The Constitutional Court Didn't Rule on Whether the Flat-Rate Pension Increase Is Constitutional: the Provision "Expired" in the Meantime

At its session on October 21, the Constitutional Court dismissed the initiative on the flat-rate increase of pensions. But not because it found it constitutional. And not because it found it unconstitutional. Rather, because the provision had - in the meantime - ceased to be in force.

At issue is Article 2 of the amendments to the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, which governed the adjustment of pensions on September 1, 2025 and March 1, 2026. All pensioners got an increase of the same amount of money, regardless of how big their pension is. The Court found that the provision had a "temporary character," and that once it expired its application ended, so there is a "procedural obstacle" to ruling on the merits.

Those who filed the initiative argued that this is exactly what discrimination is. The initiative in case U.no.96/2025 states that "without objective and reasonable justification, one category of pensioners with low pensions is favoured at the expense of another," while pensioners with higher pensions, based on longer service and bigger contributions, get a smaller increase in percentage terms. Their point: equal treatment of unequal situations.

This isn't the first time the Court has said nothing on the substance. In March 2026, the proposal to strike down Article 2 didn't get enough judges' votes and the proceedings were halted. Now - procedural reasons. The outcome doesn't change: the question of whether the state may level pensions at the expense of those who paid in more remains unanswered, and the law did its job in full.

What does this mean for pensioners? Nothing new in their wallets. The decision doesn't introduce a new increase and doesn't change pensions already paid out. But it leaves a bitter lesson for any future temporary provision: if the decision comes after the provision has stopped being in force, the question of constitutionality simply "expires." So who protects the rights of those who were harmed while the law was in force?