After the Recorder documentary, the “Forum of Judges” Association again asks the authorities “to adopt without delay courageous reforms to strengthen the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary”

The Romanian Judges' Forum Association claims that, with the adoption of the new justice laws in 2022, the judicial system experienced a serious setback. In a statement, the association asks the “competent authorities” to stop ignoring the “alarm signals given” and adopt real reforms, also providing concrete examples.

The “Forum of Judges” claims that, in recent years, it has constantly brought to the attention of the authorities the need to adopt some reforms through which the Romanian judiciary will regain the necessary elements for its functioning based on the principles of independence, meritocracy, efficiency and responsibility.

The new justice laws, adopted in 2022, have moved away from this ideal, the judicial system experiencing a serious regression, emphasizes the Romanian Judges' Forum Association (AFJR), in the press release.

“We reaffirm that real judicial reforms are urgently needed, to implement the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the requirements of the relevant European and international bodies, especially the Venice Commission and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Thus, the OECD reiterated the observation regarding the lack of meritocratic competitions regarding the promotion of magistrates, especially at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the methods of promotion based exclusively on an evaluation of judicial decisions pronounced by the candidates during their entire activity (accompanied by an interview before the Section for Judges of the CSM regarding the promotion to the ÎCCJ) being systematically challenged by a serious part of the judicial system for the lack of a truly meritocratic character”, AFJR draws attention in the statement sent on Wednesday.

The concrete measures that the association of judges is asking for

The management of the professional association of judges in Romania states that the recommendations of the Venice Commission from the last Urgent Notice, issued at the end of 2022, must be introduced into the legislation.

It specifically refers to “extending the duration of the mandates of high-ranking prosecutors from the current three years, and eliminating the possibility of renewing their mandates, as well as strengthening the guarantees in the event that the general prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice refutes with reasons all the measures and solutions adopted by the other prosecutors (with the exception of DNA and DIICOT). Other proposed changes include a competitive selection for the vice-presidents of the courts and the deputy chief prosecutors of the prosecutor's offices and the clear establishment of the fact that judicial police agents seconded to the prosecutor's offices do not have reporting obligations to the Ministry of the Interior.”

The Venice Commission also recommended restoring the powers of the DNA to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by judges and prosecutors.

AFJIR brings back to the discussion the need for the legislative amendment regarding the functioning of the Judicial Inspection is imposed including through the lens of the binding decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of May 11, 2023 (case C-817/21, Judicial Inspection).

“The CJEU noted the strengthening of the powers of the chief inspector in the more global context of the reforms regarding the organization of the Romanian judicial system, having the object or effect of reducing the guarantees of independence and impartiality of Romanian judges, but especially the concrete practice followed by the chief inspector in the exercise of his prerogatives, with explicit reference to the European Commission, which mentions examples that can show that these prerogatives were used, on several occasions, for the purpose of political control of judicial activity, some of these examples also appearing in the Commission's reports to the European Parliament”.

The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), mentions AFJR, requested the avoidance of any abuse in the initiation and conduct of disciplinary procedures, in the absence of any evidence. These procedures must be carried out within a reasonable period of time, as it is necessary to regulate the possibility of challenging the members of the disciplinary board.

OSCE recommendations are also mentioned

The Forum of Judges recalls the recommendations of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) on the independence of the judiciary and the accountability of magistrates from the year 2023, which suggests the need for other legislative changes: “judicial councils should not be dominated by judges from appeal courts or other higher courts.

If the president of a court is appointed to the judicial council, he must resign from the position of president of the court; in order to avoid excessive concentration of power in a single judicial body and the perception of corporatism, powers are divided between autonomous judicial bodies, and separate bodies are entrusted with specific duties of judicial administration, such as:

• selection, promotion and training of judges, discipline, performance evaluation and budget;
• disciplinary procedures regarding members of the judicial councils should be carried out by bodies that do not include members of the judicial council;
• during the disciplinary investigation, the accused judge can be suspended only as a temporary measure, in exceptional circumstances and with the payment of the allowance;
• to prevent the perception of nepotism, corruption or other undue influence, transfers of judges within divisions of a court or between courts should be carried out through a process in which the transfer criteria are explicitly established and in which the body responsible for making decisions on transfers provides a clear and legally sound justification for the transfer or its refusal;
• delegations or secondments of judges to other courts or institutions should be for a fixed and limited period, but not more than six months; moving a judge between divisions should only be done with the written consent of the respective judge;
• judicial councils and other autonomous bodies should proactively promote gender equality in the context of their functions and in the judiciary in general”.

Recorder disclosures

Recorder published an investigation on Tuesday evening about the state of justice in Romania, the phenomenon of prescriptions, but also the effects of the centralization of power at the level of “some magistrates who cohabit with politicians”.

In the Recorder documentary, the military prosecutor Liviu Lascu, Crin Bologa, the former chief prosecutor of the DNA between the periods of Laura Codruța Kovesi and Marius Voineag, but also a prosecutor from the DNA and a judge from the Court of Appeal, who spoke anonymously, were interviewed.

The Recorder's investigation highlighted concrete cases in which defendants politically connected or very powerful in terms of business, such as Marian Vanghelie, Cristian Burci or Puiu Popoviciu, benefited from trials extended until the statute of limitations. The prolongation of the trials was achieved by changing the court panels by the court management, including the change in the moment when the sentence was to be pronounced.