(AGENPARL) – Thu 13 November 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 137/25
Luxembourg, 13 November 2025
Judgment of the Court in Case C-272/24 | Tribunalul Galați
A judge who carries out tasks which fall to a vacant post at his or her
court, in addition to those within the remit of the post to which he or
she has been appointed, is not necessarily entitled to financial
compensation
The grant of a rest period to compensate for the additional work is, under certain conditions, an adequate
measure
The Galați Regional Court (Romania) is understaffed due to various judicial posts remaining vacant. A judge
who has been working at that court since 2017 took the view that, since 2019, he has performed not only
the tasks associated with his own post, but also, in part, those tasks linked to vacant posts. Being of the
opinion that he has worked overtime, that judge requested that he be remunerated for it. Specifically, he
brought legal proceedings to claim a share of the net salaries and allowances attached to the vacant posts,
divided by the number of judges in active service, for the period from 2019 to 2021 and for the following
years, until those vacant posts are filled.
By judgment of 11 January 2023, the Bucharest Regional Court (Romania) dismissed his action. Under the
Romanian legislation in force, the overtime in question can be compensated only by a commensurate rest
period. The judge brought an appeal against that judgment before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. He
claimed, inter alia, that in the light of his actual workload, the faculty of compensating overtime thus worked
by a rest period is merely theoretical.
Observing that the Romanian Constitutional Court has held that the financial stability of judges is one of the
guarantees of judicial independence, the Bucharest Court of Appeal asked the Court of Justice whether EU
law 1 precludes a provision of national law which restricts compensation for overtime worked by a judge due
to a lack of staff in the court where he or she sits to the grant of a rest period.
The Court considers that the requirement that courts be independent is inherent in the task of
adjudication and forms part of the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection and to a
fair hearing. Like the protection against removal from office of the members of the body concerned, the
receipt by those members of a level of remuneration commensurate with the importance of their functions
constitutes a guarantee essential to that independence. Thus, the level of that remuneration must be such
as to protect judges against the risk of corruption.
However, the principle of judicial independence does not preclude legislation which, like that in force
in Romania, excludes any financial compensation for work performed by a judge with a view to
carrying out additional tasks. The grant of compensatory rest for that additional work is therefore a
sufficient measure and is consistent with EU law.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
However, the Court attaches two conditions to that kind of compensation, namely, in the first place, that the
person concerned must be able actually to use the compensatory leave which he or she has been granted.
In the second place, such legislation must not have the effect of undermining the commensurate
relationship between a judge’s remuneration and the importance of his or her functions. National rules on
judges’ remuneration must not give rise to reasonable doubts, in the minds of individuals, first, as to the
imperviousness of the judges concerned to external factors and as to their neutrality with respect to the
interests before them or, second, as to the independence of the courts in relation to the legislature and the
executive.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes
which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of
EU law or the validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly
binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the
day of delivery.
Stay Connected!
The second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in the light of Article 2 TEU and point 5 of the Community Charter of the Fundamental
Social Rights of Workers, adopted at the meeting of the European Council held in Strasbourg on 9 December 1989.
Communications Directorate