ECHR: The State may stagger the payment of salary arrears owed to magistrates

The State is not obligated to pay, in a single lump sum, the full amount of salary arrears awarded to magistrates by domestic courts, this is the conclusion of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Puşcaşu and Others v. Romania, given the exceptional circumstances examined by the European judges. This interpretation provides the Government with an argument in the ongoing dispute over approximately 5 billion lei, for which the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) has upheld the Executive's obligation to provide funding. Furthermore, the ECHR warns of the risk of a conflict of interest when judges rule on salary entitlements from which they themselves may benefit. In the dispute with the Government, this issue takes on a concrete institutional form: the ÎCCJ requested the funds, and it was also the ÎCCJ that issued the final, binding resolution to the litigation. The European decision, adopted on October 13 and made it public yesterday, concerns the applications of five judges and former judges who complained about the failure to fully execute court rulings regarding salary arrears. The seven judges at the ECHR who heard the case unanimously declared the applicants' claims inadmissible, deeming them manifestly ill-founded. This ruling is final.

• The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) demanded the funds and then definitively settled the dispute itself

The most significant observation made by the ECHR concerns the judges' personal interest in salary-related litigation. The Court points out that their participation in decisions regarding components of remuneration, from which they themselves could benefit, was likely to create a conflict of interest, as personal financial interests interfered with the impartial exercise of their judicial duties.

This warning is directly relevant to the case involving 5 billion lei. The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) took action against the Government and the Ministry of Finance to secure funds for salary arrears, while the appeals were subsequently adjudicated by a panel from that very same court. Thus, the institution that asserted the budgetary claim was also the court that delivered the final judgment in the dispute.

From the perspective of institutional interest, the issue highlighted by the ECHR goes beyond mere hypothesis: there is an actual overlap between the roles of a party to the litigation and the court itself. This situation provides a concrete basis for the criticism that the judiciary acted as an arbiter in a conflict concerning its own financial interests. The European judges also noted that the case law of the Constitutional Court and the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) had reshaped the framework for magistrates' remuneration, even without formal amendments to the relevant legislation. The expansion of salary entitlements through court rulings increased budgetary obligations; furthermore, according to the statement, the courts appear to have transcended their traditional role of interpreting and applying the law, thereby creating the appearance of an inter-institutional conflict of interest.

• Full and immediate payment may be superseded by exceptional budgetary constraints

The applicants in the case of Puşcaşu and Others v. Romania claimed that they were still owed amounts ranging from 30,000 euros to approximately 572,000 euros. These entitlements stemmed from court rulings that had ordered the Ministry of Justice and the courts where the applicants had been employed to pay them the outstanding differences in their remuneration.

The ECHR concluded that, under the circumstances, the delays did not impair the very essence of the right to have court judgments enforced, nor did they impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants. This conclusion took into account the scale of the obligations accumulated by the State, the difficulty in anticipating their total cost, and the state of public finances. The Court observed that the proliferation of lawsuits and the evolution of case law regarding salaries made it increasingly difficult to estimate the amounts the authorities would be required to pay.

The European judges also took into account the fact that the State had made payments by establishing mechanisms for the progressive enforcement of these claims. The staggered payment schedules were examined in the context of efforts toward budgetary recovery and the necessity of maintaining essential public activities and services. The financial situation of the plaintiffs was also a factor in the assessment. The Court noted that their incomes were considerably higher than the average salaries and pensions in Romania, and that they had failed to demonstrate that the failure to pay all outstanding amounts immediately would jeopardize their subsistence.

However, the decision maintains an important limitation: the ECHR reaffirms that a lack of funds does not, in principle, justify the non-enforcement of a court judgment. The acceptance of delays is predicated on the exceptional nature of the situation and on the actual efforts made toward payment, rather than on the extinguishment of the state's obligation.

• The 5 billion lei: what the Government can invoke

The reasoning of the ECHR may be invoked by the Executive in the controversy surrounding funds for salary arrears within the judiciary. On October 15, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) rejected the appeals against Civil Judgment no. 141 of May 5, 2026, issued by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in case no. 1844/2/2026. The litigation concerns the provision of resources for salary obligations that fell due in 2026, with a value estimated at approximately 4.8-5 billion lei.

According to public statements by the High Court, the upheld judgment confirms that the failure to provide funds for certain obligations, established via enforceable titles and acknowledged even through legislative acts providing for staggered payment, is unlawful. The authorities are required to secure the necessary funding, including through a budgetary rectification.

The Government now possesses a European-level argument to contend that the fulfillment of financial obligations of such magnitude must also be weighed against budgetary balance. The ECHR grants executive and legislative authorities a wide margin of appreciation in setting spending priorities, emphasizing that it is not the role of the courts to substitute their own judgment for that of these authorities in the selection of economic policies.

This interpretation is relevant to the public debate and to the legal arguments presented by the Executive. However, it does not nullify the High Court's judgment, nor does it suspend its enforcement.

The decision from Strasbourg thus shifts the debate beyond the mere obligation to pay. Also under discussion are questions regarding who determines the scope of these rights, who decides the pace of enforcement, and how impartiality is safeguarded when the judiciary adjudicates disputes that have an impact on its own income. While the Government remains obligated to execute final judgments, the reasoning of the ECHR provides it with arguments to contend that a phased payment approach may be compatible with the rights of creditors, and that budgetary policy should remain within the purview of the authorities responsible for public finances.