The criminal complaint filed by the CSM against Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu sparked a broad debate regarding the boundaries of political criticism and the responsibility of the judiciary. While civil society expresses its support for Oana Gheorghiu through a petition, politicians and former magistrates call for balance and moderation.
Oana Gheorghiu, Photo: Facebook
We remind you that, on Monday, the members of the Superior Council of the Magistracy decided to notify the criminal authorities regarding the possible commission of the crime of incitement to hatred or discrimination, after Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu publicly criticized the pensions of judges and prosecutors. The CSM believes that the deputy prime minister exceeded the limits of freedom of expression, affecting the independence of the judiciary and the prestige of the body of magistrates.
The statement that triggered the CSM reaction? “The magistrates were trapped in a kind of Caritas that could not last forever. Romania can no longer afford such pensions. If this money goes there, it is taken from hospital budgets or from children who go to bed hungry”. said Gheorghiu in a TV show. The Deputy Prime Minister later said that his statements represented a legitimate opinion and that he did not intend to incite hatred or discrimination.
Civic petition in support of the deputy prime minister
Immediately after the CSM’s announcement regarding the criminal complaint filed against the deputy prime minister, the “Corruption Kills” organization and several civic groups launched a petition entitled “Sign for normality: magistrates are not a vulnerable and disadvantaged category”which had collected nearly 10,000 signatures by Tuesday morning.
The signatories ask the magistrates to withdraw their complaint and state that the independence of the judiciary should not be confused with the impossibility of criticizing the judicial system. “Citizens protested for hundreds of days to defend justice, and now they feel betrayed“, the text of the petition states.
“CSM’s reaction, disproportionate and has a negative effect”
Political scientist and professor Cristian Pîrvulescu appreciates that the CSM’s decision to file a criminal complaint against Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu is disproportionate and is based on a fragile legal basis. “The SCM prosecuted the statements for alleged incitement to hatred, violence and discrimination, but Article 369 of the Criminal Code targets protected criteria such as race or religion, not a professional body. The signal is symbolic rather than legal.”
He believes that the effect on the image of justice is negative, since the episode “reinforces the perception that the judiciary is defending its privileges through criminal means against criticism, at a time when public opinion is increasingly sensitive to inequities in the pension system.”
Regarding the freedom of expression of dignitaries, Pîrvulescu emphasizes that they “they have a wide margin in criticizing public policies, but also an additional responsibility”. “The freedom of expression of a politician should not be used to stigmatize an entire professional body. However, the defense of the prestige of justice is not done by turning a public controversy into a criminal case either. The responsibility is bilateral: both of the official and of the institution.”
About the relationship between the state and civil society, the professor states that the situation “reflects a confusion of roles.” “Oana Gheorghiu no longer acts as a representative of civil society, but as a member of the Government, but continues to use her aura as a moral activist to legitimize a political discourse. The CSM reacts defensively, reinforcing the perception of corporate closure and public mistrust.”
Regarding the public reaction, Pîrvulescu says that this “it’s not just a spontaneous solidarity, but a stage in a process of manufacturing public opinion”. “Oanai Gheorghiu’s popularity is being used to generate a politically oriented wave of moral indignation, intended to put pressure on an institution and redraw the balance of power between the Government and the judiciary.”
Regarding the impact on the Government, the analyst believes that it is ambivalent. “The executive can gain image capital if it takes a balanced position, defending freedom of expression without institutionally attacking justice. In such crises, it is not the content that matters, but the tone and the symbolic management of the message.”
Andrei Țăranu: “The CSM’s reaction is exaggerated and shows that the judiciary feels vulnerable”
For his part, political scientist Andrei Țăranu explained to “Adevărul” that Oana Gheorghiu should have weighed her statements more carefully in her capacity as deputy prime minister, but believes that the criminal complaint filed by the CSM is disproportionate and fuels unnecessary tension between the state powers.
“Oana Gheorghiu made some statements that she should have weighed better in her new capacity as deputy prime minister. If she had spoken as a representative of an NGO, it would have been different. But, occupying a government position, any statement of hers acquires political weight. However, I do not see why the CSM would have the competence to analyze political statements. It was not an attack on the Council or a specific magistrate, but an opinion on pensions in the judicial system, a subject that almost all of society considers it immoral“, said the Farmer.
He believes that the CSM’s reaction only unnecessarily tenses the relationship between the state powers. “This reaction creates misplaced animosity. The judiciary and the executive must work together, not be at odds. The only level at which a solution can be built is at the president, who has shown he is willing to mediate.”
Regarding public perception, the analyst notes that Oana Gheorghiu did not fully assume her political role and spoke rather as a private person, which led to confusion between her civic and governmental status. “People support her for her image as a hospital founder and civic activist, not for political office. This mix between the two roles is not beneficial. People in public office need to be careful about the statements they make and their institutional impact.”
Țăranu draws attention to the fact that the public statements of dignitaries must be taken with responsibility: “When you are deputy prime minister, every statement has consequences. Political statements must have a purpose, lead to public policies or serve an institutional dialogue. In Romania, we avoid seriously discussing political responsibility. It’s a reality: the elected, deputies or senators, have immunity for their statements. Oana Gheorghiu is not elected, but appointed, so she has additional responsibility for what she says.”
As for the CSM’s reaction, the professor qualifies it as excessive and a sign of the fragility of the judicial system. “The reaction is exaggerated and shows that the CSM and some of the magistrates are on the defensive. Special pensions are a public subject and must be discussed at a political level, not a criminal one. If we want dialogue and reform, we must temper the reactions and not turn any opinion into a case of incitement.”
Valeriu Turcan: “CSM made itself vulnerable”
Valeriu Turcan, university lecturer at the Faculty of Journalism of the University of Bucharest, former presidential adviser and political consultant, believes that the decision of the CSM to turn the statements of Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu into a criminal case is uninspired and “an obvious act of intimidation that will cost the Romanian judiciary a lot“.
He states that he is “it is undemocratic to challenge the right of a member of the Government to express himself politically on the subject of the reform of magistrates’ pensions” and notice that “no one defended the CSM’s initiative”.
According to Turcan, the complaint will further contribute to the discrediting of justice, although most of those in the system are educated people who want to do their jobs well.
“Any limitation of freedom of expression is a path of no return, it is the path to dictatorship. The constitution is very clear, and the fact that people from the SCM relativize it is shocking”he said.
In his opinion, “CSM made so many mistakes that it practically made itself vulnerable”. “It is an open invitation for anyone to criticize the CSM, which has rushed to take the place of the CCR in matters of negative perception”concluded Turcan.
“Political discourse is the foundation of a democratic society”
And the former ECHR judge and current member of the International Criminal Court, Iulia Motoc, reacted on Facebook, emphasizing that European jurisprudence grants increased protection to political speech: “Political speech is the foundation of a democratic society. Expression may include terms that shock, offend or disturb. Protection is greatest when discussing matters of public concern.” Iulia Motoc reminded that the restrictions are justified only when the speech exceeds the legitimate debate and enters the area of incitement to hatred.
For his part, the PSD president, Sorin Grindeanu, declared that “Oana Gheorghiu’s statements are registered in the populist and irresponsible register”but qualified the CSM’s reaction as right “exaggerated”. “Populism is not penalized in Romania. Every politician has the right to an opinion”Grindeanu said.
And the president of Romania, Nicușor Dan, commented on the incident, stressing that “the deputy prime minister’s remark was unfortunate, but the CSM’s reaction was greatly exaggerated”. “It cannot be said that an opinion constitutes a criminal act. If the request for approval of the criminal investigation comes, I will not sign it”stated the head of state.
The former Minister of Justice, Tudorel Toader, believes that the statements of Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu about magistrates’ pensions do not fall into the criminal sphere, but represent “a legal conflict of a constitutional nature” between the executive and the judiciary.
“The statement was totally inappropriate and fueled the fire in a society already polarized against magistrates. But we are not talking about a crime, but about an interference between powers that can be clarified in the Constitutional Court”Toader said.
Ana Birchall, also former Minister of Justice, reacted after the complaint filed by the CSM against Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu, stating that “only the President of Romania can request the prosecution of a member of the Government who is not also a parliamentarian”.
