Court rejects the complaints

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared inadmissible complaints from Romanian magistrates over back pay that the state is paying in instalments, with the decision communicated on Thursday, 22 October. The court ruled unanimously in the case Pușcașu and others v. Romania that the applications were manifestly ill-founded. Most reports put the number of applicants at five, while one report gives six. The applicants argued that the staggered payments breached their right to a fair trial and their right to property, and the court rejected both claims. The decision is final, and the judgment is so far available only in French.

Why the court sided with the state

The court said Romanian authorities had to manage large financial obligations during a period of budget strain and had adopted measures to reconcile competing interests. It took into account partial payments already made, indexation of the sums for inflation, and interest awarded in some cases. None of the applicants argued that full and immediate enforcement had affected their standard of living, and the court noted that their incomes were considerably higher than the average salary or pension in Romania. The judges also stressed that setting budget priorities is not a task for the courts, including decisions on spending priorities and the allocation of public resources.

“It is not for the national judge to substitute itself for the national authorities in choices about budgetary and economic policies.”

On the state's debt, the court was explicit that the government could not simply cite a lack of money to avoid paying a court-ordered sum.

“The State cannot invoke a lack of funds or other resources to justify non-enforcement of a debt established by a court judgment.”

A conflict of interest warning

Beyond the verdict, the court warned of a risk of conflicts of interest when judges decide on pay components that could benefit them personally. In its view, a judge's personal financial interest could interfere with the impartial exercise of judicial functions. The court also found that some national court decisions appeared to have gone beyond the traditional role of interpreting and applying the law, which could create the impression of a conflict between institutions. Decisions of the Constitutional Court and of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) had, over time, shaped the framework for judicial pay without formally changing the successive laws that governed it. The court said this could generate tensions between the judiciary and the legislative and executive powers.

The wider dispute and the 4.8 billion lei bill

The ruling settles a broader dispute between the Government and the ICCJ, led by Lia Savonea. On Thursday, 15 October, the ICCJ rejected an appeal by the Government and the Ministry of Finance, upholding a decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal from 5 May that obliged the executive to pay the back pay, including through a budget rectification. The ICCJ had won the case it opened over retroactive pay increases set by court judgments. Interim Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan said the bill the state would have to pay magistrates and justice staff is about 4.8 billion lei, a sum that would require a substantial budget rectification.

What remains owed

The court did not say the money is no longer owed. Its decision acknowledges that the court judgments were not enforced in full, but finds the state's measures justified by exceptional economic and budgetary circumstances. Payments were made in stages while the state tried to keep essential public services running and repair its finances. The finding concerns the applications the court examined, and the judgment is the first word from Strasbourg on this specific group of complaints.