This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from the European Commission. The Anti-Corruption Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International and funded by the European Union.
Query
Please provide a summary of the debates on transparency of remuneration of judges and prosecutors.
Summary
Public scrutiny of judicial and prosecutorial remuneration is vital for integrity and independence, yet international standards do not oblige disclosure. Countries adopt very different models, from publishing scales to maintaining secrecy, and forms of supplemental benefits often go unreported. The challenge is to achieve transparency without placing judicial actors’ security or privacy at risk. Anonymised pay scales and automatic adjustment mechanisms may help reconcile independence, public trust and fairness.
Main points
- International instruments consistently protect judicial and prosecutorial remuneration as a guarantee of independence, but none expressly requires states to make that remuneration public.
- Transparency obligations applicable to judges and prosecutors arise indirectly, through anti-corruption frameworks, asset declaration regimes and open government standards developed for the public sector.
- Remuneration transparency and asset disclosure are complementary, not alternative tools: salary disclosure captures only what the state pays, while asset declarations should reveal the official’s complete financial landscape.
- The absence of a comprehensive, judiciary specific international standard on remuneration transparency leaves states without guidance on what to disclose, to whom, in what form and subject to what safeguards.
- There is a wide range of models across domestic legislation. This includes jurisdictions where obtaining information on remuneration is virtually impossible, due to the absence of freedom of information legislation, to those where information on salary scales is proactively disclosed and regularly updated.
- The main counterargument to disclosure concerns potential infringement of judges’ rights to privacy; however, international jurisprudence emphasises that privacy should be subject to proportionality tests and weighed against the public interest.
Authors
Maria Leonor Rodriguez Pratt
Reviewers
Jamie Bergin, Adam Foldes, Amanda Faria Lima, Guilherme France
Date
31/03/2026
