Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:400
Date: 2025-06-05
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-762/23 – 1 
Case C-762/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
12 December 2023 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel București (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
27 November 2023 
Appellants: 
QN 
RL 
VS 
JT 
AX 
MR 
Respondent: 
Curtea de Apel București 
Intervening party: 
Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal brought by the appellants against the civil judgment of the Tribunalul 
București (Regional Court, Bucharest) of 9 May 2023 dismissing their claim on 
the ground that it had been brought prematurely against the defendant Curtea de 
Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), seeking an order that the defendant 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-762/23 
 
2  
pay compensation corresponding to seven gross monthly seniority allowances, in 
accordance with the provisions of Article 81(1) of Legea nr. 303 din 28 iunie 2004 
(Law No 303 of 28 June 2004) on the rules governing of judges and magistrates, 
reassessed on the basis of the inflation rate from the date on which the right arose, 
until the date of actual payment of the sum, together with statutory interest on 
arrears, payable in respect of the sum due, from the time the right arose, namely 
from the date of cessation of duties on account of retirement, until the date of 
actual payment. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, the interpretation of the second subparagraph 
of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 2 TEU, is sought. 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU (read in conjunction with 
Article 2 TEU) be interpreted as meaning that the principle of judicial 
independence precludes the repeal, in respect of Romanian judges with 20 
consecutive years’ service in the judiciary, of the right to receive, on retirement or 
on termination of service for other reasons not attributable to them, a sum equal to 
seven gross monthly seniority allowances, in the event that the exercise of that 
right to remuneration is suspended prior to repeal, on a continuous basis and for a 
prolonged period, for reasons connected principally to the need to eliminate an 
excessive budget deficit (the legislature expressly invokes the threshold of 3% of 
gross domestic product laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union)? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU 
Commission Decision 2006/928 of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism 
for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific 
benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos 
Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117 
Provisions of national law and case-law relied on 
National law 
Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law 
No 303/2004 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors) 
CURTEA DE APEL BUCUREȘTI 
 
3 
Article 74 
‘1. For their work, judges and prosecutors shall be entitled to remuneration 
determined in accordance with the level of the court or public prosecutor’s office, 
the duties performed, seniority in the judiciary and other criteria laid down by law. 
2. The rights of judges and prosecutors to remuneration may be reduced or 
suspended only in the cases provided for in this Law. The remuneration of judges 
and prosecutors shall be set by a special law. (…)’. 
Article 81 
‘1. Judges and prosecutors with 20 consecutive years’ service in the judiciary 
shall, on retirement or on termination of service for other reasons not attributable 
to them, receive an allowance equal to seven gross monthly seniority allowances, 
taxed in accordance with the law. 
2. The allowance provided for in paragraph 1 shall be granted only once in the 
course of a judge or prosecutor’s career and shall be recorded in accordance with 
the law. 
(…)’. 
Legea nr. 285/2010 privind salarizarea în anul 2011 a personalului plătit din 
fonduri publice (Law No 285/2010 on the remuneration in 2011 of staff paid from 
public funds) 
Pursuant to Article 13(1), the statutory provisions relating to the granting of 
retirement assistance or, where applicable, pensions, allowances for being placed 
in the military reserve, termination of service or being subject to military 
retirement are not to apply in 2011. 
The following legal acts subsequently extended that suspension until 2023, 
including: Legea nr. 283/2011 privind aprobarea Ordonanței de urgență a 
Guvernului nr. 80/2010 pentru completarea articolului 11 din Ordonanța de 
urgență a Guvernului nr. 37/2008 privind reglementarea unor măsuri financiare în 
domeniul bugetar (Law No 283/2011 approving Decree-Law No 80/2010 
supplementing Article 11 of Decree-Law No 37/2008 on the regulation of 
financial measures in budgetary matters); Ordonanța de urgență a guvernului nr. 
103/2013 privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri publice în anul 2014, 
precum și alte măsuri în domeniul cheltuielilor publice (Decree-Law No 103/2013 
on the remuneration in 2014 of staff paid from public funds and other measures 
relating to public expenditure); Ordonanța de urgență a guvernului nr. 83/2014 
privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri publice îce anul 2015, precum și 
alte măsuri în domeniul cheltuielilor publice (Decree-Law No 83/2014 on the 
remuneration in 2015 of staff paid from public funds and other measures relating 
to public expenditure; ‘Decree-Law No 83/2014’); Ordonanța de urgență a 
guvernului nr. 57/2015 privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri publice 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-762/23 
 
4  
în anul 2016, prorogarea unor termene, precum și unele măsuri fiscal-bugetare 
(Decree-Law No 57/2015 on the remuneration in 2016 of staff paid from public 
funds, the extension of certain time limits and certain fiscal and budgetary 
measures); Ordonanța de urgență a guvernului nr. 9/2017 privind unele măsuri 
bugetare în anul 2017, prorogarea unor termene, precum și modificarea și 
completarea unor acte normative (Decree-Law No 9/2017 on certain budgetary 
measures in 2017, the extension of certain time limits and amendments and 
additions to legislative acts); Ordonanța de urgență a guvernului nr. 90/2017 
privind unele măsuri fiscal-bugetare, modificarea și completarea unor acte 
normative și prorogarea unor termene, (Decree-Law No 90/2017 on certain fiscal 
and budgetary measures, amendments and additions to legislative acts and the 
extension of certain time limits); Ordonanța de urgență a guvernului nr. 114/2018 
privind instituirea unor măsuri în domeniul investițiilor publice și a unor măsuri 
fiscal-bugetare, modificarea și completarea unor acte normative și prorogarea unor 
termene (Decree-Law No 114/2018 on the introduction of measures in the field of 
public investment and certain fiscal and budgetary measures, amendments and 
additions to legislative acts and the extension of certain time limits); Ordonanța de 
urgență a guvernului nr. 130/2021 privind unele măsuri fiscal-bugetare, 
prorogarea unor termene, precum și pentru modificarea și completarea unor acte 
normative (Decree-Law No 130/2021 on certain fiscal and budgetary measures, 
the extension of certain time limits and amendments and additions to legislative 
acts); Ordonanța de urgență a guvernului nr. 168/2022 privind unele măsuri fiscal-
bugetare, prorogarea unor termene, precum și pentru modificarea și completarea 
unor acte normative (Decree-Law No 168/2022 on certain fiscal and budgetary 
measures, the extension of certain time limits and amendments and additions to 
legislative acts; ‘Decree-Law No 168/2022’) 
Legea nr. 303/2022 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law 
No 303/2022 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors), which came into 
force on 16 December 2022, repealed Law No 303/2004 on the rules governing 
judges and prosecutors on that date 
Legea nr. 304/2022 privind organizarea judiciară (Law No 304/2022 on the 
organisation of the courts), Article 142 (2) and (5) of which provides: 
‘2. The budget of the appellate courts, higher courts, specialised courts and 
courts of first instance approved for the staff costs of those bodies, as well as the 
budget approved for other categories of expenditure intrinsically linked to staff 
costs, shall be included in the budget of the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție 
(High Court of Cassation and Justice) and shall be managed by it; the President of 
the High Court of Cassation and Justice shall be the chief authorising officer for 
expenditure for the courts in respect of those categories of expenditure. 
(…) 
5. The rights to remuneration or other entitlements relating to remuneration of 
judges in the bodies referred to in paragraph 2, including interests and other 
CURTEA DE APEL BUCUREȘTI 
 
5 
entitlements intrinsically linked to rights to remuneration, shall be guaranteed by 
the High Court of Cassation and Justice and acts relating to the remuneration and 
other entitlements relating to remuneration of judges of those bodies shall be 
adopted by the President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.’ 
Legea nr. 24/2000 privind normele de tehnică legislativă pentru elaborarea 
actelor normative (Law No 24/2000 on technical legislative standards for the 
drafting of legislative acts) 
Article 66 
‘1. In specific cases, the application of a legislative act may be suspended by 
another legal act of the same rank or higher. In such a situation, express provision 
shall be made for the date on which the suspension commences and its duration. 
2. At the end of the period of suspension, the legislative act or provision 
subject to suspension shall automatically re-enter into force. 
3. The extension of the suspension or the amendment or repeal of the 
suspended legislative act or provision may be the subject of a legislative act or an 
express provision taking effect on the date of expiry of the suspension.’ 
Case-law of the Curtea Constituționale 
Decizia nr. 541 din 14 iulie 2015 referitoare la excepția de neconstituționalitate a 
dispozițiilor articolului 13 alineatul (1) din Legea nr. 285/2010 privind 
salarizarea în anul 2011 a personalului plătit din fonduri publice (Decision 
No 541 of 14 July 2015 on the allegation that the provisions of Article 13(1) of 
Law No 285/2010 on the remuneration in 2011 of staff paid from public funds are 
unconstitutional), in which the Curtea Constituțională (‘the Constitutional Court’) 
refers to its case-law, according to which persons retiring are subject to the legal 
provisions in force on the date of acquisition of entitlement to a pension, in 
accordance with the principle tempus regit actum. As regards a possible 
infringement of the right to property, the Constitutional Court recalls the case-law 
of the European Court of Human Rights (judgment of 8 November 2005, Kechko 
v. Ukraine, paragraph 23), in which it was held that it is within the State’s 
discretion to determine what benefits are to be paid to its employees out of the 
State budget. The State can introduce, suspend or terminate the payment of such 
benefits by making the appropriate legislative changes. 
The decision of inadmissibility of 6 December 2011, given in joined cases Nos 
44232/11 and 44605/11, Felicia Mihăieș v. Romania and Adrian Gavril Senteș v. 
Romania, paragraphs 15 and 19, in which the European Court of Human Rights 
recalls that, thanks to their direct knowledge of their own society and its needs, 
national authorities are, in principle, better placed than the international court to 
determine exactly what is ‘in the public interest’, expresses the same view. 
Consequently, in the context of the system of protection established by the 
Convention, it falls within the competence of national authorities to rule first on 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-762/23 
 
6  
the existence of a question of general interest. Taking the view that it is natural 
that the margin of appreciation available to the legislature in implementing 
economic and social policies should be a wide one, the Constitutional Court 
respects the legislature’s judgment as to what is in ‘the public interest’, unless that 
judgement is manifestly without any reasonable foundation. 
In addition, the Constitutional Court noted that the assistance or allowances 
referred to in Article 13(1) of Law No 285/2010 do not fall within the category of 
fundamental rights, and that therefore the legislature is free to decide on the 
content, limits and conditions for granting them and to order grants of such 
assistance or allowances to be reduced or even halted, without it being necessary 
for the conditions laid down in Article 53 of the Constitution to be satisfied. 
Decizia nr. Decizia nr. 284 din 7 mai 2019 referitoare la excepția de 
neconstituționalitate a dispozițiilor [mai multor acte normative] (Decision No 284 
of 7 May 2019 ruling on the review of the constitutionality of the provisions [of 
several normative acts] 
After recalling the provisions of Article 41(2) of the Constitution, according to 
which employees are entitled to social protection measures concerning: 
employees’ health and safety, working conditions for women and young people, 
the setting of a gross minimum wage per country, the weekly rest period, paid 
leave, work performed under difficult or special conditions, vocational training, 
‘as well as other specific conditions, as stipulated by the law’, the Constitutional 
Court found that there was no constitutional obligation on the part of the 
legislature to regulate the granting of retirement assistance or pensions, 
allowances for being placed in the military reserve, termination of service or being 
subject to military retirement. 
As regards the provisions of Article 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution, it recalled 
its case-law, according to which ‘the determination of the standard of living which 
may be regarded as decent must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, on the basis 
of a number of economic factors. The economic situation of the country, the 
resources available to the State to achieve that objective, and the level of 
development of society, the level of culture and civilisation at a given time and the 
organisational arrangements for society are also indications that must be taken 
into consideration when assessing a ‘decent’ standard of living. In conclusion, the 
assessment of the detailed arrangements and the extent to which the State is able 
to discharge its obligation to ensure a decent standard of living must be based on 
those factors, since it is not possible to establish a fixed, immutable standard.’ In 
the light of those considerations, the Constitutional Court held that the contested 
legal provisions could not be regarded as undermining the constitutional right to a 
decent standard of living, but rather as introducing a set of measures to be adapted 
to existing economic and social conditions. 
As regards the reliance on Article 53 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court 
recalls its case-law according to which retirement assistance or allowances, and 
CURTEA DE APEL BUCUREȘTI 
 
7 
allowances for placement in the military reserve, termination of service or being 
subject to military retirement ‘constitute benefits granted to certain socio-
occupational categories by virtue of their special status, without, however, having 
a constitutional basis’, so that the legislature is free to decide on the content, limits 
and conditions for granting them and to order grants of such assistance or 
allowances to be reduced or even halted, without it being necessary for the 
conditions laid down in Article 53 of the Constitution to be satisfied. 
Case-law of the High Court of Cassation and Justice 
Decizia nr. XXIII/2005 privind recursul în interesul legii cu privire la 
aplicabilitatea [unor dispoziții referitoare la acordarea primei pentru concediul 
de odihnă] (Decision No XXIII/2005 on the appeal in the interest of the law 
regarding the applicability [of certain provisions concerning the granting of the 
holiday bonus] in which the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) ruled that 
the suspension of the exercise of the right does not amount to its elimination and 
that in order for a right that has been provided for not to become a mere obligation 
devoid of content, reduced to nudum ius, which would constitute an unlawful 
limitation of its exercise, it may not be held that such a right did not exist during 
the two years for which its exercise was suspended but not eliminated. 
Consequently, it is necessary that the holders of rights that have been recognised 
are not hindered in the effective enjoyment of those rights during the period in 
which they have been provided for by law. The ICCJ thus found that the courts 
had acted correctly in holding that the right to appeal in respect of the calculation 
and payment of the holiday bonus arose on the date on which any ground for 
suspension or non-application of the provisions of that article ceased to exist. 
Decizia nr. 79/2017 a Înaltei Curți de Casație și Justiție, Completul pentru 
dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept, cu trimitere la Decizia nr. 16/2015 – ICCJ, 
Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (Decision No 79/2017 of the 
High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ), Chamber with jurisdiction to rule on 
questions of law with reference to Decision No 16/2015 – ICCJ, Chamber with 
jurisdiction to rule on questions of law in which, by examining the question of the 
effects produced by the legislative measures with regard to the suspension of the 
right introduced by Article 81(1) of Law No 303/2004, the ICCJ found that those 
texts govern benefits of a financial nature, in respect of which, on the basis of 
identical considerations applicable to other regulated benefits for other socio-
professional categories, the ICCJ has already ruled in Decisions Nos 16/2015 and 
11/2017. It thus refers to its case-law, under which it is clear from the 
interpretation of the legal provisions laid down that the intention of the legislature 
was not to abolish the benefits granted to certain socio-professional categories, 
namely the cessation of the existence of the right to the grant of 
assistance/allowances, but only to suspend the exercise of that right. 
Decizia nr. 5/2018 a Înaltei Curți de Casație și Justiție, Completul competent să 
judece recursul în interesul legii (Decision No 5/2018 of the High Court of 
Cassation and Justice, Chamber with jurisdiction to hear the action in the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-762/23 
 
8  
interests of the law in which the ICCJ found that, in the context of repeated 
suspension by legislative acts recognised as constitutionally legitimate, the 
entitlements at issue did not form part of the assets of the beneficiaries, since their 
content was continuously abstract, their concrete recognition being subordinate to 
a new expression of the law on the part of the legislature, which is why they 
cannot be regarded as assets from that point of view. Nor can there be a legitimate 
expectation that those entitlements will actually be reinstated, particularly since, 
subsequently, they have been repealed (moreover, Law No 24/2000 recognises the 
possibility of repeal in the case of provisions that have been suspended). 
Furthermore, it cannot be argued that the entitlements provided for by provisions 
whose application has been suspended have in fact become part of the assets of 
the beneficiaries initially referred to, in a situation where their effectiveness has 
been suspended on several occasions and no other legal provision or case-law 
judgment has altered the effect of the legislative measures bringing about that 
suspension. Therefore, the appeals brought during that suspension have been 
brought prematurely, since the right is not a current one. In order to benefit from 
the legal protection of appeal, the subjective right, in addition to being recognised 
and protected by law, must also fulfil the condition of being current. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedures in the main proceedings 
1 Under an appeal listed in the docket before the Tribunalul București  Secția a 
VIII-a conflicte de muncă și asigurări sociale (‘the Regional Court of Bucharest, 
Seventh Division for Cases concerning Labour Disputes and Social Insurance’), 
the appellants QN, RL, VS, JT, AX and MR, in a case between them and the 
Court of Appeal of Bucharest, the defendant, claimed that the defendant should be 
ordered to pay compensation corresponding to seven gross monthly seniority 
allowances, in accordance with Article 81(1) of Law No 303/2004, reassessed on 
the basis of the inflation rate from the date on which the right arose, until the date 
of actual payment of the sum, and an order that the defendant pay statutory 
interest on arrears, payable in respect of the sum due, from the time the 
entitlement arose, namely from the date of cessation of duties on account of 
retirement, until the date of actual payment. In the statement of reasons, in 
essence, the appellants stated that they had worked as judges and that their duties 
had ceased when they retired. 
2 By civil judgment of 9 May 2023, the Regional Court of Bucharest, Seventh 
Division for Cases concerning Labour Disputes and Social Insurance, upheld the 
plea of prematurity and dismissed the application as premature. It considered that, 
as regards the situation of the appellants, who ceased their duties on retirement, 
the provisions concerning suspension for the 2019-2022 period, depending on the 
date on which they ceased their duties, were relevant. 
3 Since the Constitutional Court has held that ‘persons retiring are subject to the 
legal provisions in force on the date of acquisition of entitlement to a pension, in 
accordance with the principle tempus regit actum’, the failure to grant the above-
CURTEA DE APEL BUCUREȘTI 
 
9 
mentioned pecuniary entitlements for several subsequent years cannot be regarded 
as an event affecting the foreseeability of the provision. Entitlement to a pension 
and the conditions for retirement and the entitlements granted on retirement are 
those on the date on which entitlement to a pension is acquired and not those 
existing in the legislation at an earlier date, which are not in the nature of vested 
rights. On the date of the appellants’ retirement and on the date of the application 
for payment of the allowance governed by Article 81(1) of Law No 303/2004, the 
provisions of that law did not apply. Under those circumstances, the claims 
seeking a declaration that the entitlement relied on has become current cannot be 
regarded as well founded. 
4 As regards the legal nature of the entitlements claimed in the action, they 
constitute additional rights to remuneration, as the Constitutional Court has 
consistently held in its decisions, and as was also emphasised in Decision 
No 79/2017 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. In view of the fact that the 
entitlements claimed are additional rights, and not fundamental rights enshrined 
and guaranteed by the Romanian Constitution, the repeated suspension of their 
exercise did not affect the substance of the right. 
5 As regards compliance with the principles of foreseeability and predictability of 
the law, as long as the substance of the right recognised by the legislature has not 
been impaired, but the exercise of that right has merely been postponed, the 
appellants’ claim alleging infringement of those principles cannot be accepted 
either. 
6 The Regional Court of Bucharest also pointed out that the repeal of the legislation 
governing the right to compensation, which had been suspended on the date it was 
repealed, did not amount to the cessation of the ground for suspension. The 
ground for suspension governed by Decree-Law No 168/2022 exists, for the 
whole of 2023, since it entered into force when Law No 303/2004 was still in 
force. 
7 The appellants appealed against those judgments, arguing, inter alia, that the 
failure to grant the entitlement claimed infringes the right to property, since the 
rights of judges and prosecutors to remuneration may be reduced or suspended 
only in the cases provided for by law, with reference to the independence of 
judges. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
8 According to the appellants, the legal nature of the right provided for in 
Article 81(1) of Law No 303/2004 is that of a right to remuneration; although the 
exercise of that right was suspended for 12 years, a pension granted on retirement 
constitutes a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of the First Additional 
Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and the failure to grant the 
entitlement claimed amounts to a violation of the right to property. From the entry 
into force of Law No 303/2004 until the first suspension of the provisions of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-762/23 
 
10  
Article 81 in 2010, that is to say, for a period of about six years, the allowance 
claimed was granted to all those who were entitled to it and, subsequently, the 
substance of the entitlement was not adversely affected, but merely the exercise of 
that right. 
9 They also mentioned the fact that that entitlement is inherent in the constitutional 
status of judges, a status governed by organic law, in relation to a bonus payment 
for continuous activity in the judiciary for 20 years. The corresponding 
entitlement is granted to recognise professional loyalty, and for the deprivations, 
risks, prohibitions and incompatibilities imposed by the staff regulations and 
assumed by judges in the course of their career. To that effect, they rely on 
Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union and agree that a reference for a 
preliminary ruling should be made to the Court of Justice. 
10 In the application on appeal, the appellants stated that the decision dismissing an 
appeal on the ground that it had been made prematurely because it concerned 
entitlements that did not exist at the date of acquisition of the right to a pension, 
but which existed in the legislation at an earlier date and were not in the nature of 
a vested right, was not only unfounded and unlawful, but also illogical, since there 
could be no question of the claim for an entitlement that no longer existed being 
premature. The statutory measure suspending the grant of the allowance laid down 
in Article 81(1) of Law No 303/2004 is unpredictable and cannot be regarded as 
foreseeable on the sole ground that the successive decree-laws that imposed it did 
not impair the substance of the entitlement conferred by the legislature, but merely 
delayed the exercise of that right. 
11 In the present case, the legislative stability, certainty and consistency that it is 
reasonable to expect were disregarded. Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol 
to the European Convention on Human Rights has therefore been infringed. The 
statement of reasons for the subsequent suspensory legislative acts states, in 
essence, that the failure to adopt the proposed fiscal and budgetary measures 
under the emergency procedure would have additional repercussions on the deficit 
of the general consolidated budget, which would significantly harm the 
sustainability of public finances. From the point of view of ensuring the 
sustainability of the State budget, the condition of proportionality requires a 
sufficient statement of reasons as regards the means used, but also action by the 
State in a timely, appropriate and consistent manner. 
12 Uncertainty, whether legislative, administrative or arising from the practices 
adopted by the authorities, is a factor that must be taken into account when 
assessing the State’s conduct, in the course of an examination of the requirement 
of that interference be proportionate, in order to determine how and to what extent 
the exercise of the right affected by the contested interference has been restricted. 
13 The appellants also rely on discrimination in relation to the judges of the 
Romanian Constitutional Court, noting the existence of categories of persons who 
were treated favourably, without any objective and rational justification, since 
CURTEA DE APEL BUCUREȘTI 
 
11 
they did not suffer the effects of the suspension of payment of the entitlement at 
issue. 
14 The pension is granted only on the basis of a judge’s activity over a certain period, 
and not on the basis of other considerations. Now, since Decree-Law No 83/2014 
came into effect, which introduced a single exception (that of the death of the 
judge, in which case the pension is granted to the husband/wife and dependent 
children), it appears that the legislature has even altered the objective taken into 
account when the allowance was introduced, transforming it from an ancillary 
right to the employment relationship into a survivor’s pension, even though those 
are different institutions and are regulated in legally different manners. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
15 The Court of Appeal of Bucharest considers that the second subparagraph of 
Article 19(1) TEU is the relevant provision. Similarly, it relies on the case-law of 
the Court of Justice, according to which the receipt by judges of a level of 
remuneration commensurate with the importance of the functions they carry out 
constitutes a guarantee essential to judicial independence (judgment of 
27 February 2018 in Case C-64/16, Associaçăo Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, 
EU:C:2018:117, paragraphs 30 to 37 and 42 to 46). 
16 Like the factual situation in Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, the 
salary reduction measures at issue were adopted because of mandatory 
requirements linked eliminating the Romanian State’s excessive budget deficit 
and in the context of obtaining EU financial assistance. In addition, various 
preparatory acts accompanying the decree-laws ordering the subsequent 
suspension of the payment of the allowance explicitly state that account was taken 
of the fact that, if those measures were not adopted as a matter of urgency, the 
budget deficit would exceed the threshold of 3% of gross domestic product laid 
down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and would result in 
the initiation by the European Commission of the excessive deficit procedure, 
which determines the relevance of EU law in this case. 
17 Law No 303/2022 on the rules governing judges and prosecutors, which came into 
force on 16 December 2022, provided that, on the date of entry into force of that 
law, Law No 303/2004 was repealed. Consequently, following the period 2010-
2022, during which Article 81(1) of Law No 303/2004 was not applied, it was 
repealed with effect from 16 December 2022. 
18 Although the Romanian Constitutional Court has held that retirement pensions do 
not fall within the category of fundamental rights, and that therefore the 
legislature is free to decide on the content, limits and conditions for granting them 
and to order grants of such pensions to be reduced or even halted, the question 
nevertheless arises, in the case of judges (or magistrates), of the infringement of 
their independence as a result of the prolonged suspension of the pensions, 
followed by their repeal. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-762/23 
 
12  
19 Under Article 125 of the Basic Law, judges appointed by the President of 
Romania are irremovable; proposals for appointment, as well as the promotion 
and transfer of judges and sanctions against them, fall within the competence of 
the Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii (Superior Council of Magistracy) and the 
office of judge is incompatible with any other public or private office, with the 
exception of teaching duties in higher education. 
20 Both in the case-law of the Romanian Constitutional Court and in the case-law of 
the constitutional courts of other countries, it has been held that the financial 
stability of judges constitutes one of the guarantees of judicial independence. 
21 The principle of judicial independence cannot be limited solely to the amount of 
remuneration (which includes both salary and pension) of judges, as this principle 
implies a number of guarantees, such as the status of judges (the conditions of 
access to the office, the appointment procedure, strong guarantees ensuring 
transparency of procedures for the appointment, promotion and transfer of judges, 
and the suspension and termination of service), their stability or irremovability, 
financial guarantees, the administrative independence of judges and the 
independence of the judiciary from other powers of the State. On the other hand, 
judicial independence includes the financial security of judges, which also 
presupposes the assurance of a social guarantee. The financial stability of judges 
(including the receipt of a level of remuneration commensurate with the 
importance of the functions they carry out) is one of the guarantees of judicial 
independence. Article 19 TEU gives concrete expression to the value of the rule of 
law enshrined in Article 2 TEU. In that context, the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, 
 Section VII, considers it necessary to refer a question to the Court of Justice for 
a preliminary ruling.