In a recent intervention, the president of Romania, Nicușor Dan, claimed that the rule of law cannot be negotiated and that justice can be reformed from within.
PHOTO Lawjure
If the first part of the argument is beyond any kind of comment, I think those in the judiciary would also agree with it, the second part is quite debatable: the judiciary can, in one sense, be reformed and, in another sense, it cannot be reformed from within.
Justice could be reformed from within under normal conditions, or in a country with a democratic tradition and healthy institutions. In our case, we all see that in recent years the laws of justice have always been modified in such a way as to arrive at an obedient system, which, at its peak, defends criminals instead of sending them to prison.
Justice could be reformed from within, if absolutely all actors were in good faith and if the temptation of corruption did not spread like a plague over the entire system. For example, general assemblies of magistrates can make good decisions as long as they are made by an honest majority that respects the rule of law and respects the status of magistrates. But if this majority is toxic, directed against the general interest, it is obvious that it will not take appropriate measures.
The second element that must be taken into account is the legislative one. We all know what Ordinance 13 meant, what general mobilization it required so that a series of incorrect provisions could not be transposed into practice. In addition, there are always people in the legislature who are interested in having toothless laws, weak institutions, contradictory provisions, etc., so that those interested in doing wrongdoing can operate without any hindrance. However, this cannot be done without the “agreement” of the judiciary. If the DNA, or other institutions, make corruption files and send them on to the courts, it is obvious that here, at the level of the courts, things must work in optimal parameters for the judgment to be fair.
Regarding the Recorder investigation, many deficiencies were highlighted, both inside and outside the judiciary; among the measures that can be taken in the future: mobility should be done with the consent of the magistrates, measures are needed to prevent the intervention of the statute of limitations, cases need to be judged more quickly (possibly legislating a certain term, of 1 year or 2 years, in which the cases are completed), it is forbidden to change the panel of judges before the completion of the judgment, the prohibition of suggesting solutions by the heads of courts, etc.
Another element that must be taken into account is that, now, with the current organization and the current leadership, the judiciary cannot be reformed from within. Let's think about the CSM: being controlled by the Savonea group, it is very likely that the appropriate reform measures cannot be taken. It is obvious that they will hold on to the preservation of the current status, even if we see daily new and new additions to the list of magistrates who want to reform the system (it has reached 900). Let's also think about CCR: it has an equally toxic majority, close to the party of the corrupt, so it is hard to believe that it will accept any reformist measures. Exactly the same is the case with the issue of wages and pensions; we see a lot these days the connection between huge salaries and the impunity of the corrupt.
It is not at all fair that, from within, they should establish such matters. Especially since it's natural that they don't want to cut from the ridiculous salaries and pensions they have, since they were 48 years old. They will hold on to their privileges, given that they should be held accountable including criminally for what they do; instead of the escaped criminals going to prison, the Romanian state gives them huge pensions and salaries. Is this justice? How can we believe that this system could be reformed from within?
Another important aspect that shows that justice also needs internal action, but also multiple actions, on all levels, from the outside, targets civil society. I believe that only through continuous and constant public pressure, the justice system will truly reform itself into judicial independence. The public has the best sense of how things are, and it has always been that way in recent years. The fact that there are daily demonstrations in the big cities of the country shows that people understand very well what is happening in the judiciary and seek to support the efforts for a truly independent judiciary.
I conclude with another argument: we all wanted to have an independent judiciary. The problem is that we have given the magistrates too much power, so that now some of them are the defenders of criminals. I am inclined to believe that this perversion of the meaning of judicial independence can be corrected, step by step, over time, through legislative and administrative changes, from top to bottom, but without, once again, letting the insiders decide how they want. It would be the wrong measure, taken in exactly the spirit that led to the present situation. The temptation of corruption, the pressure exerted by corrupt politicians, etc. will continue to exert itself. That is why I argue that it is impossible for the justice system to reform itself from within. With Savonea, Arsenie, Costache and Voineag, as well as with ministers like Marinescu and Predoiu, it will not reform forever.
