Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:1018
Date: 2025-12-08
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-257/25 – 1 
Case C-257/25 
Summary of request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of the 
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
7 April 2025 
Referring court: 
Tribunalul Neamț (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
7 February 2025 
Applicant: 
B.V. 
Defendant: 
I.J. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action by which the applicant, B.V., seeks an order requiring his former 
employer, the defendant, I.J., to issue and communicate a standard certificate 
including, as part of his gross income corresponding to the month of November 
2022 (month preceding the termination of the service on account of his 
retirement), also his posting/delegation allowance, for the purpose of reviewing 
his pension rights, from the date of the termination of the service upon his 
retirement, 1 December 2022. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a 
request is made for the interpretation of Article 2 TEU and the second 
subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-257/25 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Must Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which, in setting out the values 
on which the European Union is founded, refers to respect for the rule of law, and 
the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read 
in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union, according to which the Member States are to ensure effective 
judicial protection based on the right of access to an independent and impartial 
tribunal, be interpreted as meaning that the principle of judicial independence 
precludes a refusal to include also, within the scope of service pension rights, the 
pay component represented by the posting/delegation allowance, also known as 
the ‘per diem allowance’ – a pay component which was not paid as 
reimbursement of expenses actually incurred as a result of the posting, such as 
travel, board and lodging expenses, and granted to judges who had the status of 
posted/delegated judges – in that that refusal derogates from the mechanism for 
determining judges’ pensions on the basis of objective criteria, independent of the 
arbitrary intervention of the executive and the legislature, with the effect of 
permanently reducing the level of remuneration, thereby infringing the 
constitutional guarantees intended to ensure that judges receive a service pension 
in keeping with the dignity of their office and their sphere of competence, and that 
justice is administered by independent judicial bodies and independent judges? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Article 2 TEU and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, read in 
conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union; 
Judgment of the Court of 12 February 2015 in Case C-396/13 Sähköalojen 
ammattiliitto, paragraphs 46-52; 
Judgment of the Court of 27 February 2018 in Case C-64/16 Associação Sindical 
dos Juízes Portugueses, paragraphs 30-37 and 42-46; 
Judgment of the Court of 8 July 2021, in Case C-428/19, Rapidsped, 
EU:C:2021:548, paragraphs 46 to 54. 
National provisions and national case-law relied on 
Legea nr. 303/2004 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (Law 
303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors) (republished) 
Article 82(1), (2) and (4) and Article 85(2) – relating to the right to a service 
pension 
I.J. 
 
3 
Under Article 82(1), the service pension is ‘equal to 80% of the basis of 
calculation represented by the gross monthly special employment allowance or the 
gross basic monthly salary, as the case may be, and any increases received during 
the last month of service before the date of retirement’. 
Normele metodologice de aplicare a prevederilor Legii nr. 303/2004 privind 
statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor, republicată, și ale Legii nr. 47/1992 
privind organizarea și funcționarea Curții Constituționale, republicată, 
referitoare la pensiile de serviciu și la acordarea indemnizațiilor pentru 
creșterea copilului în vârstă de până la 2 ani, aprobate prin Hotărârea 
Guvernului nr. 1 275/2005 (Rules implementing the provisions of Law 
No 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors, republished, and of Law 
No 47/1992 on the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court, 
republished, relating to service pensions and the granting of allowances for 
children under the age of two, approved by Government Decision 
No 1 275/2005) 
Article 7(3) 
‘Permanent or non-permanent increases shall be included in the gross income 
earned, as well as the gross monthly special employment allowance. Gross income 
shall not include sums received as bonuses, perquisites, adjustments, 
reimbursement of claims relating to another period, or the entitlement to seven 
gross monthly special employment allowance payments referred to in 
Article 81(1) of the Law or other rights not relating to pay.’ 
Article 13(1)(b) 
“(1) For the purposes of determining the service pension, the pension file must 
contain: 
(…) 
(b) the standard service pension certificate, in accordance with Annex No 1 or, 
as the case may be, Annex 2 to these implementing rules, drawn up by the last 
employer, which shall include length of service in the judiciary, length of service 
solely as a judge and prosecutor, the average gross income earned during the last 
twelve months of service prior to the retirement date and the gross income earned 
at the date of the retirement’. 
Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 27/2006 privind salarizarea și alte 
drepturi ale judecătorilor și procurorilor și altor categorii de personal din 
sistemul justiției (Government Emergency Order No 27/2006 on 
remuneration and other rights of judges, prosecutors and other categories of 
staff in the judicial system) 
Article 13(1)(a) 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-257/25 
 
4  
“(1) Judges, prosecutors, staff treated as such and assistant judges, posted or 
delegated to a place other than their place of residence shall, throughout the 
duration of the delegation or posting, enjoy the following rights: 
(a) a per diem allowance equal to 2% of the gross monthly special employment 
allowance, but not less than the amount provided for staff working in the 
budgetary units; 
(…)’. 
Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017, privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri 
publice (Framework Law No 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid 
from public funds) 
Article 7 defines the meaning of a number of terms and expressions, including 
‘monthly salary’ (point (e)) and ‘increase’ (point (i)). Thus, ‘the monthly salary 
comprises the basic salary or, as the case may be, the monthly allowance or 
special employment allowance, compensation, allowances, increases, 
supplements, bonuses, perquisites, and other elements of the remuneration system 
corresponding to each category of staff in the budgetary sector’ and ‘the increase 
represents a component of the monthly salary/monthly pay, granted as a 
percentage of the basic salary, the job-specific pay or salary, the special 
employment allowance, under the conditions laid down by law, for each category 
of staff’. 
Legea nr. 303/2022 privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor (noua lege 
privind statutul judecătorilor și procurorilor) (Law No 303/2022 on the status 
of judges and prosecutors (new law on the status of judges and prosecutors)) 
Article 211 thereof was supplemented, by Law No 282 of 19 October 2023, with a 
paragraph (41) worded as follows: ‘The basis for calculating the service pension 
shall not include amounts received as bonuses, perquisites, adjustments, 
reimbursement of pay claims relating to a period other than that taken into account 
for the determination of pension entitlement, per diem allowances or any other 
entitlement which is not permanent.’ 
In Judgment No 3 of 7 February 2022 of the Înalta Curte de Casație și 
Justiție a României (High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania), ruling 
on an appeal in the interest of the law, the supreme court held that the per diem 
allowance for delegation or posting constitutes a remunerative right, since it is 
provided for by law in order to be granted to the delegated or posted employee in 
connection with his or her employment, and is distinct from the component 
relating to the reimbursement of travel and lodging expenses. 
In Judgment No 69/2024 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Section 
for the interpretation of questions of law, that supreme court held that, when 
interpreting and applying Article 82(1) of Law No 303/2004 on the status of 
judges and prosecutors, republished, as subsequently amended and supplemented, 
I.J. 
 
5 
and Article 7(3) of the Implementing Rules approved by Government Decision 
No 1275/2005, the delegation/posting allowance (per diem allowance) does not 
form part of the basis for calculating the service pension. 
By judgment No 873 of 25 June 2010, the Curtea Constituțională (Romanian 
Constitutional Court; the ‘Constitutional Court’) stated that judicial independence 
includes the financial security of judges, which also involves the provision of a 
social guarantee, such as the judge’s service pension. In conclusion, the 
Constitutional Court held that the principle of judicial independence protects 
judges’ service pensions, as an integral part of their financial stability, to the same 
extent as it protects the other guarantees of that principle. 
By Judgment No 433 of 29 October 2013, the Constitutional Court held that, in 
view of the very specific situation of certain socio-occupational categories, the 
legislature may introduce different forms of treatment in law, by means of 
conditions and criteria for the granting of derogations, and also with the use of 
different pension calculation methods and amounts, since the regulation of the 
legal system for service pensions in a manner differing from that adopted to 
regulate the general social security system does not constitute discrimination. 
In Judgment No 501 of 30 June 2015, the Constitutional Court held that the 
establishment of the service pension for judges does not constitute a privilege, but 
is objectively justified, since it constitutes partial compensation for the drawbacks 
arising from the rigour of the special status to which judges must be subject. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 By an application lodged on 24 November 2023 at the Tribunalul Neamț 
(Regional Court, Neamț, Romania), the applicant, B.V., requested that a decision 
be made requiring the defendant to issue and communicate a standard certificate 
including, in his gross income corresponding to the month of November 2022 
(month preceding the termination of the service on account of his retirement), also 
the posting/delegation allowance, the monthly right to payment known as the ‘per 
diem allowance’, in the amount of 10,143 Romanian lei (RON), calculated in 
proportion to the time actually worked. 
2 The applicant received a monthly per diem allowance for posting/delegation 
applying to the period during which he was an inspecting judge, between 
28 December 2018 and 1 December 2022. 
3 The defendant had refused to issue a certificate including the per diem allowance 
received by the applicant, calculated in proportion to the time actually worked in 
November 2022. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-257/25 
 
6  
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
4 The applicant claimed that the pension rights to which he was entitled should be 
calculated including the per diem allowance, in accordance with the legal 
provisions in force at the time of retirement, namely 1 December 2022, when the 
provisions of Law No 303/2004, republished, and the implementing provisions 
approved by Government Decision No 1275, on which the applicant relied in 
support of his action, were in force. 
5 The defendant maintained, with regard to that per diem allowance, that, by virtue 
of Article 13(1)(a) of Government Emergency Order No 27/2006, the allowance 
does not form part of the basis for calculating the pension, which consists of the 
gross monthly special employment allowance or the gross basic monthly salary, as 
the case may be, and the increases received during the last month of employment 
before the date of retirement. 
Brief statement of reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
6 The refusal of the former employer, namely I.J., to issue the applicant with a 
standard certificate including, in addition to the gross monthly special 
employment allowance and all the allowances which he received, also, therefore, 
the posting allowance, known as the per diem allowance, also during the month 
preceding the termination of the service on account of his retirement – to which 
the method of calculating the service pension refers – would constitute an 
infringement of the principle of independence that should be enjoyed by a judge. 
7 Throughout the period during which the applicant acted as inspecting judge within 
I.J., he also permanently had the status of a posted/delegated person, thus 
benefiting from the provisions of Article 13(1)(a) of Government Emergency 
Order No 27/2006. The per diem allowance constitutes an allowance specific to 
the posting which is part of the minimum salary and is not granted as a 
reimbursement of expenditure actually incurred in connection with the posting, 
such as travel and board and lodging expenses. The classification of the allowance 
received by members of the judiciary, staff treated as such or by assistant judges, 
during the period for which they are delegated/posted in the interests of the 
service, as rights of a remunerative nature is also a result of their regulation as 
taxable entitlements, in so far as those allowances are treated in the same way as 
salaries. 
8 Thus, the per diem allowance which the applicant received is an allowance of a 
supplementary nature, in so far as it was paid separately from his monthly salary 
entitlements and has never been connected with the reimbursement of expenditure 
actually incurred as a result of the posting. 
9 Since the entry into force of Law 303/2004, judges have been recognised as being 
entitled to receive a service pension at the age of 60, or before reaching the age of 
60 if they had completed a period of service of at least 25 years or between 20 and 
I.J. 
 
7 
25 years, subject to a fixed penalty; the pension was calculated at 80% of the basis 
of calculation consisting of the gross monthly special employment allowance or 
the gross basic monthly salary, as the case may be, and the increases received 
during the month preceding the termination of the service on account of his 
retirement. Law 303/2022 on the status of judges and prosecutors, currently in 
force, as amended by Law No 282 of 19 October 2023, has since 1 January 2024 
excluded per diem allowances from the basis for calculating the service pension. 
According to the explanatory memorandum to the draft law, which led to that 
legislative amendment, it was stated, in particular, that, within the scope of the 
public obligations for which the State budget is committed, pension rights should 
henceforth decrease. 
10 According to the referring court, the prerogative of the legislature and the 
executive to fix the remuneration of judges as a determined amount, in the present 
case in relation to the service pension, in the absence of objective criteria, is 
incompatible with judicial independence. Reductions in judges’ remuneration 
must be of a temporary nature and the amount and duration of those reductions 
must be adjusted and adapted to the severity and persistence of the conditions 
which justified their application. Such pay reductions must in no way concern the 
power of the judiciary, on the ground that this would amount to unfavourable 
treatment. In order to ensure compliance with those principles and to consolidate 
their stability, the rules on judges’ remuneration or any reduction in their pay must 
be subject to judicial review. 
11 While the legislature is free to deal with the content, limits and conditions for 
granting pension rights, the fact remains that, in the case of judges, the question 
arises as to whether their independence is being undermined, since the financial 
stability of judges (including entitlement to a service pension at a level appropriate 
to the importance of the duties they perform) 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. In that context, it is necessary to refer the question to 
the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.