- Revista Forumul Judecătorilor
- Redacţia
- Număr curent
- Numere anterioare
- Lectură online
- Principii de publicare
- Comenzi
- Forum
- Asociaţia FJR
- Comunicate
- 10.05.2016 – Asociaţia „Forumul Judecătorilor din România” solicită membrilor Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii să respecte rolul constituţional al acestui organism reprezentativ al corpului magistraților, de garant al independenţei justiţiei
- 17.01.2017 – Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” pune la dispoziția persoanelor interesate un WHITE PAPER privitor la „Suprapopularea carcerală. Inoportunitatea amnistiei sau graţierii”
- 24.01.2017 – The Romanian Judges’ Forum Association – Observations regarding the projects of Emergency Government Ordinances concerning the collective pardon and the amendments of the Criminal Code and the Procedural Criminal Code
- 21.09.2016 – Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România a luat act de votul prin care Senatul României a respins solicitarea DNA de începere a urmăririi penale faţă de fostul viceprim-ministru, Gabriel Oprea, în privința decesului polițistului Bogdan Gigină
- 20.09.2017 – Forumul Judecătorilor din România: Numeroase adunări generale ale judecătorilor și procurorilor resping modificările de esență propuse de Ministrul Justiției privind legile justiției
- 27.09.2016 – Către Ministrul Justiției – modificare procedura promovare
- 22.07.2016 – The Romanian Judges’ Forum Association expresses its deepest concerns over the current situation in Turkey, regarding the Judiciary
- 13.06.2016 – Punct de vedere cu privire la Propunerea legislativă nr. PL-x 555/2015 privind modificarea Legii nr. 51/1995 pentru organizarea și exercitarea profesiei de avocat
- 31.05.2016 – Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” își manifestă susținerea în situația judecătorului Domnica Manole, din cadrul Curţii de Apel Chişinău
- White Paper – Necesitatea eliminării din legislație a categoriei personalului de specialitate juridică asimilat judecătorilor şi procurorilor
- 03.08.2015 Romanian Magistrates Protest Memorandum
- 14.08.2015 Memoriu protest modificare legi justitie
- 30.09.2015 Memoriu privind proiectul Legii de salarizare a personalului plătit din fonduri publice
- 23.08.2016 Memoriu aplicarea nediscriminatorie a OUG nr.20-2016
- 30.08.2017 FJR către adunările generale de la instante si parchete – critici modificari propuse de MJ legi justitie
- 30.08.2017 FJR Memoriu catre MJ propuneri modificare legi justitie din 23.08.2017
- 27.06.2017 FJR: Judecatorii Curtii Constitutionale trebuie sa aiba dreptul neingrădit de a formula opinii separate si concurente
- 03.05.2018 PRESS RELEASE – Romanian Judges Forum Association regarding amendments proposed to Criminal and Criminal Procedure Code
- 03.05.2018 Forumul Judecatorilor din Romania: Instantele judecatoresti si parchetele resping modificarile esentiale din proiectele depuse la Camera Deputatilor privind Codul penal, Codul de procedura penala si Codul de procedura civila
- 03.05.2018 Forumul Judecatorilor din Romania: Scrisoare catre membrii alesi ai Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii in legatura cu modificarile esentiale din proiectele depuse la Camera Deputatilor privind Codul penal, Codul de procedura penala si Codul de procedura civila
- 06.01.2017 – Nu restaurației cu iz penal! Apel pentru o putere judecătorească independentă
- White Paper – Diurnele încasate în sistemul judiciar. Necesitate sau risipă bugetară?
- Statut şi Act constitutiv
- Evenimente
- Cerere de adeziune
- Comunicate
Romanian Judges’ Forum regarding the reinstatement to magistracy, without examination, of judges or prosecutors with at least 10 years of relevant experience
Regarding this proposal of the Minister of Justice to review the “laws of justice”, the reinstatement to magistracy, without further examination, of former judges or prosecutors with at least 10 years of experience in these professions is another controversial element found in the MCV Reports.
The profession of being a magistrate is and must remain a career profession that requires vocation. A magistrate who elects another system, for financial (lawyering), political or any other reasons, must assume the consequences of his or her decision. This proposal leaves an open door to the magistracy system, and also delivers the possibility of juggling with entries into and exits from the system, based on considerations other than the professional ones and considering interests other than those of the justice.
The justification given to this change makes it look like the magistrate is almost constrained, due to the incompatibility regime, to leave the system. But if the magistrate resigns once, it means that he does not accept the system’s constraints of which he was thoroughly informed at the beginning of his career, thus being fully aware of what is expected of him. There is no guarantee that the magistrate, after another five years for example, will not resign again from the system, because the incompatibilities and deontological constraints will certainly continue to be regulated in the future, too. Such psycho-professional instability is simply unacceptable, particularly when provided as an explanation emanating from the highest level of magistracy.
Another issue is raised by the concepts of independence and impartiality. A magistrate unsatisfied with the regime of the judiciary may choose to resign and become a lawyer, where he/she has the possibility of being in contact with the criminal environment if he/she works at the criminal court, as he/she was previously a judge/prosecutor. Subsequently, if he/she re-joins the system, and has to adopt a position that is required to be independent and impartial, it will be extremely difficult to achieve, especially because he/she will not appear to be impartial and independent for an external, objective and informed viewpoint. Likewise, a former magistrate may choose to act as a politician, a representative of a political party, or simply in a profession that is outside the legal field. All of these hypotheses have nothing in common with an existing vocation, with the calling of the profession. Through this legislative gap, we cannot help but wonder about the external appearance of the magistrates that have vocation and remain in the system despite not only the massive workload and the low salaries that do not correspond to the level of responsibilities and workload, but also the incompatibilities.
A magistrate might take a step back from these incompatibilities to substantially increase his or her income by joining the Bar or through other methods that do not implicate any constraints, or simply to gain glory and extend his/her political network, after which the SCM allows his/her return to the magistracy, where he/she will share an office with a colleague who all this time remained in the system, by way of example, due to being, should we say, less inspired.
The Romanian Judges’ Forum Association, an independent, non-profit, non-governmental and apolitical association of Romanian judges, having legal personality under Romanian law, has as main goal to bring its contribution to the progress of society through actions aimed to create an independent, impartial and efficient justice, the assertion and the defence of the independence of justice in relation to the other powers of the state, as well as through the initiation, organization, support, coordination and implementation of projects concerning the improvement, the modernization and the reform of the administration of justice. Contact: dragos.calin@just.ro, ionut.militaru@just.ro, www.forumuljudecatorilor.ro.
No related posts.
Leave a Reply