An association of prosecutors challenges “a dual -dangerous standard”: “Some magistrates seem to have more freedom to express themselves / Other colleagues are disciplined for minor facts”
The Association “Movement for the Defense of the Statute of Prosecutors” (Amasp) claims that some magistrates violate the reserve obligation they have by political tensile statements, while others are disciplined for minor facts, such as positioning in communications of the associations of magistrates.
“Often, the revolt of society is also ours, only that we do not always have the necessary frame to express it, however we have done it many times, as we will continue.
“The reserve obligation of the magistrates is not optional”
The association argues that generalized attacks on magistrates are “unfair and dangerous” and can affect confidence in the judicial system. In order to contribute to a constructive dialogue on justice in Romania, AMASP wants to present the problems of the system, structured on four chapters: reserve obligation, problems inside the system, legislative problems and the problem of pensions and salaries.
A first post on the Association's Facebook page refers to the reserve obligation that prosecutors and judges have.
“In a tense and polarized public climate, the silence of the magistrates is often interpreted as carelessness, complicity or lack of involvement. In reality, it is imposed by law-an essential professional obligation, not a personal choice. The reserve obligation is not optional, but a condition of the status of magistrate in a rule of law.”
Double standard for magistrate's public statements
The subject is treated in five points in which it is said that the magistrates have very narrow limits regarding the expression in the public space. On the other hand, Amasp finds that some go beyond the limits of the expression set for magistrates, and others are disciplined, including for positions assumed as members of professional associations:
- “Magistrates cannot comment publicly commented on the causes, because although the topics are of public interest, they are also part of an ongoing investigation. Any public reaction can be interpreted as an influence of justice or violation of the presumption of innocence or the compromise of impartiality, which can attract a disciplinary research.
- Most of the mediated topics are rapidly politicized, which places any opinion of a magistrate beyond the limit of political neutrality imposed by professional status. A simple position can be seen as a form of partisancar that contravenes deontology and the direct path to disciplinary research.
- Neither can the controversial decisions of other colleagues be commented freely. It is also a disciplinary deviation.
- Often, the media truth is different from the legal one, but you cannot give public details. It happens that a decision of a colleague is wrongly perceived, and the reason for adopting a solution to be the restrictive legal provisions, and not the interpretation of the magistrate. Not often, public opinion has shown scandalized that a certain person was not proposed for arrest, without knowing that for certain offenses, the law does not allow you, no matter how much you want. Here the communication compartments should intervene, but the institutional ability to communicate is sometimes poor.
- A dangerous double standard – it is true that some magistrates seem to benefit from more “freedom” to express themselves publicly, even in areas of disciplinary risk. Statements with a political tint, positioning in mediated cases or direct public exits are often unchanged. At the same time, other colleagues are seen sent to a disciplinary court for minor facts, such as maintenance, simple symbolic gestures or positioning through communications of some magistrates' associations. This differentiated treatment erodes both the coherence of the system and the confidence in the correctness with which the rules of the profession apply. The reserve, to be credible, must be applied unitary, not selectively, depending on the context or notoriety. ”
“Magistrates live in the same society, see the same things, feel the same tensions. They are affected when confidence decreases, when justice is questioned, when people no longer think they can be protected. If we do not speak, it is because we are not allowed, not because we do not say something. Amasp, a post in which there are no concrete examples of the situation described.
Bolojan, compared to “a butcher”
Lately, there have been several statements of magistrates who have, sometimes vehemently criticized, from the political environment, on the reform of the magistrate's pension system. Judge Claudiu Drăgușin, a member of the Superior Council of Magistracy, compared to Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan with a butcher, after the head of the Government announced the proposals regarding the amount of pensions and the retirement age of the magistrates.
In a message posted on Facebook, the judge accused Bolojan that “prefers to destroy the image of one of the state powers (which, unlike the others, has no other tools to defend themselves, except for the codes).”
“A short time ago, a friend, a neurosurgeon, told me, what are the consequences when, under the pretext of saving a patient, a surgeon does not come into the operating room, but a butcher.
“The destruction of any democracy begins with the destruction of the system of justice. Any dictatorship begins with the destruction of the justice system. I do not say it, says history. What we live today is the peak of a campaign to demonize a system that works well, in normal parameters, as it works in other states that we have been in the European, I do not he wrote Drăgușin on July 29.
One day later, another judge from the SCM, Alin Ene, vehemently criticized Bolojan's proposals. “Under the mask of” Reformation “and resuming the same lies already published by the Superior Council of Magistracy, the prime minister of Romania flagrantly violates the Constitution of Romania and the international standards, despising both the case law of the Constitutional Court and any trace of respect for the principles of the law. In a challenge gesture, a new increase in retirement age is announced, an absurd increase in seniority and a brutal amputation of the service pension-all, just a few months after Law no. 282/2023 has already substantially modified these conditions ”, Alin Ene wrote on a social network.
The judge stated that Bolojan's intentions would be part of a “stigmatization campaign” that aims to control the judicial system and distract “from the true failures of government”.
The posts of the two occurred in the context in which the Superior Council of Magistracy had already formulated an official point of view regarding the proposed reform of the employees' pension system.
Nicușor Dan, ironized by a government employee
Hard criticisms from the SCM according to the measures announced by Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan regarding the pensions of the magistrates. “They will lead to the destruction of the justice system”
Judge Bogdan Mateescu, Secretary General in the Ministry of Justice, also commented on Facebook, a statement of President Nicușor Dan, related to the disclosures that were to lead to the resignation of Deputy Prime Minister Dragoș Anastasiu, regarding his fima to an employee of ANAF.
After Nicușor Dan said that Anastasiu's situation, who had not yet resigned, is “a big problem”, Bogdan Mateescu had the president in a Facebook post on July 27: “In all this national tumult, in full brainstorming to find apologies, explanations, the blue pixel, Complex: It's a big problem!
Mateescu also referred to the fact that President Nicușor Dan postponed the signing of the retirement decrees.
“I do not want to think when it will reach the retirement/resignation decrees of the magistrates, I probably do not know, in a few years, after going through the procedure as he said (obviously there is no course procedure) and will find that, wow, nowhere in this civilized world, the judges are not held by the standard, that the WOW Appointment and cessation of quality, that wow, are complicated, systemic and punctual consequences … ”, wrote Mateescu
