Judge Raluca Moroșanu is facing “retaliation” after taking a stand, Recorder says: “Removed from a file” after a request from a “constant guest lawyer on Romania TV”
Raluca Moroșanu during the press conference of the Bucharest Court of Appeal on December 11, 2025. Inquam Photos / Gyozo / Baghiu
Judge Raluca Moroșanu from the Bucharest Court of Appeal, one of the magistrates who accused irregularities in the justice system, faced on Wednesday the first accepted recusal in the 26 years she has been in this profession, being removed from a file by a decision taken by two female judges close to the court management, according to the Recorder.
Recorder says that “everything started from a recusal request submitted yesterday by a lawyer constantly invited to Romania TV, Alexandru Turiga”, who invoked “”the existence of a suspicion regarding its impartiality (…) in relation to the information appearing in the public space”.
The recusal request was judged by Raluca Moroșanu's panel colleague, judge Bogdan Dari, and a judge from the permanent list, Nicoleta Nolden, “about whom the press wrote that she was Cătălin Predoiu's adviser”, notes the Recorder, which claims that “Nolden is described by multiple voices inside the system as a close associate of Lia Savonea, the head of the High Court”.
“As judges Dari and Nolden diverged, the first considering that the recusal request should be rejected, and the second that it should be admitted, the intervention of a third magistrate was needed. Thus, none other than Violeta Georgescu-Ashemimry, head of the Criminal Section I, who was part of the panel that acquitted Marian Vanghelie of abuse of office and money laundering, joined the panel. Ashemimry was of the same opinion as Nicoleta Nolden, so that Raluca Moroșanu was rejected”, writes the Recorder.
“It can set a dangerous precedent”
The Recorder said the case “is a trivial one”, being a review of preventive measures in the case of a drug-trafficking defendant, but “the decision may set a dangerous precedent”.
“The acceptance of the request for recusal on the grounds that a judge can no longer be impartial due to the statements made in the public space about the problems in the justice system will be able to be used by other lawyers, in any other criminal case that Moroșanu judges,” Recorder wrote.
The investigative publication said that “this decision also seems to have the role of a veiled threat sent by the management of the Bucharest Court of Appeal and other judges who would think to speak publicly about possible illegalities and abuses within the court”.
Recorder claims that the recusal of Raluca Moroșanu “totally disagrees” with the decision recently given by the European Court of Human Rights, which this week condemned Romania for violating the freedom of expression of former judge Cristi Danileț.
The ECtHR pronounces a decision of major impact on the freedom of expression of magistrates. The final verdict in the Danileț case – VIDEO
“Contacted by the Recorder, Judge Moroșanu told us that the legal provisions do not allow her to comment in any way on this decision of her colleagues, but she specified that it is the only recusal allowed in the 26 years since she has been a judge,” the publication also wrote.
The lawyer argued in the application that “it is not enough to know that the magistrate is objective”
The Recorder mentioned that he still does not have the reasoning on the basis of which the decision to recuse Judge Raluca Moroșanu was made, but he has the text of the request submitted by Alexandru Turiga.
According to the publication, the lawyer argued that “it is not enough to know that the magistrate is objective, but there must also be the appearance that the magistrate judging the case is objective and impartial.”
“However, in relation to the information that has appeared in the public environment, which shows that the perception of a defendant, of a case cannot be influenced by the objective, personal, subjective characteristics of a person, bearing in mind that individualization under all means, both when we discuss a punishment, about the disposition of a preventive measure, being in such a procedural phase, in addition to all the concrete elements regarding the case, in addition to all the objective elements regarding the person of the defendant, is carried out at the time of deliberation and not just in a subjective manner,” the lawyer also wrote in the motion for recusal, quoted by the Recorder.
