Judge Sorina Marinas of the Craiova Court of Appeal says she sent President Nicusor Dan the case file opened against her by the Judicial Inspection in October, contradicting the head of state's assertion that he had not seen any magistrate come forward with an extract from a Judicial Inspection decision.

'I too heard the Romanian president say (...) that magistrates had not informed him about the pressure they were under. I happen to be one of those who did inform him, on October 19, 2026, through an adviser, and I also sent him the entire disciplinary case file. So either the adviser did not inform him 'fully and accurately', as he assured me he would, or... well, someone is lying. Let's see who is lying and why. Later edit: Of course I have evidence to support what I'm saying. I've learnt the lesson that we need to come forward with the 'case file', to provide proof,' Sorina Marinas wrote on Facebook.

In July 2026, the Judicial Inspection initiated disciplinary proceedings against Judge Sorina Marinas on the grounds that she had allegedly exerted pressure and made threats, conveyed through intermediaries and social media, against members of the evaluation committee established at the Craiova Court of Appeal for a competition for promotion to judicial positions.

Sorina Marinas is among the magistrates who criticised a 'blacklist' compiled by the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) naming journalists, NGOs and politicians who had allegedly conducted a campaign to 'discredit' judges and the president of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Lia Savonea, and engaged in 'acts of harassment' against them.

On Tuesday evening, during a press conference at the Cotroceni Presidential Palace, a journalist asked President Nicusor Dan why he had not reacted to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Judicial Inspection against judges who had dared to speak publicly about the problems highlighted in Recorder's documentary 'Justitie capturata' (Captured Justice).

'As you know, we held discussions with magistrates during those months, December 2025, January 2026 and February 2026. After that, we all became caught up in a political crisis that took up all our energy and prevented us from doing anything else. Regarding what you say happened, magistrates who, following their protests, were, shall we say, harassed by the Judicial Inspection or the CSM, now that we are no longer discussing parliamentary majorities and we have a government, I am ready to resume the dialogue. (...) As for the Judicial Inspection, I do not have a detailed analysis, but if Romanians say that only 25% of them trust the justice system, and if the Judicial Inspection is the body within that system which is supposed to give us assurance that the justice system is functioning properly, then logically there is a problem with the Judicial Inspection. However, what we lack in the justice system, as in many other areas, is documented evidence, case files, yes. I mean a document setting out 30 or 20 abuses by the Judicial Inspection, which someone would compile systematically and bring to the president or anywhere else, to you, to the press, and say: this is the situation,' the head of state replied.

During the ensuing exchange with the reporter, Nicusor Dan said judges who had been 'penalised' by the Judicial Inspection could come to the Presidency with an 'extract' from the decision taken against them, so that a debate could take place on whether they had been sanctioned for expressing their opinions.

The reporter then pointed out that several magistrates had approached both the press and the Presidency in December 2025 to raise concerns about the justice system, but had subsequently faced disciplinary proceedings and sanctions without the president publicly intervening.

President Nicusor Dan asked for documentary evidence of the investigations and sanctions, including the names of the magistrates concerned and the relevant decisions of the Judicial Inspection and the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM). He argued that although allegations of wrongdoing might be justified, they needed to be supported by properly documented cases.

The reporter then named judges Laurentiu Besu, Sorina Marinas and Claudiu Sandu, all of whom, the journalist said, had faced proceedings before the Judicial Inspection and the CSM. Dan acknowledged that he was familiar with their names but insisted that each should provide extracts from the relevant Judicial Inspection decisions, their complaints to the CSM plenary and the CSM's responses, together with arguments supporting their position.

'I haven't seen that,' the president said, adding that the magistrates could submit the documents directly to him if they wished.

Asked what he could still do to help judges who had already been sanctioned by the CSM, Dan said he did not know whether they had been sanctioned or whether any sanctions had been imposed for expressing their opinions. He questioned how a meaningful debate could take place without the relevant documentation. AGERPRES (RO - writing by: Eusebi Manolache; EN - writing by: Simona Iacob)