Request for the dismissal of the President of the Romanian Superior Council of Magistracy

On 15 October 2019, seven elected members of the Romanian Superior Council of Magistracy, namely: judge Mihai Andrei BALAN, prosecutor Cristian Mihai BAN, judge Andrea Annamaria CHIŞ, prosecutor Florin DEAC, judge Mihai Bogdan MATEESCU, prosecutor Nicolae Andrei SOLOMON, prosecutor Tatiana TOADER,  proposed the dismissal of the President of the Superior Council of Magistracy, judge Lia SAVONEA, for the improper way in which she exercised the prerogatives provided by law for the high rank of President of the Superior Council of the Magistracy, by diverting the Council from its constitutional role, making it impossible to cooperate within the collegial body, with extremely serious consequences for its functioning and credibility both internally, in the eyes of the Romanian magistrates and the whole society, as well as externally, in relations with international organizations.

 

To attention of

Plenum of the Romanian Superior Council of Magistracy

 

 

The undersigned judge Mihai Andrei BALAN, prosecutor Cristian Mihai BAN, judge Andrea Annamaria CHIŞ, prosecutor Florin DEAC, judge Mihai Bogdan MATEESCU, prosecutor Nicolae Andrei SOLOMON, prosecutor Tatiana TOADER, elected members of the Superior Council of Magistracy,

 

By virtue of art. 55 par.(10) of Law no. 317/2004 concerning the organisation of the Superior Council of Magistracy, republished and amended, we propose to the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy

 

THE REMOVAL

from the office of President of the Romanian Superior Council of Magistracy, judge Lia Savonea

 

 

Due to the defective manner in which she performed her duties provided by law for the high level function of president of the Superior Council of Magistracy, removing the Council from its constitutional role, making it impossible to collaborate within the collegial body, with extremely serious consequences on its functioning and credibility, both internally, in front of Romanian magistrates and the whole society, and externally, in the relations with the international bodies.

I. The President of the Superior Council of Magistracy, judge Lia Savonea, did not fulfill, as the case may be, or improperly fulfilled the attribution of representation of the Council provided for by art. 24 par. 3 letter a) from Law no. 317/2004, republished, by the following actions:

A. Internally, the Superior Council of Magistracy was improperly represented in the relations with other institutions in the field of justice, such as the Ministry of Justice, but also with the body of magistrates, through their professional associations, and, not least, with civil society.

1. Thus, the President of the Council generated and maintained a conflict situation with the current minister of justice, Mrs. Ana Birchall, related to her not participating at some of the sessions of the Council Plenum. At the same time, she refused, in an arrogant and unconstructive manner (see the press release of the 5th of October 2019), to establish a predictable schedule for the Council’s activities that would allow a larger number of elected and ex officio members to attend the Council’s sessions, an aspect that was reproached as well by the colleagues, judges and prosecutors, elected members of the Council.

The fact that such an attitude is not a normal way of working in the Council is illustrated not only by the absence in such situations in the previous years, but also by the diametrically opposed approach in the relationship with the former minister of justice, Mr. Tudorel Toader, given that the scheduling of many Plenum sessions or of the Section for Judges was made according to his availability for attending.

Another subject for dispute was the Superior Council of Magistracy’s lack of a response within a reasonable time limit to the minister of justice’s request from July 2019 concerning the Council’s position towards the recommendations from the GRECO and CVM reports on the situation of justice in Romania.

The reports were placed on the Council Plenum agenda only on the 8th of October 2019, three months after their publication, given the notorious critical attitude of the President of the Council towards the content of the reports, in general, or towards the European institutions that produced the reports. This critical position can be observed as well in the press releases issued in the name of the Council, but not undertaken from an institutional point of view by it.

2. The President has breached the provisions of art. 38 par. (3) and (5) of Law no. 317/2004, with further amendments, by submitting a proposal amending the legislation concerning the activity of the National Integrity Agency directly to the head of the parliamentary commission, in circumstances where only the minister of justice could be notified in this respect and only by the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy.

3. The President has initiated on the 29th of January the amending process of Laws no. 303/2004, no. 304/2004, no. 317/2004, in the absence of a decision of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy, by virtue of art. 38 par. (5) of Law no. 317/2004 and without informing the Section for Prosecutors, although the amendments also concerned the Public Ministry’s activity.

4. The President has involved the Superior Council of Magistracy in an institutional controversy with the President of Romania on the latter’s refusal to appoint a judge in office to the position of minister of justice (see the press release of the 30th of august 2019), although the Council has no power in the matter and should not in any circumstance get involved in an essentially political procedure.

5. The President had private meetings with leaders of the judicial system – for instance, with the deputy chief of SIOJ (the Section for the Investigation of Offences within the Judiciary), Prosecutor Mrs. Adina Florea, on the 1st of April 2019, current heads of the Judicial Inspection, heads of courts, without informing the Council on these meetings, the subjects of discussion and the conclusions that were reached, leading the representation function in a non-transparent area, proper for speculation.

6. The President did not maintain a balance in the management of the Superior Council of Magistracy’s relations with the judges and prosecutors’ professional associations, as she had positive attitudes towards some of the associations (AMR, UNJR, APR), but criticized other associations (AMASP, Romanian Judges’ Forum and Initiative for Justice). The President created dissensions within the body of magistrates by antagonizing them and induced the false idea that only some support the reform in the field of justice and are trustworthy partners in the inter-institutional dialogue, while others are elements that act against the interests of justice and misinform the international organizations that draft different reports on the justice in Romania.

7. The President gave the public opinion an inaccurate image on the different activities and positions of the Council through different press releases that had not been undertaken by all its members, either of the Section for Judges or of the Plenum, deliberately omitting to mention they were adopted with the majority of the votes and giving the impression of a false consensus on controversial issues (see the press release of the 30th of August 2019 and 31st of July 2019 when, contrary to an established practice that was based on the general rule of mentioning the number of votes, refused without any arguments to mention the number of members who opposed these press releases).

She has damaged the Council’s and its members’ image through remarks and accusations that were tendentious and absolutely improper in a collegial body, such as the press release of the 8th of October 2019, wishing to inform the public opinion about the reason of postponement of the Plenum’s session from that date, she has stated, without any real factual basis, the following: “the attitude of the colleagues that are missing produced consequences within the magistracy, it impeded some activities, being a genuine institutional boycott’’, insinuating that there was an obscure agreement between the elected members of the Council and the general prosecutor and the minister of justice.

She has approached the issue of public communication in an unbalanced and impartial way depending on the political position of the person that triggered the Council’s reactions.

Thus, on one hand, the President of the Council asked the other members to react or she reacted herself very promptly towards the actions or statements of some political figures, such as the statements of the President of Romania when he refused to appoint a new minister of justice in September 2019 or the Council’s President press release from the 16th of January concerning the declaration of the president of an opposition political party given on the 15 of January 2019. On the other hand, the President of the Council has no reaction to the recent statements revealed to the public, statements belonging to the prime-minister – president of the government party, that led seven members to make a request of defense of the independence of the judiciary. This request has been simply ignored, not being discussed in the Plenum’s session of the 15th of October 2019, and its course is unknown to the signatory members and to the public opinion. This strong contrast, taken singularly, but also together with other actions or inactions developed here, does nothing but deepen a public appearance of partisanship, of use of different units of measure and approach, with profoundly negative consequences on the credibility of the whole Council.

The President of the Council has developed a form of personal public communication, when she did not gather the adhesion of the other members to express some opinions or when she did not consider it necessary to consult them, although the Council is a collegial body that only works in the Sections and in the Plenum, undermining the institution both in the eyes of the magistrates and of the society.

Moreover, she has used the institution’s website to express opinions concerning personal issues, such as the press release of the 1st of October 2019 concerning the critics she received for the project to amend the law on activity of the National Integrity Agency (ANI). This project includes some proposals that are suspected by the public opinion that might profit to some of the Council’s members, among them the Council’s President (for example, ANI’s possibility to verify a public employee only regarding his assets obtained in the previous three years prior to the complaint; the income of the spouse of the person who submits the asset statement is to be anonymized; ANI’s prohibition to verify the spouse’s assets in case of the matrimonial regime of separation of property). We consider it inadmissible to attack an institution that was claimed to verify the Council’s President’s assets, thus in a punctual, personal, subjective situation, through press releases on the official website of the Superior Council of Magistracy.

B. Externally, on the 28th of May 2019, judge Lia Savonea, acting as President of the Superior Council of Magistracy, has submitted on the behalf of the Council an opinion (Written observations) to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the case C-127/19-1 that regards the compatibility of establishing the Section for the Investigation of Offences Within the Judiciary with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, without discussing the subject with the members of the Council (in Plenum or in a commission). Such an action is incomprehensible, given that the establishment of the Section for the Investigation of Offences Within the Judiciary has been challenged by approximately 4000 judges and prosecutors as well as by international bodies.

Moreover, the interests of the Superior Council of Magistracy were seriously affected, as a document concerning a primordial field of the European Union, namely respecting the rule of law, has been submitted, document that does not represent the position of the members of the Council, thus infringing the principle of loyal cooperation with the European institutions.

Furthermore, through communications assumed directly and without any consultation / notification of members, the President of the Council, Judge Lia Savonea, minimizes the importance of recommendations and findings from international reports, discrediting the bodies that have issued them, accusing them of factual errors.

Therefore, concerning the Follow-up Report to the Adhoc Report on Romania (Rule 34) adopted by GRECO at the 83rd Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 17-21st of June 2019), the President of the Council issued a press release on the 10th of July 2019, without consulting the members of the Council, by which she referred to alleged obvious factual errors, in the conditions in which it was not even possible to analyze it, as the report was published the same day.

 

In conclusion, the duty of representation that imposes balance, honesty and neutrality was manifestly disregarded by the president of the Superior Council of Magistracy, in such a manner that the Council, collegial body of constitutional rank, was deprived of its authority. The Council was placed in public perception in areas incompatible with its role, with the consequence of alarmingly diminishing the confidence of the society and the international bodies in its institutional capacity.

II. The President of the Superior Council of Magistracy, judge Lia Savonea, did not fulfill, as the case may be, or fulfilled in an improper manner her duties of management, coordination and control provided by art. 24 par. 3 letter b of Law no. 317/2004, republished, by the following actions:

1. The President has created and maintained a generalized provisional state at the level of management positions in the Council’s own apparatus, under the terms of which from the position of Secretary General and to the Chief of Service they are occupied by delegations, arranged and extended successively and exclusively by the President of the Council.

On the one hand, the President did not propose to the Plenum the appointments in these positions, although the law requires to do so (art. 39 Law no. 317/2004, republished). In this way, the President substituted herself to the role of the Plenum and unilaterally established the occupants of these positions.

On the other hand, she did not carry out any kind of consultation with the members of the Council regarding the persons appointed. We remind that the apparatus serves the Council as a whole and not just the President of the Council.

In doing so, she has had exclusive access to all the Council’s documents, the other members not being notified at all or much too late of some of the Council’s actions or procedures in which the Council has been involved.

2. The President has scheduled the sessions of the Section for Judges and especially those of the Council Plenum in a totally non-transparent, unpredictable way for some members, seriously disrupting the activity of this institution, with the most adverse consequences for the judiciary.

Although on 26.03.2019, four members of the Superior Council of Magistracy have requested by the letter 6338 / 26.03.2019 a predictable way of establishing the plenary sessions, in order to schedule the activities in advance, the President of the Superior Council of Magistracy has inexplicably ignored this request.

Thus, the sessions of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy from 20.06.2019, 24.06.2019, 01.07.2019, 03.07.2019, and 08.10.2019, respectively, were postponed due to the lack of a quorum. The main cause of these delays was the defective way in which the President organized these meetings, having regard to the fact that she did not take a minimum of measures in order to establish the objective possibility of the members of the Superior Council of Magistracy to attend. Moreover, when scheduling these meetings, the President deliberately ignored the fact that some members had set up other activities.

The seemingly inexplicable way in which sessions of the Council Plenum were scheduled at certain times, but none was organized at others, has given rise to the reasonable suspicion that only the agenda of some Council members was taken into account to ensure a short-term majority needed for the debate of some sensitive items on the agenda. It is illustrative the manner in which the plenary sessions with an agenda concerning the Section for the Investigation of Offences Within the Judiciary were organized, when, in response to the urgency, successive sessions were organized in June and July, but no session was set in the first two weeks of September 2019 when the legal quorum was possible.

In other cases, the President of the Council has set sessions on a short notice, such as the one on the 26th of August 26, 2019, at 10 o’clock, introducing on the agenda the request for the resignation of the judge Mrs. Dana Gîrbovan in order to be nominated as minister of justice, provided that the application was registered the same morning at 9 o’clock, according to the entries in the Emap-registry. This fact proves the existence of particular discussions, outside the institutional circuit which, in conjunction with the other actions, deepen the public suspicion related to non-transparent attitudes and exceed the limit of political neutrality, with direct consequences on the credibility of the entire Council. Moreover, the “urgent” stage of the adoption of the decision by the Council no longer had the natural consequence of immediate transmission to the President of Romania of the decision of the Section for Judges by which he was offered the release from the office of judge by resignation of judge Mrs. Dana Gîrbovan, which had negative repercussions on the interinstitutional relations and the image of the judicial system as we have shown above.

3. The President has drawn up the agenda of the sessions of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy without a real consultation with the Council’s members, by including or refusing to include some points of great interest for the judiciary and society, on the whole, depending on the presence or absence of some members at the sessions.

On 14.05.2019, President Mrs. Lia Savonea has drawn up the agenda of the session of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy summoned for the 15.05.2019, thus breaching the provisions of art. 24 par. (3) letters b) and c) and art. 29 par. (10) of Law no. 317/2004 on the organization of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) which require a term of 3 days.

On the agenda of that session one has included the validation of the contest for the office of chief inspector of Judicial Inspection, organized during 21st of December 2018-28th of March 2019.

To be noted that, although the only candidate had been declared admitted by the Contest Committee since March, Mrs. President included the validation on the agenda of a Plenum in May, anticipating the objective and inevitable absence of some SCM members (Prosecutor Mrs. Tatiana Toader, Prosecutor General Mr. Augustin Lazăr).

Although in the public space there were many controversies related to the extension of the term of office of chief inspector Mr. Lucian Netejoru on request of the former leader of the ruling party from that time, by means of EGO no. 77/2018, a normative act strongly disputed by the professional body of magistrates and by the professional associations, Mrs. Lia Savonea deliberately failed to comply with the legal requirement with regard to the minimum time limit of three days, thus seriously affecting the image of the Superior Council of Magistracy and disobeying the right of the members to have three days for preparing the work of the Plenum.

At the same time, through this action, the right of the Professional associations of judges (the Romanian Judges’ Forum) and prosecutors (lnitiative for Justice), which have requested the invalidation of the contest for appointment of chief inspector, to take part in the session, in the name of their members, a right provided for by art. 29 par. (2) of Law no. 317/2004, has been infringed.

Moreover, Judge Mrs. Lia Savonea, as President of the Superior Council of Magistracy has unduly refused to put into the debate of the Superior Council of Magistracy’s Plenum the audit reports covering the management of the Judicial Inspection for 2016 and 2018, so that the managerial deficiencies could not be discussed in the only legal framework. In this manner she allowed the Contest Committee to carry out a managerial assessment, practically substituting to the tasks of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy.

Judge Mrs. Lia Savonea, as President of the Superior Council of Magistracy, has unduly refused to include on the agenda of the Plenum of 2nd of August 2019 the appointment of the committees of psychological assessment necessary for the completion of the contest for admission in judicial system, although she had been informed by the technical department and also by members of the Council to do so. In that session, Mrs. President has refused to add this point, making it, together with other members, conditional upon the discussion, during the same session, also additional, of the validation of the contest of appointment for the offices of chief prosecutor and executive prosecutors within the Section for the Investigation of Offences Within the Judiciary.

Through this action, she has determined the inadmissible delay of the contest for admission in judicial system, ongoing for about 5 months since its beginning, directly leading to the postponement of the appointment of the new magistrates at the courts and prosecutor’s offices which face an acute lack of personnel and an extremely high amount of cases.

Mrs. President has inexplicably refused to include on the agenda of the Section for Judges the request of the General Assembly of Judges of the Court of Appeal Constanta for removal of Judge Mr. Marius Cristian Epure from the office of president of that court.

Thus, although the legal approach of the judges from the Court of Appeal Constanţa was adopted on 9th of April 2019, not even after 6 months from that date the Section did not discuss the proposal and the judge whose removal is being requested candidates for the office of judge of the supreme court, thus being necessary – a fact ignored by the President of the Council- to exactly clarify his status.

Another example is the refusal to include on the agenda of the Section for Judges the request of the Judicial Inspection on removal of the President of the First Instance Court of Constanţa, Judge Mr. Jigău Cătălin, although it has been a very long time since the proposal had been registered.

The delay of this procedure has negative consequences both on the judicial system in circumstances where the request of the Judicial Inspection would be substantiated, but also on the President whose removal has been requested, in a situation where the allegations brought against him would turn out to be unsubstantiated.

These acts fit the pattern, totally unappropriated, of chaotic, discretionary establishment of the agenda, of prioritisation and, namely, ”overlook” of some procedures which fall under the competence of the Council, through its legal structures.

In the procedure of settlement of the request for reinstatement of a retired prosecutor, Mrs. Mariana Alexandru, a request included in the agenda of the Council’s Plenum 5 months after making the proposal to the Section for Prosecutors in the sense of its rejection, respectively on 10th of April 2019, although there was an equal vote of the present members, the President did not include it on the agenda of the immediately following Plenum, but she did it on 04.06.2019, contrary to the provisions of art. 19 par. (2) of the Regulation on the Organization and Functioning of the Superior Council of Magistracy. This is another example of leaving on hold the works of the competence of the SCM’s Plenum for creating some circumstantial majority.

4. The President has set tasks for the Council’s members in fields which are not compatible with the office held.

For instance, Mrs. Evelina Mirela Oprina, a chosen member, has been successively appointed as spokesperson, a leading position from the own apparatus, substituting the holder.

In this capacity, Mrs. Judge has initiated ’’an investigation’’ related to meetings of the Council’s members starting from the fake news of a media website www.stiripesurse.ro (where it was entirely untrue stated that several SCM members asked the deputy chief of Section for the Investigation of Offences Within the Judiciary explanations related to a file). Mrs. Evelina Oprina has carried out a genuine investigation, outside any legal framework, hearing members, personnel within their offices and prosecutors within the Section for the Investigation of Offences Within the Judiciary, in this capacity, directly assigned to her by the President, under the pretext of responding to a request of that website based on the provisions of Law no. 544/2001. Nevertheless, the response sent to the website was brief and elusive, which could have been prefigured since the request had been registered.

Another imputable action is the appointment of a Council’s member from the civil society – Mr. Victor Teodor Alistar – to the committee of purchasing a building as headquarter for the Council.

We consider that the office of SCM member is not compatible with leading/executive positions of the apparatus or such internal committees. As such, we appreciate that President Mrs. Lia Savonea has not exercised properly her attribution of coordination, practically subordinating, apart from any legal provision, structures from the own apparatus to just one member of the Council, by disobeying the principle of equality among members.

5. By breaking her own competences, the President of the Council has granted, through a handwritten resolution on the report no. 2-16165-13.08.2019, the right of access to ECRIS of Mr. Victor Teodor Alistar.

This decision unduly interferes with the role of the Ministry of Justice which is owner of ECRIS but also with the courts’ right of administration having as object this computer system.

This decision has been made on a discretionary basis, without being called into question in the Council’s discussion in any legal structure and without the members being notified about.

In circumstances where Mr. Victor Teodor Alistar has, according to art. 133 par. (2) of Constitution, the right to take part only in the works within the Plenum, he also holds other remunerated or not capacities – CES member, member in non-governmental bodies, lawyer, there is no legal justification for which he may access the courts’ databases which only contain works specific to the judicial activity. Granting the right of access unilaterally and on a discretionary basis can raise serious problems of legality.

6. On 30.05.2019, Judge Lia Savonea, as President of the Superior Council of Magistracy and of the Section for Judges, has unilaterally started the procedure of occupying the office of president of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, a procedure which had as time limit for submitting the applications for the office of president of HCCJ the period 30th of May-1st of July 2019, a time limit which violates the provisions of art. 53 par. (4) of Law no. 303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, republished with further additions, as the office of president of HCCJ was about to become vacant on 15th of September 2019.

Under art. 53 par. (4) of the above-mentioned law, ”the Judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice who meet the requirements in paragraph (1) may apply for the office of President or vice-president of the High Court of Cassation and Justice or president of section, at the Section for Judges of the Superior Council of Magistracy, within 30 days from the date when the office of president, vice-president or president of section became vacant”. Through this deliberate, unilateral action the rights and interests of the judges who met the requirement on the necessary seniority in order to participate in this procedure on 15th of September 2019 have been infringed.

Moreover, the President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice is an ex-officio member of the Superior Council of Magistracy, having the right to vote, reason for which the initiation of the selection procedure by failing to meet the time limit provided by law may lead to the impairment of the Council’s constitutional role.

7. As President of the Superior Council of Magistracy, Judge Lia Savonea has refused, on a discretionary basis, the publishing on the website of the Superior Council of Magistracy of a press release of the Section for Prosecutors on 8th of October 2019. This action contradicts with the extremely permissive attitude towards a member of the civil society, Mr. Victor Teodor Alistar, who publishes on the website of the institution his own points of view, as press releases (see the press release of 14th of October 2019).

8. Judge Lia Savonea, as President of the Superior Council of Magistracy, respectively President of the Section for Judges, has unduly delayed the explanatory statement of the decisions of the Section for Judges in disciplinary matters, thus breaching the provisions of art. 51 par. (1) of Law no. 303/2004 which set a time limit of 20 days for drafting. Thus, the draft resolution through which the disciplinary action exercised against the former president of the High Court of Cassation and Justice has been cancelled, is being kept in the President’s office, although it has been a 4-month period from its pronouncement. Within this context, it is necessary to underline that she has refused to call into question within the Section for Judges the challenge concerning the delay of the procedure brought by Judge Iulia Cristina Tarcea regarding this delay. The challenge has been submitted on 19th of July 2019 and has not been discussed so far, although the law imposes the obligation of settling it within 5 days.

9. She has manifested an inappropriate behavior toward most members of the Superior Council of Magistracy, based on a totally insufficient communication as well as on the encouragement and tolerance of some aggressive attitudes from other members (Judge Gabriela Baltag, Mr. Victor Teodor Alistar) against others.

Furthermore, as President, she has unduly rejected the leave requests made by some of the members and, moreover, she has blocked the participation of other members in some activities provided by law, for instance in case of Judge Mrs. Andrea Anamaria Chiş.

Thus, by the letter no. 2-13172-27.06.2019 she rejected a leave request of a member on the ground that she called a plenary session, although the member’s intention to take the leave had been announced in advance and the President had no objection. Moreover, at the moment of rejection, there was no other leave request to raise concerns about the fact the session quorum was not present.

By individual communications, she has threatened some of the members to withdraw the internal or external delegations, previously approved, under the pretext of ensuring the legal quorum for sessions summoned on a short notice.

As a conclusion, the duties of management, coordination and control require the adoption of a balanced, responsible behavior, mainly based on good faith in the relation with the members of the Superior Council of Magistracy, but the SCM President, Mrs. Lia Savonea, has disregarded these principles in such a manner that the Council, as collegial body of constitutional rank, has had serious deficiencies in carrying out its legal attributions.

 

III. The President of the Superior Council of Magistracy, Judge Lia Savonea, did not fulfill, as the case may be, improperly fulfilled her duty of chairmanship of the works of the Superior Council of Magistracy’s Plenum, provided for by art. 24 par. (3) letter c) of Law no. 317/2004, on the Superior Council of Magistracy, on the ground that at the sessions of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy she repeatedly manifested biased attitudes, censoring, inexplicably interrupting the opinions of some members, while she encouraged some aggressive attitudes of other members (Judge Mrs. Gabriela Baltag, Mr. Victor Teodor Alistar) against them.

Re-establishing the Council’s credibility, restoring its neutrality, its repositioning within the optimal parameters of an effective functioning in order to achieve its fundamental role of guarantor of the judicial independence can only be achieved by removing President Lia Savonea from this office, having regard to the defective manner of exercising her managerial duties, by unduly exceeding the legal competences and the inability to create a climate favorable to communication.

 

Elected Members of the Romanian Superior Council of Magistracy:

 

Judge Mihai Andrei BALAN Prosecutor Cristian Mihai BAN

Judge Andrea Annamaria CHIŞ

Prosecutor Florin DEAC

Judge Mihai Bogdan MATEESCU

Prosecutor Nicolae Andrei SOLOMON

prosecutor Tatiana TOADER

 

 

Bucharest, 15th of October 2019

 

No related posts.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five − 4 =

Publicatie semestriala a Editurii Universitare (acreditata CNCS)

  • SSRN

Parteneri

  • 1. Editura Universitară
  • 2. Centrul de Studii de Drept European
  • 3. JurisClasor CEDO
  • 4. Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova

Newsletter

E-mail:

Subscribe
Unsubscribe

Accesări (pagini citite)