Vetting and salary reform in justice reduce some magistrates' income
The new salary reform project in the public sector could lead to significant disparities in salaries between judges and prosecutors who have the same seniority, responsibilities, and work within the same institution. Experts from the Institute for European Policies and Reforms (IPRE) warn that the proposed mechanism, which ties reference values to the results of external evaluations (vetting), may pose risks to the independence of the justice system.
Although experts agree on the need to reform the unitary salary system, they emphasize that the current project has significant deficiencies and cannot be recommended for adoption as it stands.
One serious issue identified by experts is the differentiation of income based on external evaluation criteria. According to the project's substantiation note, distinct reference values will be applied starting September 1, 2026:
- 4,700 lei for judges and prosecutors who have not undergone external evaluation or do not have legal access to it.
- 6,200 lei for judges and prosecutors who have passed the external evaluation, as well as for members of the SCM, CSP, collegiums, and evaluated candidates.
While these figures are not explicitly stated in the analyzed project, which will be introduced by amending the State Budget Law, the difference between the two amounts is 31.9%.
"Applied to the same coefficient, this creates a significant salary gap between individuals who hold the same position in the same court or prosecutor's office, have the same seniority, and share the same workload," states the Position Note signed by IPRE.
The authors of the analysis emphasize that this differentiation significantly impacts the employee's economic situation. To prevent structural discrimination and potential unconstitutionality, the experts recommend that the basic salary be strictly tied to the position's value, complexity, responsibility, and seniority.
They state, “If the legislator finds it necessary to incentivize individuals who have passed the external evaluation, this should be implemented as a distinct transitional allowance with a defined duration, equal conditions, and transparent budgetary justification, rather than as a structural and potentially permanent difference in the reference value for the same position.”
In conclusion, while they support the overall direction of the reform, the experts recommend significant revisions to the draft before it is adopted.
One of their key recommendations is establishing a mandatory annual adjustment for the reference values applicable to judges, members of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM), prosecutors, and members of the Superior Council of Prosecutors (CSP), at least in line with the average annual inflation rate.
Additionally, they suggest including the reference values that will take effect from September 1, 2026, in the same legislative package as the new salary scale. The experts also advocate for the annual indexation of compensatory payments and their inclusion in the calculation of related salary entitlements.
Another important recommendation is the mandatory and effective involvement of the SCM and CSP in evaluating roles within the justice sector. Furthermore, the experts emphasize that salary increases should not come at the expense of the operational budgets for courts and prosecutors' offices.
