Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:874
Date: 2025-11-13
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: First Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-272/24 – 1 
Case C-272/24 
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: 
17 April 2024 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel București (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
8 April 2024 
Appellant: 
HZ 
Respondent: 
Tribunalul Galați 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal before the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, 
Romania; ‘the Court of Appeal of Bucharest’), the referring court, against the 
judgment by which the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest, 
Romania; ‘the Regional Court of Bucharest’) dismissed as inadmissible the 
application seeking an order for compensatory payment of overtime, in a dispute 
between HZ and the Tribunalul Galați (Regional Court, Galați, Romania; ‘the 
Regional Court of Galați’). 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, interpretation is sought of the second 
subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 2 TEU, points 5 
and 7 of the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers 
and Articles 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-272/24 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Must the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, in conjunction with Article 2 
TEU, points 5 and 7 of the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights 
of Workers and Articles 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of 
the organisation of working time, be interpreted, in circumstances such as those at 
issue in the main proceedings, as meaning that the principle of judicial 
independence precludes national legislation that prohibits the payment of overtime 
worked by a judge owing to staff shortages at the court where he or she works, in 
a situation in which compensation solely by time off in lieu corresponding to the 
amount of overtime worked outside normal working hours, and on weekly rest 
days and public holidays, if applied, would have a negative effect on the annual 
leave provided for by law? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Article 2 TEU and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU 
Article 151 TFEU 
Articles 2 and 3 and 5 to 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the 
organisation of working time 
Points 5 and 7 of the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of 
Workers 
Recitals 1 and 2 of Commission Decision 2006/928/EC 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 
Judgments of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses 
(C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117, paragraphs 30 to 37 and 42 to 46), and of 
22 September 2022, LB (Limitation of the right to paid annual leave) (C-120/21, 
EU:C:2022:718, paragraphs 48, 51, 52 and operative part) 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law 
No 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors): Article 73 on the principles 
governing the establishment of the rights of judges and prosecutors and Article 74 
on the criteria for determining remuneration 
Legea nr. 303/2022 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law 
No 303/2022 on the status of judges and prosecutors) (repealing Law 
TRIBUNALUL GALAŢI 
 
3 
No 303/2004): Articles 204 and 205, which replace Article 73 and Article 74 of 
Law No 303/2004, respectively 
Legea nr. 304/2004 privind organizarea judiciară (Law No 304/2004 on the 
judicial system): Article 1341(7), according to which the sums of money 
corresponding to the financing of the vacant posts provided for in paragraph l are 
to be paid to the State budget at the end of each calendar year, and Article 138, 
under which the State is required to provide the venues and other material and 
financial means necessary for the courts and prosecution service to function 
properly 
Legea nr. 304/2022 privind organizarea judiciară (Law No 304/2022 on the 
judicial system) (repealing Law No 304/2004): Article 151, which replaces 
Article 138 of Law No 304/2004 
Hotărârea Plenului Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii nr. 1375/2015 pentru 
aprobarea il Regulamentului de ordine interioară al instanțelor judecătorești 
(decision No 1375/2015 of the plenum of the Superior Council of the Judiciary 
ratifying the rules of procedure of the courts): Article 5(3), which provides that, as 
a rule, judges start work at 8.00 and finish at 16.00, and that they are required in 
any case to be present during the hours scheduled for the performance of the 
activities assigned to them or that they have agreed or that require their presence, 
by virtue of legislative or regulatory provisions, or for the hearings to which they 
have been appointed 
Hotărârea Secției pentru judecători a Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii nr. 
3243/2022 pentru aprobarea Regulamentului de ordine interioară al instanțelor 
judecătorești (decision No 3243/2022 of the Judges’ Section of the Superior 
Council of the Judiciary ratifying the rules of procedure of the courts) [repealing 
decision No 1375/2015 of the plenum of the Superior Council of the Judiciary: 
Article 5(2), which replaces Article 5(3) of decision No 1375/2015 of the plenum 
of the Superior Council of the Judiciary] 
Codul muncii (Legea nr. 52/2003) (Labour Code (Law No 52/2003)): Article 112, 
according to which normal working time is 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week; 
Article 120, according to which work carried out outside normal working hours is 
considered overtime; Article 122, which establishes compensation for overtime; 
and Article 2782, which lays down the conditions governing work carried out 
within the framework of a legal relationship based on an individual employment 
contract 
Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017 privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri 
publice (Framework Law No 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from the 
public purse; ‘the framework law’): Article 21, according to which overtime is to 
be compensated by paid time off in lieu within 60 calendar days, and where 
compensation by paid time off in lieu is not possible within the prescribed time, 
the overtime must be paid the following month with a 75% increase in the basic 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-272/24 
 
4  
salary corresponding to the hours of overtime worked; overtime worked on 
weekly rest days, public holidays and other days off by law must be paid the 
following month with a 100% increase in the basic salary. Payment for work 
under the abovementioned conditions may only be made if the overtime has been 
requested by an immediate superior in writing, subject to a maximum of 360 hours 
a year; overtime of more than 180 hours a year requires the approval of the 
representative unions or workers’ representatives, as the case may be, in 
accordance with the law 
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 introducing public investment and budgetary measures, amending 
certain legislative acts and extending certain time limits): 
Preamble: ‘… taking into account: – the requirement to comply with the deficit 
target of less than 3% of gross domestic product, provided for in the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union, ratified by Law No 13/2008; …’ 
Article 35(1): ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 21(2) to (6) of the 
[framework law], as amended, in the period 2019-2021, overtime worked outside 
normal working hours by staff paid from the public purse, classified as having 
managerial or non-managerial roles, and work carried out on weekly rest days, 
public holidays and other days on which, under applicable legislation, they do not 
work as part of their normal working hours, shall be compensated solely by time 
off in lieu’ 
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 relating to certain budgetary 
measures and the extension of certain time limits, and amending other legislative 
acts; ‘Government Emergency Order No 130/2021’): 
Preamble: ‘In the light of the obligation for the government to conduct a prudent 
fiscal policy so as to manage budgetary resources and constraints, in addition to 
fiscal risks, to ensure fiscal sustainability in the medium and long term and the 
predictability of fiscal policy in the medium term for the purpose of maintaining 
macroeconomic stability, 
in view of the fact that for the formation of the State budget and the State social 
security budget for 2022, budgetary measures must be ratified by legislative acts,  
taking into account Council Recommendation of 3 April 2020 with a view to 
bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit in Romania, 
according to which Romania must rigorously implement the measures that are 
necessary to achieve the correction of its excessive deficit …’ 
TRIBUNALUL GALAŢI 
 
5 
Article II: ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 21(2) to (6) of the 
[framework law], as amended, in 2022, overtime worked outside normal working 
hours by staff paid from the public purse, classified as having managerial or non-
managerial roles, and work carried out on weekly rest days, public holidays and 
other days on which, under applicable legislation, they do not work as part of their 
normal working hours, shall be compensated solely by time off in lieu’ 
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 relating to certain budgetary 
measures and the extension of certain time limits, and amending other legislative 
acts): preamble and Article II(1), which replaces the abovementioned provisions 
of Government Emergency Order No 130/2021 
Decision No 422/2013 of the Curtea Constituționale a României (Constitutional 
Court, Romania), in which it holds that there is no constitutional requirement for 
the State to guarantee that staff paid from the public purse will receive monetary 
compensation for overtime worked, and that even Directive 2003/88/EC provides 
for equivalent periods of compensatory rest, rather than monetary compensation 
for overtime. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 By an application registered with the Regional Court of Bucharest on 9 May 2022, 
HZ brought an action against the Regional Court of Galați, requesting that it be 
ordered to pay compensation for the previous three years and in future, calculated 
by dividing the total minimum net salaries, including any bonuses and other 
benefits, which the Regional Court of Galați should have paid for judges’ posts 
that remained vacant in the chamber in which the applicant worked, by the 
number of judges actually in post in that chamber. HZ also claimed statutory 
interest from the date on which he should have received each individual amount of 
compensation, adjusted for inflation on the date of actual payment.  
2 In the grounds of the application, HZ stated, in essence, that he had worked as a 
judge in a non-managerial role at the Regional Court of Galați, had not benefited 
from a reduction in workload and, unlike his colleagues, had not been delegated, 
seconded, transferred, selected or appointed to another court in the period between 
2019 and the date of the application. He submitted that, during that period, the 
Regional Court of Galați experienced medium to high fluctuations in its staffing 
levels as a result of vacant posts, with only 45% of posts being filled. 
Accordingly, HZ did the work related to his employment as a judge, as well as 
that related to the vacant posts, since the cases that should have been disposed of 
by the judges who should have filled the vacant posts were distributed among the 
judges present; for HZ, this extra work resulted in additional, continual and undue 
physical and mental strain, without him receiving any compensatory benefit. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-272/24 
 
6  
3 By civil judgment of 11 January 2023, the Regional Court of Bucharest dismissed 
the action brought by HZ as unfounded, rejecting his arguments that there are no 
legal provisions that prohibit or provide for the payment of additional 
compensation or allowances in the event of additional work being done by judges 
when ruling on cases and that, in such circumstances, a payment must be made on 
principle, given the social importance of the work. 
4 The Regional Court of Bucharest stated in the grounds of the judgment that the 
remuneration of staff in the justice sector is governed by clear legal provisions 
which do not allow for the possibility of granting additional allowances in 
situations such as that in the present case, in which a judge works overtime owing 
to staff shortages. The court referred to the mandatory rule laid down in Article 
II(1) of Government Emergency Order No 130/2021, according to which overtime 
worked outside normal working hours by staff paid from the public purse will be 
compensated solely by time off in lieu, and submitted that that legal provision 
does not allow for compensation to be paid in the event of overtime worked by 
staff paid from the public purse. 
5 HZ lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal of Bucharest against the judgment 
of the Regional Court of Bucharest. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 Before the Regional Court, HZ relied on the following provisions of the 
Romanian Constitution: Article 1(3) concerning the rule of law and the right to 
human dignity; Article 22 and Article 34 concerning the right to mental integrity 
of the person during the exercise of employment and the right not to be subjected 
to degrading treatment; Article 41(2), in conjunction with Article 41(3) 
concerning the right of the worker, in the widest sense, to social security measures 
in specific overtime situations. He also referred to Articles 73, 74 and 91 of Law 
No 303/2004, Article 138 of Law No 304/2004 and Article 6(d) of the framework 
law.  
7 HZ argues that the salary of a judge working overtime should be topped up by a 
percentage of the salary corresponding [to that of the judges] of the court in which 
there are vacant posts and whose cases the judge has taken on. The applicant 
states that the facts are not reflected in the legal rules that govern components of 
remuneration and submits that there is no legal provision that prohibits or provides 
for the payment of compensation for overtime. In his opinion, although it is true 
that the remuneration for the post filled and the remuneration for the vacant post 
must be calculated in accordance with the law, the remuneration of the activity of 
a judge who disposes of cases corresponding to a vacant post is not based on the 
principle of legality, but the principle of the social importance of the work. 
Therefore, the work must be remunerated according to its complexity and, in the 
case of a higher volume of work, the actual remuneration must be calculated with 
the addition of the compensation due. 
TRIBUNALUL GALAŢI 
 
7 
8 HZ also relies on Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on 
Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 4(1) and (2) of the Convention. He 
submits that the State has compelled him to work in more than one chamber – in 
other words, to do the work related to the vacant posts and to dispose of the 
associated cases. Had the court been fully staffed, the cases would have been the 
responsibility of the presiding judge of the chamber. Yet HZ had to dispose, 
within a reasonable time, of the cases assigned to his chamber, as well as those of 
the chamber with a shortage of judges. 
9 Before the Court of Appeal, HZ submitted that the effective performance of the 
duties conferred on a judge by law places an obligation not only on him, but on 
the State to offer adequate working conditions. He relied on Recommendation 
CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers on the independence, efficiency 
and responsibilities of judges, which requires each State to ‘allocate adequate 
resources, facilities and equipment to the courts to enable them to function in 
accordance with the standards laid down in Article 6 of the Convention and to 
enable judges to work efficiently’. In the present case, however, those obligations 
were not satisfied, to the extent that the judges are overworked by being assigned 
an extra number of cases for disposal. HZ also maintained that the failure of the 
legislation to allow for the possibility of granting compensation for the disposal of 
additional cases that would normally have been assigned to the vacant posts does 
not lead to the conclusion that such a measure is prohibited by law. On the 
contrary, in cases where the law is silent, the general provisions and principles of 
fairness apply. However, the court adjudicating on the substance of the case failed 
to examine those principles. 
10 HZ expressly states that the court of first instance failed to address the complaints 
raised in the application or to state the reasons adequately and failed to take into 
account the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination – equal pay for 
equal work – which is the subject of the Community Charter of the Fundamental 
Social Rights of Workers. At the same time, according to the principle of the 
social importance of the work, provided for in Article 6(d) of the framework law, 
the work performed for a single judge’s post must be remunerated at a level 
commensurate with that post. If the work done by the judge goes beyond the 
normal activity associated with a non-managerial role, by taking on the cases of 
another chamber in which there are vacant posts, then the actual work must be 
remunerated on the basis of the average post for which the judge has worked. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
1. Applicability of EU law 
11 Although HZ did not expressly rely on the provisions of the second subparagraph 
of Article 19(1) TEU as the reference rule in support of the original appeal, the 
referring court nevertheless submits that it must consider them as such, in the light 
of the wording of the application and the appeal. In addition, the scope of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-272/24 
 
8  
Article 73 of Law No 303/2004, which sets out the rights of judges, taking into 
account the complexity of the role and in order to guarantee their independence 
and impartiality, was specified before the court of first instance. The salary rights 
stem from the constitutional status of judges, as provided for by organic law. The 
constitutional provisions are supplemented by the case-law of the Court of Justice 
in order to provide all guarantees essential to judicial independence. Specifically, 
according to Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, 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. 
12 Similar to the factual situation established in Associação Sindical dos Juízes 
Portugueses, in the main proceedings, the salary restriction measures imposed by 
Decree-Law Nos 114/2018, 130/2021 and 168/2022, according to which overtime 
is compensated solely by time off in lieu, were adopted in view of the need to 
reduce Romania’s excessive budget deficit. This takes into account the Council 
Recommendation with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive 
government deficit in Romania, as specified in the preamble to the 
abovementioned legislative acts, with the risk that the European Commission 
could implement the excessive deficit procedure. Therefore, EU law is relevant in 
the present case. 
13 Likewise, the appeal expressly states that the court of first instance failed to 
address the complaints raised in the application, including those related to judicial 
independence, or to state the reasons adequately, and refers to the Community 
Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers. 
2. Principles relating to the remuneration of judges 
14 Both in the case-law of the Romanian Constitutional Court, and in the case-law of 
the other constitutional courts, it has been held that the financial stability of judges 
represents one of the guarantees of judicial independence.  
As consistently held by Romania’s Constitutional Court (Decision No 873 of 
25 June 2010), there are various prerequisites for both judicial independence and 
the independence of the judge: the existence of sufficient funds for the exercise 
and management of the judicial activity; the presence of a sufficient number of 
judges in each court to avoid an excessive workload and allow the disposal of 
cases within a reasonable time; and remuneration commensurate with the nature 
of the work. The principle of judicial independence cannot be limited solely to the 
amount of remuneration judges receive, since that principle implies a set of 
guarantees, including financial guarantees, the administrative independence of 
judges, and the independence of the judiciary from other State authorities. 
Moreover, judicial independence includes the financial security of judges, which 
also presupposes that a social guarantee is provided. 
15 The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has held that, in democratic 
States, financial security is clearly considered one of the essential elements 
TRIBUNALUL GALAŢI 
 
9 
guaranteeing judicial independence. The Latvian Constitutional Court has held 
that the concept of judicial independence includes adequate remuneration, in line 
with the prestige of the profession and the responsibility of judges, and that the 
purpose of the remuneration is both to guarantee independence and partly 
compensate for the restrictions and prohibitions imposed on judges. The 
Lithuanian Constitutional Court has held that, in democratic States, the State 
should have an obligation to determine the remuneration of judges in order to 
reflect their status, duties and responsibilities, and that maintaining the 
remuneration of judges is one of the guarantees of their independence. 
16 The Court of Appeal also refers to the United Nations Basic Principles on the 
Independence of the Judiciary, according to which ‘the term of office of judges, 
their independence, security, adequate remuneration, conditions of service, 
pensions and the age of retirement shall be adequately secured by law’; to 
Recommendation No R (94) 12 on the independence, efficiency and role of 
judges, adopted on 13 October 1994 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council 
of Europe, which introduced the obligation for Member States to ensure ‘that the 
status and remuneration of judges is commensurate with the dignity of their 
profession and burden of responsibilities’; and Recommendation 
CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on judges: 
independence, efficiency and responsibilities, according to which ‘judges’ 
remuneration should be commensurate with their profession and responsibilities, 
and be sufficient to shield them from inducements aimed at influencing their 
decisions’. 
17 Furthermore, in its Report on the Independence of the Judicial System adopted at 
its 82nd plenary session (Venice, 12 and 13 March 2010), the Venice Commission 
observes that ‘the remuneration of judges has to correspond to the dignity of the 
profession and that adequate remuneration is indispensable to protect judges from 
undue outside interference’. In its opinion, ‘the responsibility of judges should be 
taken into account in the light of how they can manage the workload and 
backlog. … Honest, hard-working judges should not be penalised for situations 
caused by poor management of the judicial system as a whole or by other 
circumstances beyond their control’. 
18 In principle, judges’ remuneration must guarantee them effective economic 
independence, an essential requirement if their independence and impartiality in 
the administration of justice are to be protected. 
19 In that regard, the Court of Appeal of Bucharest refers to paragraphs 48, 51 and 52 
of LB (Limitation of the right to paid annual leave). 
3. Overtime worked by judges in Romania: the present case 
20 Article 21 of the framework law governs the conditions for compensation of 
overtime. However, derogating from that law, Government Emergency Order Nos 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-272/24 
 
10  
114/2018, 130/2021 and 168/2022 provide that no sums of money may be granted 
as compensation for overtime, but only time off in lieu. 
21 For the remuneration of staff working in the field of justice, the national 
legislation does not provide for the possibility of granting additional allowances in 
situations such as that in the present case, in which a judge does extra work. 
Therefore, regardless of a judge’s actual workload, their remuneration can only be 
based on the remuneration criteria provided for by law, since there is no legal rule 
that permits the remuneration of overtime worked by judges in a court with very 
low staffing levels. 
22 However, by judgment No 2225/3.11.2022 of the Judges’ Section of the Superior 
Council of the Judiciary, it was decided that where there are staff shortages, the 
amount of staff costs should be divided among all the judges who actually work 
for that court. It is doubtful whether that judgment can establish, in principle, 
obligations for authorising officers, given that there are no provisions to that effect 
in the law on the judicial system and that the Superior Council of the Judiciary is 
not a legislative authority. 
23 Evidently, ab initio, the need to do overtime must be analysed primarily with 
regard to the actual volume of work of the court at a given time, and not simply on 
the basis of the staff vacancy rate. Nevertheless, the overtime worked by judges, 
in conditions of chronic staff shortages, at the very least puts them at risk of 
committing errors and facing disciplinary action much more frequently than if 
they had had a reasonable workload. In Romania, that workload is quantified by 
the Superior Council of the Judiciary; the number of judges assigned to each court 
is also established by taking into account the volume of cases and the balancing of 
the commitments of court staff. 
24 Moreover, the overtime worked by judges, where there are severe staff shortages, 
makes it objectively impossible in many cases to take the statutory annual leave of 
35 days, let alone taking time off in lieu under the special derogatory rules on the 
compensation of overtime. 
25 According to the abovementioned case-law of the Court of Justice, it cannot be 
permitted, on the pretext of guaranteeing legal certainty, for an employer to argue 
that it has not complied with its obligations – namely, that it has failed to give the 
worker the opportunity to exercise the right to paid annual leave. 
26 Furthermore, in the present case, of the 35 days of statutory annual leave during 
the reference period, HZ took 26 days of leave in 2019, 13 days in 2021 and 
7 days in 2022. He further submitted that he had been unable even to take 
statutory annual leave for years, let alone being compensated for any overtime in 
the form of time off in lieu, effectively undermining his right to annual leave. 
27 According to the definition in Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC, working time 
must satisfy three aspects: the worker’s physical presence at work/at another 
TRIBUNALUL GALAŢI 
 
11 
location established by the employer; being at the employer’s disposal; and 
carrying out the activity in accordance with national laws and/or practice.  
28 In the present case, the Regional Court of Galați did not record HZ’s hours of 
overtime, despite being obliged to do so. It can also be assumed that the overtime 
was due to the higher volume of work caused by a shortage of staff. According to 
HZ, nor is it relevant that he did not subsequently apply for the compensation of 
overtime by time off in lieu, since he could not have taken the time off in any 
case, just as he was unable to take all of his annual leave. In addition, from the 
evidence in the file, it is clear that the Regional Court of Galați did not reject any 
request to take annual leave or to receive time off in lieu as compensation. 
29 Although a right to remuneration such as that relied on in the main proceedings, 
involving the compensation of hours of overtime worked – linked to whether the 
budget for staff costs may be distributed among the judges who actually work at 
the court, given the number of vacant posts – does not fall into the category of 
fundamental rights, the problem remains of whether the judges’ independence 
could be compromised, since their financial stability (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 stated in Article 2 TEU.