President Nicusor Dan on Monday began discussions at Cotroceni Presidential Palace with magistrates who wish to speak openly about problems within the justice system.

The consultations started at 10:00 in the morning with an initial group including, among others, Daniel Ungureanu, prosecutor at the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Ploiesti Court of Appeal, Liviu Cirneciu, judge at the Covasna Tribunal, Laura Derius, prosecutor at the Prosecutor's Office attached to Bucharest District 1 Court, Mihai Catalin Constantin, judge at the Ploiesti Court of Appeal, Dragos Calin, judge at the Bucharest Court of Appeal and president of the Judges' Forum Association, Bogdan Pirlog, military prosecutor, and Alinel Bodnar, judge at the Bucharest Tribunal.

Among the issues raised by the magistrates were the need for urgent amendments to the justice laws adopted in 2022, the existence of an oligarchic 'system' at the top, particularly at the High Court of Cassation and Justice and within the Superior Council of Magistracy, the closeness of some magistrates to political actors and abuses by the Judicial Inspection against magistrates regarded as inconvenient.

***

The first to speak was Dragos Calin, president of the Judges' Forum Association, who said that the regressions in the justice system resulting from the laws adopted in 2022 should be made known to the entire public opinion. He stressed that the only solution to remedy these aspects is a rapid amendment of the justice laws and pointed out that, unfortunately, in no profession is it possible to regulate such matters solely internally, but rather an external intervention is required, the most entitled body being the Romanian Parliament, which enjoys legitimacy through the election of Romanian citizens. He also said that the profession of magistrate is a silent one, explaining that magistrates usually express their emotions in words, just as mathematicians express emotions in numbers, and that the fact so many colleagues nevertheless accept a public discussion of this kind is encouraging.

Liviu Cirneciu, judge at the Covasna Tribunal, said that he had communicated to the Presidential Administration two specific cases that could present the characteristics of abuses. He said he did not believe these were simple accidents, but symptoms of a deeply dysfunctional system, the real problem being that the justice system lacks genuine internal mechanisms of self-correction. Abuses are not identified and corrected from within because power is excessively concentrated at the top, in a way that allows informal control over the careers of all magistrates and the selection of people opting for management positions according to criteria other than meritocratic ones.

He added that in recent years an oligarchic system has consolidated within the justice system, with its centre of gravity at the top of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Superior Council of Magistracy. Through the justice laws adopted in 2022, sufficient levers were created to filter and secure over time certain key positions in the hierarchy of the judicial system. He argued that even if the person currently at the top of the judicial system's leadership were to leave, the mechanisms would remain and the system would continue to function, noting that all procedures influencing a magistrate's career are characterised by a total lack of transparency and a lack of minimal guarantees of objectivity.

As examples, he referred to the disciplinary investigation procedure, saying that there is a double standard in the activity of the Judicial Inspection. He said that certain judges engage in activities implying a visible closeness to political actors, such as judges proposed as ministers of justice while still holding judicial office, without any consequences, or judges who post messages on social media that effectively defy common sense, again without consequences. By contrast, other judges receive disproportionate disciplinary sanctions, including exclusion from the magistracy, for activities that cannot even be classified as disciplinary offences.

Cirneciu also said there are absolutely no negative consequences for magistrates who take such abusive decisions at the level of the Superior Council of Magistracy, some even being promoted. As an example, he mentioned that one of the magistrates who decided on the exclusion from the magistracy of Danilet was appointed secretary general at the Ministry of Justice, while another was appointed director of the National Institute of Magistracy. In conditions where there is clearly a double standard within the Judicial Inspection, magistrates feel a generalised state of fear regarding possible abuses.

He concluded by saying that within Romania's justice system people work very, very hard compared with other countries, with an immense workload that is not emphasised enough. The vast majority of magistrates act in good faith, have a vocation for the profession and it is unfair for these dysfunctions to be generalised. AGERPRES (RO - writing by: Eusebi Manolache; EN - writing by: Adina Panaitescu)