The Constitutional Court rejects the suspension of fictitious pension days

The restricted chamber of the Constitutional Court has declared, by unanimous vote, manifestly inadmissible the request for the suspension of Article 19, 5°, of the Law of May 30, 2026, regarding pension reform, filed by Joëlle Rouvroy. Judgment No. 97/2026 of September 10, 2026, is published in the Belgian Official Gazette No. 254 of November 6, 2026, page 59572, under the official reference C − 2026/007958. The contested provision is therefore not suspended and will follow the fate reserved for it by the legislator, namely an entry into force on January 1, 2027.

A procedure arising from a June 2026 petition

The petitioner filed her petition on the Court’s electronic platform on June 23, 2026, requesting both the suspension and the annulment of the disputed provision, resulting from the Law of May 30, 2026, published in the Belgian Official Gazette of June 1, 2026, second edition. On June 30, 2026, pursuant to Article 71, paragraph 1, of the Special Law of January 6, 1989, on the Constitutional Court, the reporting judges informed the president that they might propose to the Court, sitting in restricted chamber, to note the manifest inadmissibility of the request.

The formation that ruled was composed as follows:

• Pierre Nihoul, President of the Court;
• Emmanuelle Bribosia, reporting judge;
• Frank Fleerackers, reporting judge;
• Nicolas Dupont, clerk.

The judgment specifies that it was rendered in the French and Dutch languages, in accordance with Article 65 of the same special law.

The mechanism of the five fictitious days

Article 19, 5°, supplements paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Royal Decree of December 23, 1996, implementing Articles 15, 16, and 17 of the Law of July 26, 1996, on the modernization of social security and ensuring the viability of legal pension schemes, by a paragraph 6 worded as follows: “For the application of paragraph 2, 2°, five fictitious full-time equivalent days are taken into account for the entire career.”

This mechanism is part of the early retirement scheme, which notably requires a career of at least 42 years for pensions that effectively began for the first time no earlier than January 1, 2019. Fictitious days allow the required quota of days to be reached when pension rights relate to an occupation representing at least half of a full-time work regime. All modifications introduced by Article 19 enter into force on January 1, 2027, by virtue of Article 21 of the law.

A single ground but no concrete prejudice

Before the Court, the petitioner invoked a single ground, based on the violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. She argued that a discrimination exists between two categories of workers:

• those whose employment, in the first year of their career, was less than one-third of a full-time work regime, i.e., 104 working days;
• those whose employment, throughout their career, was less than half of a full-time work regime, i.e., 156 working days.

Only the latter would benefit from the five fictitious full-time equivalent days, while the former remain deprived of this correction. The applicant further claimed that the immediate application of the provision disadvantaged her compared to the other categories of persons mentioned.

The Court did not have to rule on the merits of this argument. Article 20 of the special law of January 6, 1989, makes suspension subject to serious grounds and the risk of serious harm that is difficult to repair; Article 22 requires a statement of facts capable of establishing this risk. However, the judgment notes that the mere mention of a request for suspension in a petition for annulment is not sufficient, and the applicant “does not refer to any precise or concrete element demonstrating, in her case, the severity of the harm that would result from the potential loss of her right to apply for the benefit of her early retirement pension.” The request is therefore manifestly inadmissible.

A reform still contested on the merits

The decision does not close the case: the petition of June 23, 2026, also sought the annulment of the same provision, and this branch of the case remains before the Court, which here ruled only on the suspension. Furthermore, the pension reform of May 30, 2026, is the subject of several other petitions for annulment before the same jurisdiction, directed against other articles of the law.

For the workers concerned, the practical effect is immediate: the provision will apply as is starting January 1, 2027, without a provisional freeze, until the Court has ruled on the merits. Persons whose career begins with employment of less than one-third of full-time, and who hoped for a correction, must therefore contend with the rules of the new Article 19, 5°, and with the presumption of validity attached to a non-suspended legislative norm. Caution remains necessary, however: a subsequent annulment would deprive the measure of its legal basis, with, where applicable, retroactive effect.

Official source: Moniteur belge no. 254 of November 6, 2026, p. 59572, C − 2026/007958, judgment no. 97/2026 of September 10, 2026.