The reform of magistrates’ pensions reignites the tensions between the state powers and brings justice back to the center of public debate. But the political scientist Andrei Țăranu draws attention to the fact that the subject is not new: justice has dominated the political discourse for many years. In this context, part of the judicial system seems to be trying not only to apply the law, but to enforce it.
PHOTO Archive Truth
Last week, the president Nicușor Dan gave a critical speech to the magistrates, in a press conference, at the Cotroceni Palace. However, his approach was nuanced. In addition, he said he wanted to open a wide-ranging discussion about the workings of the justice system after the special pensions debate was over, even questioning why there were no more inquiries into magistrates.
The statements of the head of state come in a tense political context, in the middle of the discussions he is mediating between the Executive and the representatives of the justice system on the topic of changing the retirement conditions of the magistrates, after the CCR rejected the original law. Also in the context of these discussions, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, headed by Lia Savonea, proposes a six-point agreement to overcome the crisis in Justice generated by the reform of the special pensions of magistrates.
“This topic has been highly politicized. Not from now. From 2024”
Political scientist Andrei Țăranu emphasizes for “Adevărul” that the theme of justice has been used over the years in a manipulative sense by representatives, both from the left and from the right of politics.
“Justice is a power in the state. It should be extremely transparent. However, the more it was defended and the more there was this idea that we have to fight against the Executive for Justice, the more opaque it became. And now we are pulling the dirt from this opacification of justice, which has learned to be only admired and never judged. The judiciary has built itself a legislative wall that is probably indubitable. But this legislative wall is incomprehensible for the vast majority of Romanian citizens. Those who are not part of the system have no way of understanding why the magistrates have so much power or are supported, not only from their system, but also from other areas.
We are endlessly discussing a subject for which only a handful of people are prepared. And we are weighed and asked to judge as if we were as knowledgeable as someone from the Supreme Council of Magistracy or someone from the Ministry of Justice”. explains political scientist Andrei Țăranu for “Adevărul”, emphasizing, at the same time, that the president’s position does not differ much from that of ordinary citizens, who are witnessing, these days, a rapid succession of events reflected in the public space – from the Government’s initiative to modify the retirement conditions of magistrates, to the rejection of the project by the CCR and to the CSM’s approach to file a criminal complaint against the Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu, in response to statements in which she compared the system to “a kind of Caritas”.
Political scientist Andrei Țăranu points out that this topic has been politicized a lot. “And not from now. Basically, he has been politicized since 2004. For 21 years, the subject of justice and especially certain areas of justice, anti-corruption, drug trafficking or various other things, but especially those related to politics, have been extremely, extremely much politicized. It was said that the politician gets too involved in the judiciary, it was said that the judiciary gets too involved in politics and that files are made to order, and so on. This battle in the name of justice, which is not even fought by the magistrates. This battle in the name of justice makes the subject, the more obscure, the more passionate it is among the citizens. And hence, if you like, the big problem of certain magistrates”.
Andrei Țăranu emphasizes that the High Court of Cassation and Justice introduced the statute of limitations referred to by the president, and the Constitutional Court only accepted them.
“The subject of justice, just like the political subject, is not a moral subject. Here is the big discussion. We discuss morally about subjects that are amoral. And even more so justice. Justice has a principle. Dura lex, sed lex – The law is hard, but it is law. It does not have a moral dimension. We can have some moral discussions. The politician can have some legislative discussions, that is, to make some laws. The jurist is called only to implement the law. So, from a certain point, this started and continues, for a part of the judiciary to try to make the law”, says the political scientist.
“A serious discussion about the justice system”
We remind you that last week the president Nicușor Dan commented that “for several months there has been social tension towards magistrates”. At the same time, the head of state explained that in the increasingly heated discussions about justice in the public space, he did not see an analysis of the decisions given by the courts in the last period.
In addition, he emphasized that his expectations are directed at the moment when the subject of special pensions will be overcome, “to start the serious discussion about the justice system”, referring to the investigation of magistrates or their promotion conditions.
The proposals of the magistrates
In reply, the High Court of Cassation and Justice proposes the Agreement for Justice and Stability, a joint commitment of the fundamental institutions of the Romanian state to protect the rule of law and to ensure stability during the period of economic recovery.
The agreement stipulates that “Justice cannot be the subject of a campaign, a target of political attack or a tool to divert the responsibilities of other powers of the state”. At the same time, it refers to the “immediate overcoming of the current crisis situation”, through public clarification, through a common position, in the sense that milestone 215 regarding magistrates’ pensions has been met and does not affect the eligibility of European funds, but also through the adoption of a unitary legislative solution regarding the retirement regime.
The magistrates also request a realistic plan for the phasing of the legislative changes regarding retirement and demand “loyalty and stability measures for the magistrates who are active”, by “granting a compensatory share from the salary savings generated by not filling vacant posts, transparently directed to the magistrates who effectively ensure the functioning of the courts and prosecutor’s offices.”
