The presidents of the courts of appeal "firmly" condemn the public discourse, based on "manipulation and disinformation", directed against judges, pointing out that a debate regarding the age and retirement conditions of judges, which should have been conducted responsibly and objectively, has been replaced by a "politicized, populist and extremely harmful" approach.
According to a press release signed by 16 judges, presidents of the courts of appeal of Alba Iulia, Bacau, Brasov, Bucharest, Cluj, Constanta, Craiova, Galati, Iasi, Oradea, Pitesti, Ploiesti, Suceava, Timisoara, Targu Mures and the Military Court of Appeal, they draw attention to the harmful consequences of such discourse on the right of citizens to a fair trial.
"The presidents of the courts of appeal in Romania draw attention to the fact that a debate regarding the status of judges must be conducted objectively, transparently and responsibly, in order to preserve the independence of the judiciary and, implicitly, the right of every citizen to a fair trial. A state in which the judiciary is constantly attacked, is always blamed for the administrative and legislative failures of the Government and Parliament, is no longer a state in which the balance between the three powers is respected, but is a state in which there is a tendency towards a weak judiciary dependent on the executive. Such a judiciary will ultimately be incapable of protecting citizens against potential abuses of the state, of defending their fundamental rights and freedoms. The presidents of the courts of appeal note with concern that a debate regarding the age and retirement conditions of judges, who should have behaved responsibly, objectively, with "The much-vaunted respect for European standards has been replaced by a political, populist and extremely harmful approach, with consequences for justice, coupled with an aggressive public campaign based on disinformation and a genuine hate speech directed at the judiciary," the cited source shows.
In this context, information is presented that the presidents of the courts of appeal say is "clearly erroneous".
They point out that the average retirement age in the judiciary is not 48 years old and say that the statement made in this regard by Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan is contradicted by objective data.
"The Prime Minister of Romania, Mr. Ilie Bolojan, has repeatedly stated that: 'We have some realities that cannot be disputed, we have a too rapid retirement of magistrates, generally at 48 years of age. Of the retirements that I signed as president, the majority were at 48 years of age.' This statement is contradicted by objective data. During the period in which he served as interim president of Romania, he signed 37 retirement decrees for judges, of which only 4 judges were between 48-49 years of age. Certainly 5 out of 37 does not represent a majority, so it is incomprehensible the ease with which the Prime Minister of Romania makes such statements, taken up and then widely disseminated by the press. The effective age at which magistrates retire exceeds 50 years - for "the majority -, magistrates being released from office through retirement at 62 or even 67 years of age," the press release states.
According to it, the real average retirement age is 54 years, comparable to categories in the public pension system, which benefit from special work groups.
"Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that, in accordance with the law in force, more precisely with art. 211 paragraph 1 of Law no. 303/2022, the retirement age of magistrates has increased to 60 years: 'Judges, prosecutors, judges of the Constitutional Court, assistant magistrates of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and of the Constitutional Court, as well as the legal personnel provided for in art. 221 paragraph (1), with at least 25 years of seniority achieved only in these positions, may retire upon reaching the age of 60 and may benefit from a service pension in the amount of 80% of the calculation base represented by the average of the gross monthly employment allowances and the increases received in the last 48 months of activity before the date of retirement. The net amount of the service pension cannot be greater than 100% of the net income in the last month of activity before the retirement date'. As such, the minimum retirement age is already increasing progressively up to 60 years, according to a schedule validated by the Constitutional Court, after consultations not only with magistrates, but also with representatives of the European Commission," the document states.
The presidents of the courts of appeal in Romania emphasize that this law was passed through the filter of the Constitutional Court and was accepted by the European Commission, and the resumption of this topic, "especially in an aggressive and manipulative political vein", has "disastrous" effects on the functioning of the courts, which are facing a new wave of requests for the dismissal of judges with great experience, "requests generated by the instability that has become unbearable in the status of magistrates".
The salaries of magistrates are not "unfathomable", hundreds of thousands of euros annually, but are similar to other budgetary categories, they also claim.
"In reality, judges' allowances (including bonuses) start at 4,457 lei - for the period of being a justice auditor at the National Institute of Magistracy, then increasing as follows: trainee judge - 7,200 lei, permanent judge, after admission to an extremely complex exam - 11,900 lei, court judge (minimum 7 years of experience, competition with limited places) - 18,504 lei, court of appeal judge (minimum 10 years of experience, competition with limited places) - 20,902 lei, High Court of Cassation and Justice judge (minimum 18 years of experience, extremely rigorous selection, a few places annually) - 27,252 lei. However, this type of income is found in the budgetary area in professional categories that do not have the incompatibilities and prohibitions of the profession of magistrate," the statement said.
According to the same source, Romanian judges are faced with a chronic shortage of human resources, with clearly insufficient staffing schemes, both at the level of judges and auxiliary staff, in conditions of a constant increase in the number of cases, against a background of excessive legislative instability.
Thus, the data presented show that the average workload per judge was, in 2024, 1,519 files at the court level, 982 files at the tribunal level, 606 files at the courts of appeal and 619 files at the High Court of Cassation and Justice level.
Managing a single file involves, from receiving the summons request to finalizing the reasoning for the decision, multiple operations, and a normal schedule of 8 hours a day, five days a week is "absolutely insufficient", which is why the vast majority of judges constantly work overtime, which is neither paid extra nor compensated with free time, explains the cited source.
"The workload of a Romanian judge exceeds up to ten times the volume in other European states, with which we are compared when discussing the issue of retirement conditions. However, the increase in the retirement age, in order to reach the European average, should have been correlated with the decrease in the number of cases, in order to also reach the European average. Regarding specific working conditions, the multiple expert assessments carried out in the courts have revealed the presence of numerous risk factors, such as: neuro-psychic and visual overload, exposure to allergens and irritants of the respiratory system, along with other working conditions that can lead to premature wear of the body due to the very high degree of exposure to occupational stress, the high workload, the nature of judicial activity and the phenomenon of social isolation inherent to the function", say the presidents of the courts of call.
They also point out that trust in justice is not at a minimum, but at a level similar to other European states, such as Italy or Spain.
"One of the most frequently spread false statements refers to trust in justice, which is said to be at minimal levels. On the contrary, European reports reveal a level of trust at the European Union average. In 2024, the perception of the independence of justice was good and very good for 52% of the general population and for 56% of companies. In 2025, the percentages decreased, in the context of the prolonged electoral campaign and the public campaign directed against magistrates, to 44% for the general population and 51% for companies, remaining, even under these conditions, at a level similar to that of other states, such as Italy. Political and government interference in justice is the main factor of distrust, according to the data presented by the Eurobarometer," the press release also states.
Comentează