361 changes of panels at the Bucharest Court of Appeal in three years. Arsenie: “All had objective causes” / The Recorder material creates “an artificial and dangerous public emotion for the rule of law”

The president of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (CAB) declared, on Monday, in a statement, that at the court level there were 361 cases of changes to the court panels in the last three years and that the centralized situation “proves that all these changes had objective causes, provided by law and inherent in the normal functioning of a court” of this level, “which operates with a scheme of 218 judges”.

The statement signed by Liana Arsenie comes almost a month after the Recorder documentary “Captured Justice”, which the CAB president claims “ignores the statistical dimension and presents the exceptional as the rule, creating unfounded suspicions, discrediting the court, an artificial and dangerous public emotion for the rule of law”.

The reasons cited in the amendment of the complements

According to CAB, the centralized situation of the reasons that were the basis of the 361 changes of completeness in the last 3 years shows as follows:

• early retirements and relief for retirees – 55 situations;
• career promotions – 53 situations;
• integration of newly arrived judges into the department – ​​144 cases;
• total or partial relief of the judge in consideration of the complexity of the cases, other situations – 41 cases;
• resumption of work after maternity leave, other situations – 48 cases;
• postings – 20 situations (11 by law as a result of the promotion of competitions, 9 to other institutions within the judicial authority).

The CAB also presented an “interpretation” of the data, stating that the integration of newly arrived judges in the department (39.9% of the 361 total cases) “represents the main cause of the changes and reflects the filling of vacant positions, the stabilization of personnel schemes, the application of the rules for the balanced distribution of the volume of activity”.

About the early retirements and dismissals of judges who have notified their intention to retire (15.2%), the CAB says that “these are unavoidable situations that presuppose the termination of the mandate and the mandatory reorganization of panels.”

CAB describes the 53 career promotions (14.7% of cases) as a “natural consequence of the promotion contests, of the right to career, these changes are imposed by law”, which “are not discretionary”.

Furthermore, the CAB notes that the resumption of activity after maternity leave/other similar situations, representing 13.3% of cases, “are changes related to the protection of social rights, career continuity, compliance with labor legislation and the status of the judge”.

Regarding the total or partial relief in consideration of the complexity of the cases, other situations, representing 11.% of the cases, the CAB states that “the changes made have ensured the adaptation of the panels to the complexity of the files, the prevention of prescription in criminal matters, blockages and the excessive duration of the processes”.

“The analysis of the 361 panel changes in the last three years shows that they were determined exclusively by objective and legal causes, derived from the dynamics of human resources, the fulfillment of legal obligations, professional and social rights of judges, judicial management requirements,” the press release signed by the CAB president also reads.

CAB chief on Recorder's 'purported journalistic investigation'

Liana Arsenie claims that “the presentation made by Recorder journalists takes these data out of context, ignores the statistical dimension and presents the exceptional as the rule, creating unfounded suspicions, discrediting the court, an artificial and dangerous public emotion for the rule of law”.

“In the “Recorder” presentation, it is claimed that solutions in corruption cases were influenced by changing the composition of the panels. In reality, as it follows from the statistical data, this allegation is not supported by the objective data of the cases, nor by the applicable legal framework. The analysis of the real situation shows, on the one hand, that in the vast majority of cases (over 86%), the cases were already time-barred when they reached the Bucharest Court of Appeal, and in the rest the prescription was imminent. Under these conditions, the composition of the panel could not influence the solution imposed by the law,” the statement added.

“On the other hand, the changes made in the composition of the panels were required under the law and were, at the same time, objectively justified”, the CAB president also claims.