A group of judges from the Court of Debt published a “manifesto”, a document aimed at questioning the way judges work and their role in society: “The latest provision on the state of judges and prosecutors painted the profile of a magistrate compressed by incompatibility, technical, tending to civil servant with additional restrictions. There is no means to give him the openness, creativity and vision as a European judge facing new challenges and ever-increasing complexity.”

“The increasing number of complaints of the participants in the court process and their mistrust are largely due to the limitation of the magistrate’s tools, in particular communication. Against this background, there is a certain alienation from the recipient of the legal act due to formalism, due to the fear of prior pronouncement, due to bureaucratic reflexes generated by statutes and anachronistic procedures.

Manifesto. For changing views on the judiciary

Against the background of the discussion of the terms of retirement of judges, we want to launch the topic of profound changes in the way in which we practice our profession. Without denying the importance of the salary and pension regime, within the framework of the statute, we consider the social role of the judge and the organization of his work to be equally important.

We note that the complaints of this professional body have a different nature, and the “black figure” a burn outin the system should concern not only those who make political decisions, but also any responsible citizen. Thus, against the backdrop of increasing legalization of social relations, there is a need to contribute to the improvement of the quality of the magistrate’s work, which will be reflected in the administration of justice for the benefit of the citizen.

We can no longer afford to repeat old mistakes and miss this moment, which could be an opportunity for accelerated modernization of the Romanian justice system. It is necessary to abandon a purely quantitative, routine view of our problems in order to get to the heart of the current crisis.

From this point of view, without diminishing the importance of other efforts of our colleagues, reflected in appeals to the Constitutional Court, studies, notes, as amicus curiaecommuniqués of professional associations, etc., we want to highlight some features of the current way of functioning of justice that can be improved by a change in perception and approach.

Any effective treatment begins with a correct diagnosis. The statistics representing comparative situations at the level of the European Union show, without any possibility of denial, that we are still living in an era dominated by the numerical, quantitative criterion. Considering the number of cases/magistrate/year, which puts us in first place in the EU (in civil and commercial cases), the resolution time is reasonable, lower than the European average.

However, efficiency remains a major concern in the evaluation of judges and courts. Confirmation of orientation in this sense is the statistical program of the Ministry of Justice called STATIS, whose data is almost exclusively centralized according to the number of court cases. Another evidence is the approach of judicial inspectors, who implicitly indicate quantitative criteria when determining the effectiveness of the judicial system in Romania.

Promptness is important, but as shown by various European bodies, it is no longer a pressing issue in the Romanian judicial system, and Shifting attention to quality should become a priority.

Not to be wishful thinking, we believe that this change in perspective can be accomplished with two important tools, without ruling out the existence of others.

a. She fixed it work standard, taking into account the criteria of complexity, accordingly good organization of human resources. The goal is to free the judge from energy-consuming and time-consuming non-jurisdictional functions that do not require high qualifications, respectively, a load incompatible with quality.

The judge must be allowed to abandon the “centralist” mentality, marked by pressure in order to accept the content of the conclusions, the calculation of stamp duty, the establishment of court proceedings and other administrative cases, worried that he may be responsible for the mistakes of other participants in the system. The solution to get out of such a concept is given by rethinking powers and responsibilities.

The binomial clerk-judge must be rethought to focus on quality. In this sense, it is necessary to build clerk’s charter according to the level of his higher professional training (higher education, National School of Scribes) and consistent with the judge’s authority to pronounce the law.

The latest standardization of the profession judge’s assistant, hasty and without real consultation with a professional body, risks joining the line of compromise of some essentially good institutions whose usefulness has been proven in other European countries. The lack of transparency regarding the well-reasoned criticisms coming from legal professionals about the guarantee of meritocratic selection and clear responsibilities has unfortunately created resistance to the very idea of ​​this new profession. Dissatisfaction was also determined by the fact that the rejection of the draft law on court clerks, a project that offered a guarantee of good selection and training through the SNG and which, moreover, was successful as a pilot program, was not explained at all.

b.Alternative dispute resolution methods. Mediation is an institution that needs to be resuscitated by finding appropriate legislative ways. The effectiveness of mediation creates a real opportunity to reduce the number of cases that end up in court. In this sense, it is necessary to take advantage of the presence of already trained and certified mediators in order to gradually strengthen a preventive, non-conflictual, pragmatic, restorative mentality among the participants of the judicial process.

The recent regulation on the staff of judges and prosecutors drew a profile a magistrate compressed by inconsistencies, technical, tending to the level of a civil servant with additional restrictions. There is no means to give him openness, creativity and vision as a European judge facing new and increasingly complex challenges.

The growing number of complaints from the participants in the court process and their mistrust are largely due to the limitations of the magistrate’s tools, in particular communication. Against this background, a certain detachment from the addressee of the judicial act is noticeable due to formalism, due to the fear of a preliminary pronouncement, due to bureaucratic reflexes generated by laws and anachronistic procedures.

In this sense, it is necessary to consider the possibility of changing the reasons behind the numerous incompatibilities and limitations regulated in the first form of the 2004 law, which were subsequently strengthened. A much lower level of corruption in the judicial system makes it possible to introduce a softer regime of restrictions. This new regime must abandon the presumption of bad faith on the part of the magistrate, caused by the severity of the restrictions, which, not coincidentally, are repeated in his perception by the party.

more, professional path of a magistrate it is riddled with promotions whose unpredictable regulation does not encourage true meritocracy, emphasizing quantitative accumulation, scholasticism, technicality, with little regard for reasoning and consolidating a broader vision of the profession’s current stakes and challenges. In addition, the year-by-year promotion to the Supreme Court of Cassation continues to cause controversy.

Despite the efforts of the National Institute of Magistracy (INM) and the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN), the professional and personal development of magistrates under these conditions is illusory. The scope, extra-jurisdictional powers, statutory corsets (impossibility of suspension of training, almost complete lack of professional mobility), content and method of implementation of continuous professional training programs keep them captive, in a toxic relationship with their own profession. Hence, perhaps, the desire of some experienced and still young people to retire.