The Superior Council of Magistrates disqualified itself from the get-go by filing a criminal complaint against deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu, for an opinion on a subject of public and national interest.
Because until then, on issues such as magistrates’ pensions and the independence of justice, magistrates don’t and can’t have a monopoly either as far as expressing a point of view (we live in a democracy), or in terms of the game of numbers and the philosophy behind them (each citizen is at least as relevant because he has a triple quality: as a beneficiary of the act of justice, as a taxpayer from whose pocket the money for pensions and salaries in the budgetary system comes from, and also as a voter).
The Superior Council of Magistrates was disqualified from the beginning also by the seriousness of the accusations brought, a sign that right at the top of the pyramid of magistrates’ representative bodies there are minds which are lacking either lucidity or knowledge; or they are players who play political games. If I suspected them of all three, they would find it outrageous. But I still suspect them.
Finally, the fact that, in the case of Oana Gheorghiu, this Superior Council of Magistrates was extremely foolish regarding the public and political reactions to their high pensions, followed by a half-step back taken the day after their statement by a top magistrate:
In just 24 hours, more than 16,000 people signed an open letter that draws attention to clear evidence: “Magistrates are not a vulnerable nor disadvantaged category”.
- President Nicușor Dan announced that if a request for criminal prosecution against Gheorghiu arrives in his office in Cotroceni Palace, he will not sign it. Even the leader of the Social Democratic Party (PSD), Sorin Grindeanu, labeled the magistrates’ approach as exaggerated.
- Last but not least, the vice-president of the Superior Council of Magistracy, Claudiu Sandu, slightly lowered his tone the next day, noting that: “In the end, a criminal complaint is not an act of rebellion or an act of indictment. An indictment is carried out after many other procedural stages. At the moment, we have a notification that will reach the table of a prosecutor and who will further assess what are the steps to follow. It is very possible that this notification will not reach the President of Romania.” It sounds slightly defensive, it’s true, probably to disarm a little the tensions created by the original statement. But you can’t help but wonder how a body like the Superior Council of Magistrates allowed itself to show so little common sense? Both common sense from the perspective of a prior analysis of the opportunity and correctness of the approach as well as the potential negative public reactions that such a step could trigger? Wisdom, at the same time, also from a professional perspective – because if the complaint did not even pass the prosecutor’s filter to reach the head of state, it would mean that at the level of the Superior Council of Magistrate you could deduce that the smart guys in the judiciary were not always that smart.
The more magistrates insist on “negotiating” in an arrogant and aggressive fashion, the more likely they are to deepen the gulf between them and those they are supposed to serve according to the law. The consequences derived from this can only be disturbing for both sides.
In any case, one thing must become clearer day by day for magistrates, politicians, and citizens: the reform of pensions in the judiciary, put forward by the government, was never about carving out the independence of justice, but about a minimum adjustment of the amount and a common sense adjustment of age when they are eligible to retire.
In reality, the figures in the government’s project, as well as those that are being negotiated today (apparently, upwards), starting from that project, allow for pensions of thousands of euros to be kept. Moreover, there will also be a transition (quite unfair, in my humble opinion), one meant to avoid blockages in the system, and generated by the boundless greed of some).
And they – these figures and this transition, both of which are really generous – are themselves proof that no one has sought to harm the independence of magistrates.
But this topic was cunningly thrown into the water by the representatives of the judiciary precisely in order to make digestible at the level of public opinion the two indigestible ingredients that are really the object of the reform: the disproportionately large amount of money they receive and the unjustified privileges in terms of retirement age.
In the words of the head of the SCM, Elena Costache, for whom 11,000 lei (2,200 euros) in retirement is a small sum: “From all points of view we are unique”.
- PS: In a civilized country, no professional category that has the balance of activity image and current level of salary and retirement that Romanian magistrates have would dare to issue such claims on behalf of the taxpayer.
