed to use Parliament’s delays as a reason not to execute obligations arising from a Constitutional Court ruling.
Their position comes after the deadline set for legal intervention, July 31, 2026, passed without the changes requested by the Constitutional Court being put in place. This, they say, is precisely where the real institutional problem begins.
What magistrates claim about the Constitutional Court ruling
According to the statement, the Constitutional Court had provided not only the deadline for Parliament, but also the mechanism that would apply if lawmakers failed to act in time. On that basis, the High Judicial Council (KLGJ) and the High Prosecutorial Council (KLP) adopted decisions on the calculation of salaries after the deadline expired.
The organizations stress that these two institutions did not create salary policy, but merely gave concrete effect to the consequences of a constitutional ruling. As long as those acts have not been overturned in court, they argue, they remain in force and must be implemented.
Questions for the Ministry of Finance and contradiction with the Ministry of Justice
The strongest part of the reaction concerns the position of the Ministry of Finance. According to the version presented by the organizations, the finance minister asked KLGJ and KLP to send payment orders to the Treasury using the previous salary formula.
But here they raise a direct objection: the Ministry of Justice has publicly acknowledged that the old formula has been repealed. If it is no longer in force, the question posed by the magistrates is on what legal basis a return is being requested to a scheme that the government itself considers outdated.
Pressure on Parliament and demand for immediate implementation
The statement says Parliament’s inaction cannot be turned into a de facto veto on the effects of a Constitutional Court ruling. Under this interpretation, asking for further delay after July 31 would mean giving politics the opportunity, through passivity, to postpone the implementation of a constitutional decision.
For that reason, the three organizations are demanding the immediate execution of salaries, clarification from the Ministry of Finance on the legal basis it is using, respect for Constitutional Court decision no. 15/2026, and implementation of the decisions of KLGJ and KLP. They also demand that any future legal intervention must not produce a result less favorable for magistrates than the standard already set by the Constitutional Court.
The clash is not merely technical, nor only financial. At its core, it concerns the relationship between the branches of power and the limits of institutions when faced with a final decision of the Constitutional Court.
If the magistrates’ claims hold, the salary freeze raises significant questions about how the government and the financial administration are handling the implementation of constitutional decisions.