Judges’ salary is a public matter, and not an issue of personal finances
The Hungarian judges speaking up for judicial independence in the form of statements published on the homepage of two judicial associations use words like “treason”, “humiliation”, “abuse”, “bribery”, “blackmail”, “starving the judiciary out”, “leashing”, a “slap in the face”, “bleeding out”, and even a “sneaky political game”. The judges felt compelled to speak up publicly against the “Agreement” concluded recently by judicial leaders, the National Judicial Council and the government. As the judges point out, the document is not the result of the fair negotiations of equal parties: the “discussion was unilateral”, and only the government’s will prevailed.
In little more than a week, until Monday morning, 441 judges (15% of all the Hungarian judges) and 530 other judicial employees (deputy judges, trainee judges, judicial clerks, administrative employees, etc.) decided to condemn publicly the quadrilateral “Agreement” concluded on 20 November 2024 by the government and the top office holders of the Hungarian judiciary: the President of the National Office for the Judiciary (NOJ), the President of the Kúria (Hungary’s supreme court) and the President of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
Before the signing of the agreement, the largest association of Hungarian judges, MABIE called on judicial employees (judges and non-judicial staff as well) to express their views on the pact that linked the burning issue of raising the insufficient salaries of judicial employees to judicial support for large scale judicial reform proposed by the government. A similar call was published by the Res Iudicata Association.
The opinions published on the websites of the two judicial associations voiced stinging criticism of the parties that signed the “Agreement” seen as the selling out of judicial independence. The letters, written in most cases by judges and other judicial employees in their own individual personal style, criticise the pact along the requirements of professional quality, morals, the rule of law and judicial independence. The number of protesting judges and other judicial employees is growing day by day. And the fact that the signed letters published on the website of the judicial associations are only the tip of the iceberg, is best illustrated by the letter of judicial employees from Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County, which was supported by altogether 147 persons, but only 40 of them signed it due to the fear of repercussions..
Below, we are presenting the main problems of the “Agreement” through selected quotes from the letters of the judges. (For our analysis of the planned “reforms” of the judicial system, see out blogposts here and here.)
Why is it a problem that the judicial leaders have concluded an agreement with the government?
“In a state characterised by the rule of law, this has no place. The representatives of the branches of power should only cooperate along legal norms, and not on the basis of multilateral agreements” (Katalin Surányi, judge at the Budapest Regional Court).
“Both the procedure leading to the conclusion of the Agreement and the contents thereof are incomprehensible […] and incompatible with the principle of the rule of law” (Balázs Pecze, judge at the Pécs Regional Court).
“We protest against the third branch of power being forced to conclude this ignoble deal! We consider this vague and incoherent declaration that is called a quadrilateral agreement to be unacceptable not only with regard to its content, but also with regard to how it was conceived!” (employees of the Szigetszentmiklós local court).
“The future of the justice system is not for sale – not for money, not for anything else! If someone does not realise this or does not act in this way, that person is not worthy of being called a judge” (Erik Mezőlaki, presiding judge at the Szeged Appeals Court).
“I am watching in disbelief the perverted embrace of the branches of power, the lack of the transparency of the process leading to the agreement, the superficial nature of the discussion, the acceptance of the Justice Minister’s competence in budgetary matters, and the excessive negligence with which the NJC has advanced its support for future organisational legislation, which lacks sufficient elaboration concerning its professional background and detail. If I saw such an agreement (contract?) in one of the cases I hear, I would not believe that it was concluded by equal parties who are capable of assessing and asserting their interests and who are competent in legal matters. It is humiliating that the matters of Hungarian courts, our matters are handled in this manner” (Tamás Csóti, presiding judge at the Budapest Regional Court).
“None of the representatives or organisational units of the independent judicial branch of power has been authorised in a law to regulate the fundamental operational conditions and the issue of remunerations, which is a crucial guarantee for judicial independence, through an agreement that does not have a binding effect” (Krisztina Aradi, judge at the Zalaegerszeg Regional Court).
Under what circumstances did the judicial parties, with special regard to the NJC, decide to support the agreement?
The circumstances of the agreement’s acceptance are described by Zoltán Simon, a judge from Dunaújváros, as follows: “The judiciary had no preliminary information about how the draft was prepared, it had no meaningful say in it, no possibility for debate, substantive discussion was provided, the conclusion [of the agreement] happened hastily, in a rush, in a way that practically excluded the judicial community.”
“Both in phase of the preparation and during the 20 November 2024 session of the NJC held in Gyula, unjustified and unfair pressure was placed on the members of the NJC. […] The Parliament and the government are primarily responsible [for the amount of the remuneration]. However, during the debate it was argued repeatedly that if we do not sign the Agreement on behalf of the judiciary [on behalf of the NJC], how will we look in the eye our colleagues, the non-judicial staff who are working for pittance and are not paid as they would deserve to be? Let’s make this clear: that we have come to this is not the responsibility of the judges and the NJC, nor is the resolving of the situation. Our empathy for our colleagues who do not work in judicial positions is not a factor to be taken into account in the legislative process, to appeal to it is simple emotional blackmail.
In addition to the circumstances of the Agreement’s conclusion and its contents, most of the protesting judges also condemned the fact that at the same time the NJC transferred from its reserved HUF 100,000 (EUR 243) under the heading “support for professional activities”. Most of them indicated that they found the extraordinary – and embarrassing – payment to be unacceptable. One of them – Attila Döme, judge at the Kúria – calculated that the net amount was not more than HUF 58,917 (or EUR 143), returned the payment to the NJC and annexed the bank certificate of the transfer to his statement. Several judges offered this money to their clerks instead, or – as did Beáta Tóth, presiding judge at the Gyula Regional Court – to the Court Employees for Each Other Foundation.
What is the nature of the “Agreement”? Does it have any guarantees?
“The ‘Agreement’ as such is in fact invalid, it cannot have any legal effect. It is based on uncertain definitions and concepts, it is unnecessarily exuberant, it lacks concreteness, it is poor both grammatically and stylistically, it is weak even for a statement of intent. I can say with certainty that if a judge handed down a decision like this, it would raise their unsuitability in the course of their evaluation (Kornélia Király, judge at the Kaposvár registry court).
“The legal nature of this document is incomprehensible, the obligations set forth therein are not enforceable in any way, since this act is not legal binding, but it is capable of creating the false pretence that the majority of people working within the judiciary support and agree with the contents of the Agreement” (Éva Tünde Illés, judge at the Buda Central District Court).
Anita Nagy, regional court judge believes that the vague wording is deliberate: “the content of the quadrilateral agreement lacks details and a timeline, it is too general and broad to be looked at as a binding declaration of magnitude, and for the same reason, it is very dangerous. What we have to be afraid of in light of this agreement, is the undermining of the public trust in our profession, which we have already been experiencing.”
What is the problem with linking the salary raise with the “judicial reforms”?
“The questions of organisational reform and the level of remuneration of the judiciary cannot be addressed jointly, these issued cannot be handed in an interdependent manner. The honour of judges must not be converted to money” (Zoltán Léhmann, judge at the Budapest Environs Regional Court).
“An agreement was concluded […] whose contents lack concreteness, and whose consequences are imponderable. The reorganisation of the courts may significantly impact the lives of not only judges but of non-judicial staff too. The court employees do not know how much they will earn in the year 2025, they do not know how their status will change in the year 2025, and whether they will have anywhere to work in the year 2026. The remuneration of judges and other court employees should not be dependent on the introduction of a reform of the justice system, it cannot be a bargaining chip, it must not depend on the goodwill of the incumbent government” (Non-judicial staff members of the Siófok District Court).
“To guarantee a sufficient level of remuneration necessary for the operation of the courts is the basic obligation of the state, it is not a donation, nor a service dependent on some condition, nor a matter of haggling, nor the price of the support of government’s position, nor the optional undertaking of those who are not authorised in any way for this” (Orsolya Szántai, judge of the Veszprém District Court).
“What kind of image the public opinion following media reports will have/develop about the judges if it is reported that they have accepted the justice reform in exchange for a salary raise? More simply: in order to get more money, a judge accepts the request of the person giving that money. We cannot know the details of the justice reform, they may be adequate and excellent. But the two questions must not be discussed together. The question is not whether one should vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with regard to the agreement, but that the joint discussion of these two themes must be rejected. If in a case that I hear a party invites me for a coffee to discuss what they can offer in exchange for what decision, it is not an acceptable solution to accept the invitation and then say ‘no’. […I]t is not just the independence of the judicial branch of power that is severely threatened, but also the appearance thereof, which is equally important due to the perceptions of society” (Áron Hegyi, judge at the Budapest 2nd and 3rd District Court).
“I am not quoting legal provisions – many have done that –, I would like to convey the honest reaction of a colleague in a non-judicial position instead: ‘at this price, we do not want this’” (Dóra Szilbereki-Vajda, judge at the Keszthely District Court).
To what extent does this pact undermine judicial independence? And if it does, how does this impact us, citizens trying to assert our rights?
“We express our disagreement over the fact that the government drafts and submits to the Parliament the judicial reform, which has an impact on the lives and future of all Hungarian citizens, unilaterally, in secrecy, excluding the Hungarian society and the Hungarian judges” (Judicial employees from Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County).
“Judicial independence is the foundation that enables judges to deliver a judgment in line with the legal norms and their own conscience in any legal dispute concerning any party, and excluding any external circumstance. This independence is fundamentally compromised if a judge must fear that if they hand down a decision contradicting the interests of those in power, it may lead to pressure or the threat thereof on the adjudicating judge or the judicial organisation. If there is no judicial independence, the third branch of power disappears, and this will have consequences on all citizens, legal and natural persons” (judge Zita Stráhl).
The far-reaching impacts of the agreement will concern other legal professions as well, warns Katinka Makai, judge at the Fonyód District Court: “The ‘Agreement’ drafted under the egis of the ‘justice reform’ does not attempt to completely and unilaterally alter the personal and institutional conditions within the judiciary only, but it also breaches the independence of the fellow professions, namely the prosecution and the attorneys. It may lead to changes that threaten both the independence of the justice system as the third branch of power and the citizens’ access to independent adjudication. There are no prospects for the colleagues working in the classic legal professions, our future will become uncertain!”
“We must raise our voice for the sake of all Hungarian citizens and the participants of the Hungarian economy, since the functioning of the Hungarian justice system, the existence of Hungary as a rule of law, and the intactness of the organisation of the judiciary which guarantees all the above, is a matter of public interest. It is a matter concerning all of us, since only an independent judiciary can guarantee the legal protection of the citizens, and the belief that such a judiciary exists has an impact on investors’ decisions and thus on whether the Hungarian State continues to be financeable (Judicial employees from Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County).
“There are two professions that serves to ‘save’ the members of society if need be. Doctors, who save us from illnesses, and judges, who save us from unlawful personal and financial violations. Judicial independence is a fundamental precondition for the performance of the latter function; it is a commonplace that it does not belong to the judge, but to the public, which provides the judge with it. For safekeeping. If the judge’s independence is undermined, then the belief in its worth may be lost” (Tamás Csóti, presiding judge at the Budapest Regional Court).
What is the judges’ problem if according to the Central Statistical Office their average gross monthly salary is HUF 1.5 million (EUR 3,650)?
The word “average” hides dramatic differences in the level of remuneration. “A judge working at a district court for 20 years […] earns nothing near the gross 1.5 million Forints determined according to the above outlined calculation. I have not conducted a full-scale research, but from among the judges working at the Budapest 2nd and 3rd District Court, the Court president may be the only one who receives that average gross monthly salary. […] Based on the current salary scale, a judge adjudicating cases at the local level can reach the level of 1.5 million Forints gross 36 years after the passing of the bar exam. At the earliest, the bar exam can be taken when the prospective judge turns 27 years old, so a local judge may earn a salary equalling this average at the age of 63, provided that with a view to their 20 years of adjudicating experience, they are granted the title ‘honorary regional court judge’” (Áron Hegyi, judge at the Budapest 2nd and 3rd District Court).
“Calculating on the basis of this year’s average judicial salary (which is a gross monthly HUF 1,520,270 according to the Agreement), a 48% raise would mean a monthly gross salary of HUF 2.250.000 by 2027. This declared goal, which cannot be properly interpreted in the absence of other data, can be reached in many different ways. But if we assume that the respective gross salary of each individual judge will be increased by 48% by 2027, the real value of judicial salaries would rise by 8.5% by 1 January 2027 in comparison to the decrease of the real value of salaries that took place between 1 January 2022 and 31 October 2024 due to the cumulated inflation of 39.5% in this period. Calculating with an annual inflation rate of 3% for the period until 2027, we must conclude that the increase envisaged in the Agreement would hardly sustain the real value of judicial salaries, and three years from now, the purchasing power of judicial remunerations would even be below the 2022 level” (Eszter Botos, judge at the Buda Central District Court).
As far as the 530 protesting non-judicial employees are concerned, “[i]t would be a epic mistake to believe that non-judicial employees of the judicial system are here because they have nowhere else to work. They are here because they love their profession and colleagues; they could find a job with better remuneration and working conditions any time. If this happens, the situation will be worse than ‘hyperacute’, as it is fashionably described nowadays” (employees of the Szigetszentmiklós District Court).
The best-paid judges work at the Kúria and the appeals courts, and not in local and regional courts, where the majority of sentences are handed down, not to mention the deputy judges and trainee judges hoping to be appointed judges one day, or the extremely underpaid non-judicial staff of the courts, whose problems are described here and here. The published letters are full of heart-breaking examples of how difficult it is for them to make ends meet.
How should the issue of remunerations be resolved if not through recurring salary agreements concluded with the government?
“If we agree that the […] increase in remunerations is not automatic, but happens on the basis of side agreements, then we must be prepared for endless wage fights. If we regard it as the normal course of action that the remuneration which should guarantee our independence is determined without [the judiciary ] being thoroughly informed, then we will exist with our heads hung” (Anita Nagy, regional court judge).
Several other letters emphasise that the salaries of judges and other judicial employees as representatives of the third branch of power should be determined without financial and political bargaining.
“The remuneration of judges is the fundamental pillar of the rule of law and the independence of the justice system, and therefore it must not be linked to conditions, must not be a bargaining chip, it must be secured by the legislature and the government […] without debates in order to guarantee the rule of law and the right to an independent judge as enshrined in the Fundamental Law” (Judicial Council of the Zalaegerszeg Regional Court).
The sufficient remuneration of teachers, nurses or police officers is also an issue of public interest, however, in the case of judicial employees it is also a constitutional matter closely impacting the fundamental rights of all citizens.
The solution would be an automatic mechanism for the adjustment of salaries, which would prevent the executive branch (the government) and the legislative branch (the Parliament) from interfering with the salaries of judicial employees in an arbitrary manner in accordance with their temporary political interests. However, this is not something the Agreement concluded last week touches upon in any way.
What should the NJC and its President have done with the Justice Ministry’s offer?
“The NJC President should not have signed the quadripartite agreement on the basis of the NJC’s authorisation, we might say that he should not have entered into negotiations in the first place He should not have signed it, because the draft was kept confidential, the NJC members had only one day to familiarise themselves with it, they were deprived of the possibility to inform the concerned persons about its content and gather their opinions about it. The concerned persons in this case are not the NJC members, it is us: judges, deputy judges, trainees judges, administrative personnel and maintenance staff. He should not have signed it, because this is not the way to carry out organisational reform, those concerned shall be informed about the details, the concrete plans and reasons of the decision makers, a discussion should be conducted with the participation of those concerned, but none of this has happened here. One day, eight days, or even a month is not sufficient time for this. He should not have signed it, because a kind of pressure was put on the NJC that we as judges are obliged to refuse. He should not have signed it, because it created the appearance that in exchange for money we are willing to support even detrimental” (judges and deputy judges at the Szigetvár and Siklós District Courts).
“We believe that we cannot condone the public humiliation and blackmailing of the judiciary, and the attempt to bribe it. We believe that an ‘offer’ like this must not be assessed, and must not even be listened to” (judges at the Kaposvár Regional Court).
The letter of judicial employees from Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County recalls that according to the Judges’ Code of Ethics, “’Judicial leaders shall refrain from presenting their own individual opinion as the views of the judges working in the organisational unit headed by them, and from abusing their right of representation in other ways too.’ On this basis we request the eight NJC members who signed the Agreement to let us know on what legal or other basis they found the document worthy of support, and disregarded their own Resolution no. 189/2024 (X.16.) [outlining the NJC’s original position on the budget of the judiciary].
Judges Tamács Pocsai and Renáta Pocsainé Cseuscsák recall the principle of the distribution of powers: “Montesquieu laid down this principle as early as the 18th century. In the 21st century, [Hungary], as an EU members state should comply with it. The resolving of the issue of remunerations is not a bargaining chip, judicial independence, ethos and honour shall not be exchanged for quarters and dimes. None of the signatories had the right to sign this pact against the known, and – due to the lack of consultations – unknown opinions of the judges with regard to either the remuneration or other issues concerned by the pact.”
Kúria judge András Kovács summarises his criticism as follows: “Judges are not infallible, we can be wrong, but if that happens, we must do our utmost to correct the mistake, and this is what the judiciary expects now from the NJC.”