The Judicial Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) has shared findings from a recent consultation conducted with judges, which took the form of an online questionnaire. This analysis reveals that over 98% of judges have perceived a public campaign against the justice system in the past year. In a significant expression of support, 67% of those surveyed align with the positions advocated by the CSM.
Judges attribute several ongoing issues within the judicial framework to shortcomings in parliamentary activity and decisions made by the Constitutional Court (CCR). Specifically, they indicate that these factors have exacerbated existing challenges, including the prescription of criminal liability.
In light of these findings, Nicușor Dan, the mayor of Bucharest, has proposed holding a referendum to gauge magistrates’ perceptions of the CSM. This initiative aims to facilitate a deeper understanding of the judicial community’s sentiments and concerns. Dan has also engaged in discussions with representatives of the judiciary to explore the best methods of consultation, signaling a commitment to incorporate judicial perspectives into future policymaking.
The alarming rate at which judges report feeling targeted by public discourse suggests a crisis of confidence in the justice system. The few who have not perceived such a campaign may hold minority viewpoints or feel insulated from its impacts. The overwhelming majority’s feedback highlights a pressing need to address any public misconceptions regarding judicial integrity and competence.
Furthermore, the noted support for CSM positions indicates that judges are looking for strong institutional backing. Their concerns reflect a desire for a more robust framework that would enable them to perform their duties without external pressure or interference. The acknowledgment of the Parliament’s passivity and the role of CCR’s decisions points to a complex interplay between various state institutions, underscoring the need for cohesive and informed governance.
This moment serves as a critical juncture for the Romanian justice system, as the upcoming referendum presents an opportunity for judges to voice their opinions and for policymakers to act on the feedback received. Facilitating open discussions between judicial authorities and the elected government can lead to more informed decisions that enhance the functioning of the justice system.
As the situation develops, the implications of these findings could shape the future of legislative reforms and institutional structures governing the judiciary. If the results of the referendum reveal broad support for changes, there may be a call for new policies or initiatives designed to bolster judicial independence and to counteract public misinformation.
In conclusion, this initiative spearheaded by Nicușor Dan exemplifies a proactive approach to addressing prevalent issues within the Romanian judiciary. The discussions initiated with judges will be crucial in fostering transparency and collaboration between the justice system and the government. By prioritizing the voices of those who serve on the frontline of the legal system, Romanian authorities may take significant steps toward restoring trust and effectiveness in one of the foundational pillars of democracy.