Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:1029
Date: 2025-12-12
Language of the case: Croatian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Croatia

Translation C-372/24 –1 
Case C-372/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
24 May 2024 
Referring court: 
Upravni sud u Rijeci (Croatia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
22 May 2024 
Applicant: 
B. B. 
Applicant: 
Ministarstvo pravosuđa, uprave i digitalne transformacije 
  
REPUBLIC OF CROATIA 
UPRAVNI SUD U RIJECI (Administrative Court, Rijeka) 
[…]           […] 
Court of Justice of the European Union 
[…] 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 267 
OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION  
[…] 
Applicant: B. B. from P., […] represented by […], lawyer in Z., […] 
Defendant: Ministarstvo pravosuđa, uprave i digitalne transformacije Republike 
Hrvatske (Ministry of Justice, Administration and Digital 
Transformation of the Republic of Croatia) [formerly: Ministarstvo 
pravosuđa i uprave Republike Hrvatske (Ministry of Justice and 
Administration of the Republic of Croatia)], […] Zagreb […] 
 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 5. 2024 – CASE C-372/24 
 
2  
1. FACTS OF THE CASE – ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES: 
1.1. On 22 November 2023, the applicant B.B. lodged an action registered at this 
court [Upravni sud u Rijeci (Administrative Court, Rijeka)] under file reference 
[…]. By that action, he seeks the annulment of the decision of the Ministarstvo 
pravosuđa i uprave (Ministry of Justice and Administration) […] of 9 October 
2023 (‘the second-instance decision’) dismissing the appeal lodged by the 
applicant against the decision of the President of the Upravni sud u Zagrebu 
(Administrative Court, Zagreb) […] of 10 July 2023 (‘the first-instance decision’) 
fixing the remuneration of the applicant, as a judge of the Upravni sud u Z. 
(Administrative Court, Z.), pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Zakon o plaći i drugim 
materijalnim pravima pravosudnih dužnosnika (Law on remuneration and other 
material rights of members of the judiciary) (Narodne novine No 10/99, 25/00, 
1/01, 30/01, 59/01, 114/01, 116/01, 64/02, 153/02, 154/02, 17/04, 8/06, 142/06, 
34/07, 134/07, 146/08, 155/08, 39/09, 155/09, 14/11, 154/11, 12/12, 143/12, 
100/14, 147/14, 120/16, 16/19 and 71/23; ‘the Law’) and the first-instance 
decision. 
1.2. In his application, the applicant essentially states that he is a judge of the 
Upravni sud u Z. (Administrative Court, Z.) and that his remuneration was fixed 
in the first-instance decision on the basis of Article 4(1) of the Law, which grossly 
infringes the fundamental right of independence of a judge and court. He explains 
that the remuneration of an independent judge should be commensurate with his 
or her responsibility and the fact that he or she personally performs the judicial 
function defined in the Constitution, and should be adapted to the standard of 
living and social situation in the country where he or she works. He claims that 
Article 4 of the Law, on the basis of which his remuneration is calculated, is 
contrary to Article 19(1) and (2) of the Treaty on European Union (OJ 2016 
C 202, p. 13; ‘TEU’) and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 389; ‘the Charter’) 
in that it does not provide for remuneration which guarantees judicial 
independence. He explains that under Article 4 of the Law his remuneration has 
been calculated by applying a factor of 4.21 to a base of EUR 706.50, as opposed 
to the previous factor of 3.54 and a base of EUR 652.20, and that the gross 
remuneration of judges of specialised and ordinary courts of first instance in the 
Republic of Croatia amounts EUR 2 974.37. He claims that the increased 
remuneration is not even 30% higher than the remuneration which he has received 
in the last 20 years, whereas the average net monthly remuneration in the Republic 
of Croatia has increased by as much as 125% and amounts to EUR 1 163.00. He 
claims that a judge of a court of first instance in the Republic of Croatia, even 
with the current increase, has lower remuneration than a whole range of public 
servants and, unlike public servants, does not enjoy, or enjoys to a lesser extent, a 
whole range of additional rights (for example, he does not enjoy the right to equal 
sick pay). Moreover, unlike other categories of employees in the Republic of 
Croatia, he is not permitted to carry out any other work, perform a public function, 
or carry out professional work outside working hours, etc. 
MINISTARSTVO PRAVOSUĐA, UPRAVE I DIGITALNE TRANSFORMACIJE 
 
3 
1.3. He points out that, after the action was brought, the Republic of Croatia has, 
through new provisions, completely regulated the system of jobs and 
remuneration in the civil service and public services and that, under those 
provisions, there has been a new significant increase in the remuneration of 
everyone in the civil service and public services, with the exception of judges, 
which has led to an even greater disparity in comparison with remuneration in the 
civil service. He explains that in the new system of jobs and remuneration in the 
civil service and public services, the gross remuneration of a judge corresponds to 
a factor of 3.50, which ranks 12th of 16 specific pay grades in the civil service and 
public services. He further points out that the Tarifa o nagradama i naknadi 
troškova za rad odvjetnika (Tariff on remuneration and reimbursement of 
expenses for the work of lawyers) (Narodne novine No 138/23; the ‘Lawyers’ 
tariff’), with the approval of the competent authorities, has been significantly 
increased twice in the last year, and that a lawyer now enjoys the right to as much 
as EUR 2 000.00 for preparing an administrative complaint and appearing at the 
hearing, that is to say he or she earns one judge’s salary for the two activities. 
1.4. In response to the action, the defendant essentially states that Article 4(1) of 
the Law does not infringe any right of the applicant and that the provision in 
question is not contrary to EU law. 
2. THE REFERRING COURT’S FINDINGS OF FACT 
2.1. On the basis of an examination of the documentation attached to the file of 
the administrative proceedings and the present dispute, the Upravni sud u Rijeci 
(Administrative Court, Rijeka; ‘the referring court’) established that the President 
of the Upravni sud u Z. (Administrative Court, Z.), applying Article 4(2) and (3) 
of Law, adopted the first-instance decision by which, as of 1 July 2023, the 
applicant’s remuneration was determined by applying a factor of 4.21 to a base of 
EUR 706.50, which amounts to EUR 2 974.37 gross. 
2.2. State power in the Republic of Croatia is divided into legislative, executive 
and judicial power. Judicial power is exercised by the courts and the Ustav 
Republike Hrvatske (Constitution of the Republic of Croatia) states that the 
judicial power is to be independent and autonomous. The remuneration of the 
judges of the Republic of Croatia is paid from the State budget, which is presented 
by the Vlada Republike Hrvatske (Government of the Republic of Croatia) (the 
executive) and enacted by the Hrvatski sabor (Croatian Parliament) (the 
legislature). 
2.3. It follows from the case file, having regard to the data of the Državni zavod 
za statistiku (State Statistical Office) and according to the facts generally known 
to the court, that until the entry into force of the Law (1 July 2023), the applicant’s 
remuneration, as a judge of a court of first instance, was paid by applying a factor 
of 3.52 to a base of EUR 652.20, whereas after the enactment of the Law, the 
applicant’s remuneration is calculated by applying a factor of 4.21 to a base of 
EUR 706.50. It also follows that the gross remuneration of a judge of first instance 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 5. 2024 – CASE C-372/24 
 
4  
amounts to EUR 2 974.37, and that it increases by 0.5% to 20% for each year of 
service, starting from the sixth year of service. It further follows that the 
remuneration of the applicant/judge of first instance in the last 20 years has 
increased from EUR 2 187.72 to EUR 3 063.61 gross, whereas in the same period 
the average net monthly remuneration in the Republic of Croatia has increased 
from EUR 522.93 to EUR 1 163.00, that is to say 125%. 
2.4. Furthermore, it appears that at the time of the accession of the Republic of 
Croatia to the European Union and the assessment whether the Republic of 
Croatia satisfied the requirements relating to judicial independence, the ratio of 
the gross remuneration of a judge of first instance to the average gross 
remuneration in the Republic of Croatia of employees employed by legal persons 
amounted to 2.08:1 (EUR 2 187.72 / EU 1 053.69), whereas it is now 1.77:1 
(EUR 2 974.37 / EUR 1 679.00). The net remuneration of a judge of a court of 
first instance currently amounts to EUR 2 020.79 and the average net 
remuneration of employees employed by legal persons in the Republic of Croatia 
amounts to EUR 1 208.00, which is a ratio of 1.67:1. 
2.5. Furthermore, it appears that judges’ remuneration comes under the 12th pay 
grade out of 16 pay grades within which remuneration in civil service and public 
services is ranked, and that, inter alia, it corresponds, in terms of amount, to the 
remuneration of deputy district prosecutors, who are representatives of the State, 
whereas judges are defined in the Ustav Republike Hrvatske (Constitution of the 
Republic of Croatia) as persons exercising one of the three branches of State 
power. 
2.6. It also appears that, according to the Lawyers’ tariff, a lawyer in the 
Republic of Croatia is entitled to a fee of EUR 2 000.00 for preparing an action in 
a dispute before an administrative court and for appearing at the hearing, which, 
including VAT, amounts to EUR 2 500.00. 
3. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW: 
3.1. The following provisions of the Zakon o plaći i drugim materijalnim 
pravima pravosudnih dužnosnika (Law on remuneration and other material rights 
of members of the judiciary) apply to the administrative dispute at issue (Narodne 
novine No 10/99, 25/00, 1/01, 30/01, 59/01, 114/01, 116/01, 64/02, 153/02, 
154/02, 17/04, 8/06, 142/06, 34/07, 134/07, 146/08, 155/08, 39/09, 155/09, 14/11, 
154/11, 12/12, 143/12, 100/14, 147/14, 120/16, 16/19, 71/23): 
Article 4(1) of the Law provides that ‘the remuneration of judges and other 
members of the judiciary shall be fixed by multiplying the basis for calculating the 
remuneration by the factor relating to the member concerned[’]. Paragraph 2 of 
that article provides that the basis for calculating the remuneration of members of 
the judiciary is to be fixed at EUR 706.50 gross, whereas paragraph 3(8) provides 
that the factors for calculating the remuneration of judges and other members of 
the judiciary are to be as follows: (a) district court judges 4.21, (b) administrative 
MINISTARSTVO PRAVOSUĐA, UPRAVE I DIGITALNE TRANSFORMACIJE 
 
5 
court judges 4.21, (c) commercial court judges 4.21, and (d) deputy district 
prosecutors 4.21. […] 
4. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF EUROPEAN UNION LAW AND 
CASE-LAW: 
4.1. The referring court considers that the provisions of Article 19(1) TEU and 
Article 47 of the Charter should be applied in the administrative dispute at issue. 
4.2. Article 19(1) [TEU] provides that: ‘The Court of Justice of the European 
Union shall include the Court of Justice, the General Court and specialised 
courts. It shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the 
law is observed. 
Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal 
protection in the fields covered by Union law. 
[…] 2. The Court of Justice shall consist of one judge from each Member State. It 
shall be assisted by Advocates-General. 
The General Court shall include at least one judge per Member State. 
The Judges and the Advocates-General of the Court of Justice and the Judges of 
the General Court shall be chosen from persons whose independence is beyond 
doubt and who satisfy the conditions set out in Articles 253 and 254 of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union. They shall be appointed by common 
accord of the governments of the Member States for six years. Retiring Judges and 
Advocates-General may be reappointed’. 
4.3. The second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter provides, inter alia, that 
‘everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an 
independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law’. 
4.4. Case-law of the Court of Justice: C-64/16 – Associaçâo Sindical dos Juízes 
Portugueses; C-896/19 – Repubblika 
5. REASONING IN THE REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
AND THE POSITION OF THE REFERRING COURT 
5.1. The referring court’s task in the administrative dispute at issue is to assess 
the lawfulness of the second-instance and first-instance decisions at issue, which 
were adopted on the basis of Article 4 of the Law and set out how judges’ 
remuneration is to be fixed and which the court considers to be incompatible with 
Article 19(1) and (2) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter. 
5.2. The provision at issue lays down the factor and basis for the remuneration of 
judges which apply to the applicant as a judge of an administrative court. The 
remuneration of the applicant [a judge of the Upravni sud u Z. (Administrative 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 5. 2024 – CASE C-372/24 
 
6  
Court, Z.)] is fixed by multiplying the factor at issue and the basis, so that his 
gross remuneration amounts to EUR 2 974.37. 
5.3. The referring court considers that the above calculation of remuneration 
adversely affects the principle of judicial independence in that the remuneration is 
too low in comparison with other legal professions, in comparison with the 
average remuneration and standard of living in the Republic of Croatia and in 
comparison with the ratio of judges’ remuneration to the average monthly 
remuneration in the Republic of Croatia of employees employed by legal persons 
applicable at the time of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European 
Union. 
5.4. Therefore, the remuneration fixed pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Law does 
not correspond to the remuneration applicable at the time of the accession of the 
Republic of Croatia to the European Union, but has been reduced in relation to the 
remuneration indicators at that time. 
5.5. It also infringes the principle of judicial independence as it does not provide 
judges with commensurate financial income, which negatively affects the entire 
judiciary and infringes the independence of the judge’s work and the principle of 
effective legal protection. 
5.6. Moreover, the remuneration is paid to the applicant (judges) from the State 
budget of the Republic of Croatia, which also indirectly infringes the principle of 
independence and autonomy of the judiciary since the financial income of judges 
depends on the decisions of the executive and legislature, which conflicts directly 
with the abovementioned principles. 
5.7. Therefore, in order to adjudicate in the specific administrative dispute, an 
interpretation is necessary of Article 19(1) TEU and the second paragraph of 
Article 47 of the Charter in the light of Article 4 of the Law since, for the reasons 
mentioned above, the referring court considers that that provision is contrary to 
the cited provisions of the TEU and the Charter. 
6. QUESTIONS REFERRED: 
6.1. Must the principle of judicial independence laid down in the second 
subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the 
Charter be interpreted as precluding the provisions of Article 4 of the Law which 
fix the basic remuneration (without allowances), that to say which fix the basis 
and factor of remuneration of a judge of a court of first instance in the Republic of 
Croatia? […] 
6.1.1. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must the second 
subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the 
Charter, in a situation where the non-application of Article 4 of the Law would 
lead to an even less favourable situation for the independence of judges of the 
courts of first instance, and a Member State consistently avoids adopting a 
MINISTARSTVO PRAVOSUĐA, UPRAVE I DIGITALNE TRANSFORMACIJE 
 
7 
remuneration system in accordance with the demands of the independent 
judiciary, be interpreted as meaning that the national court is required to do 
everything legally permissible to ensure judicial independence, inter alia, also to 
fix the gross basic remuneration of the applicant as a judge of a court of first 
instance, without allowances, at the gross monthly remuneration for the current 
year, which is obtained by multiplying the amount of the average gross monthly 
remuneration for the previous year of employees employed by legal persons in the 
Republic of Croatia by a factor (2.08) corresponding to the ratio of the gross 
remuneration of a judge of a specialised court of first instance to the average gross 
remuneration of employees employed by legal persons in the Republic of Croatia 
at the time of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union? 
6.2. Must the principle of judicial independence laid down in the second 
subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the 
Charter be interpreted as meaning that the legislature of the Republic of Croatia is 
required, when enacting provisions governing the remuneration of judges, to 
determine the factor and the basis for remuneration on the basis of the fact that the 
amount of the remuneration of judges is directly linked to observance of the 
principle of independence and impartiality of the courts? 
6.2.1. If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, must the 
principle of judicial independence laid down in the second subparagraph of 
Article 19(1) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter be 
interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which authorises judges to be 
paid from the State budget, which is enacted and disposed of by the Government 
of the Republic of Croatia and the Parliament of the Republic of Croatia as entities 
of the executive and the legislature, thus indirectly affecting the independence of 
the judiciary [?] 
6.3. Must the principle of judicial independence laid down in the second 
subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU and […] the second paragraph of Article 47 of 
the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the legislature of the Republic of 
Croatia is required, when enacting provisions governing the remuneration of 
judges, to fix the remuneration of judges in such a way that the increase in the 
remuneration of judges is in line with the increase in the average remuneration in 
the Republic of Croatia over the same period? 
Rijeka, 22 May 2024 
[…]