Court of Accounts audits confidentiality bonuses at pension houses

The Court of Auditors has found that several regional pension offices granted employees confidentiality allowances that were not provided for under the legislation governing the pay of staff funded from public funds. For amounts deemed to have been paid without legal basis, the institution has ordered recovery measures. However, the trade union representing the employees maintains that these allowances were granted on the basis of court judgements, not through arbitrary decisions by officials.

Allowances of up to 1,520 RON

According to the Court of Auditors' report on the National House of Public Pensions, as of July 2025 the confidentiality allowance was being paid on the basis of four court judgements, at the 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 department head and a legal adviser were each receiving 1,520 RON.
• In Botoșani, two legal advisers were each receiving 1,519 RON.

Trade union: the amounts were granted on the basis of court judgements

The National Federation Solidaritatea Socială a Muncii, which represents civil servants and contractual staff at the regional pension offices, states that the allowances in question affected 33 employees across all pension offices, with payments made on the basis of court judgements.

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

"Cannot be turned into personal culpability"

The trade union's representatives point out that public institutions are legally obliged to implement court judgements, and that any ambiguities relating to the period during which the allowance was granted or the manner in which it was applied cannot automatically be attributed to the employees who put them into practice.

"If there is a legal debate regarding the duration of such an entitlement, its compatibility with pay legislation, or the manner in which it should have been applied following amendments to the regulatory framework, this issue cannot be turned into a personal culpability of the civil servant or contractual staff member who implemented a court judgement or an administrative order issued in application thereof," reads the FNSSM's position statement.

Who should be held accountable for the allowances deemed unlawful

The trade union is calling for a clear distinction to be drawn between the Court of Auditors' findings regarding the legality of the expenditure and the concrete liability of the employees who actually applied these decisions.

"It is therefore necessary to distinguish between the Court of Auditors' analysis of the lawfulness of a given item of expenditure and the concrete liability of those who implemented binding acts and judgements," the Federation stated.