Court of Accounts audits confidentiality bonuses in pension houses

The Court of Auditors has found that several territorial pension offices granted employees confidentiality allowances that were not provided for under legislation governing the remuneration of staff paid from public funds. For amounts deemed to have been paid without entitlement, the supervisory body has ordered recovery measures.

Allowances of up to 1,520 RON, paid on the basis of court rulings

According to the Court of Auditors' report on the National House of Public Pensions, as of July 2025 the allowance was being granted on the basis of four court rulings, at the territorial pension offices in Bacău, Giurgiu, Bistrița-Năsăud, and Botoșani.

• At the Giurgiu County Pension Office, 27 employees were receiving allowances ranging between 174 and 1,520 RON.
• In Bacău, one legal adviser was receiving an allowance of 1,028 RON.
• In Bistrița-Năsăud, a service manager and a legal adviser were each receiving 1,520 RON.
• In Botoșani, two legal advisers were each receiving an allowance of 1,519 RON.

The union: allowances were granted through court rulings

The National Federation Solidaritatea Socială a Muncii (FNSSM), which represents civil servants and contracted staff at territorial pension offices, states that the allowances in question were granted to 33 employees across all pension offices, on the basis of court rulings.

"This salary entitlement was granted through court rulings to 33 employees across all Pension Offices, and its payment did not represent an arbitrary or discretionary decision on the part of the civil servants or contracted staff at the pension offices," said Ionuț Paul Marinescu, president of FNSSM.

"Cannot be turned into personal culpability"

The union notes that public institutions are obliged to implement court rulings, and that any uncertainties regarding the period for which the allowance should have been granted or the method of calculation ought not to be automatically attributed to the employees.

"If there is a legal question concerning the duration of such an entitlement, its compatibility with pay legislation, or the manner in which it should have been applied following changes to the regulatory framework, this matter cannot be turned into a personal failing on the part of the civil servant or contracted member of staff who carried out a court ruling or an administrative order issued in application thereof," the FNSSM's statement reads.

Who should be held accountable for amounts deemed unlawful

The Federation is calling for a clear distinction to be drawn between the Court of Auditors' finding regarding the lawfulness of the expenditure and the actual liability of the employees who implemented the relevant acts and rulings.

"It is therefore necessary to distinguish between the Court of Auditors' assessment of the legality of a given item of expenditure and the concrete responsibility of those individuals who carried out binding acts and rulings," FNSSM further stated.