Romania: The Presidents of the Courts of Appeal strongly condemn the public discourse supported, based on manipulation and misinformation, directed against judges.

The Presidents of the Courts of Appeal firmly condemn the public discourse supported, based on manipulation and misinformation, directed against judges, drawing attention to its harmful consequences regarding the citizens’ right 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 and is always blamed for the administrative and legislative failures of the Government and Parliament is no longer a state where the balance between the three powers is respected, but a state that tends towards a weak judiciary that is dependent on the executive. Such a judiciary will ultimately be unable to protect citizens against potential state abuses, or to defend their fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Presidents of the Courts of Appeal express their concern that a discussion regarding the retirement age and conditions for judges, which should have been conducted responsibly, objectively, and in accordance with the much-touted European standards, has been replaced by a political, populist, and extremely harmful initiative, with consequences on justice, coupled with an aggressive public campaign based on disinformation and a genuine hate speech directed towards the body of magistrates.

It is therefore the duty of judges to react to these assaults by speaking the truth, because when the judiciary remains silent in the face of unfair attacks, it means that we will already have a subjugated justice system, unable to defend the citizens anymore. Accordingly, for the proper information of the citizens, we will present below a series of clearly erroneous information that has been repeatedly asserted lately:

1. The average retirement age in the judiciary is NOT 48 years. The Prime Minister of Romania, Mr. Ilie Bolojan, has repeatedly stated that: “We have a few realities that cannot be contested, we have a too rapid retirement of judges, generally at 48 years. Of the retirements I have signed as president, the majority were at 48 years.”

This statement is contradicted by objective data. During the period when he served as interim President of Romania, he signed 37 decrees of retirement for judges, of which only 5 judges were aged between 48 and 49 at the time of their retirement. Certainly, 5 out of 37 does not represent a majority, making it incomprehensible how easily the Prime Minister of Romania makes such statements, which are then picked up and widely disseminated by the press.

The actual age at which judges retire exceeds 50 years for the majority, with judges being released from their positions through retirement at 60, 62, or even 67 years of age. Despite objective statistical data provided by the Superior Council of Magistracy, false information continues to spread claiming that judges retire, as a rule, at 48 years old. The real average retirement age is 54 years, comparable to categories within the public pension system that benefit from special work groups.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that, in accordance with the current law, specifically with Article 211 paragraph 1 of Law no. 303/2022, the retirement age for 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 specialist staff provided for in Article 221 paragraph (1), with at least 25 years of service accomplished exclusively in these positions, can retire upon reaching the age of 60 and can benefit from a service pension amounting to 80% of the calculation base represented by the average gross monthly salary and allowances received in the last 48 months of activity prior to the retirement date. The net amount of the service pension cannot exceed 100% of the net income held in the last month of activity prior to the retirement date.”

As such, the minimum retirement age is already gradually increasing to 60 years, according to a chart validated by the Constitutional Court, after consultations held not only with judges but also with representatives of the European Commission. After the aforementioned law was adopted, following many debates, it was processed through the filter of the Constitutional Court and accepted by the European Commission, the reopening of this topic, especially in an aggressively political and manipulative way, has disastrous effects on the functioning of the courts, which are facing a new wave of requests for the dismissal of highly experienced judges, requests generated by the unbearably unstable status of magistrates.

1. The salaries of magistrates are NOT “outrageous”, in the hundreds of thousands of euros annually, but are similar to those of other budget categories. One of the most widespread ideas in the press is related to the so-called “outrageous” incomes of judges.

In reality, judges’ allowances (including supplements) start from 4,457 lei – for the period they are justice auditors at the National Institute of the Judiciary, increasing as follows: trainee judge – 7,200 lei, permanent judge (after passing an extremely complex exam) – 11,900 lei, tribunal judge (minimum 7 years of experience, limited number of positions in the competition) – 18,504 lei, appeal court judge (minimum 10 years of experience, limited number of positions in the competition) – 20,902 lei, judge at the High Court of Cassation and Justice (minimum 18 years of experience, extremely rigorous selection, few positions available annually) – 27,252 lei. Moreover, this type of income is found in the budgetary area within professional categories that do not have the incompatibilities and prohibitions of the magistrate profession.

1. The volume of activity, working conditions in the courts Judges in Romania are facing a chronic shortage of human resources, with clearly insufficient staffing levels, both for judges and auxiliary staff, in the context of a constant increase in the number of cases, against a backdrop of excessive legislative instability.

The average workload per judge was, in 2024, 1519 cases at the level of the court, 982 cases at the level of the tribunal, 606 cases at the courts of appeal, and 619 cases at the level of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

Managing a single case involves, from the receipt of the summons and until the finalization of the decision’s reasoning, multiple operations: initial checks and resolutions, studying the case file before each hearing, hearing the parties, administering evidence, deliberating, pronouncing, and reasoning the decision. Clearly, a regular program of 8 hours a day, five days a week is insufficient, which is why the vast majority of judges consistently work overtime. These hours are neither paid additionally nor compensated with time off, because a judge’s work is not standardized, and all this effort should be compensated through the level of allowances and retirement conditions.

The workload of a Romanian judge exceeds by up to ten times that of judges in other European countries, with which we are compared when discussing retirement conditions. However, the increase in the retirement age, in order to reach the European average, should have been correlated with a decrease in the number of cases, to also align with the European average.

Regarding specific working conditions, multiple expert assessments conducted in courts have revealed the presence of numerous risk factors, such as: neuro-psychological and visual overload, exposure to allergens and respiratory irritants, along with other working conditions that can lead to premature wear of the body due to the very high level of exposure to occupational stress, high workload, the nature of judicial activities, and the phenomenon of social isolation inherent to the role.

1. Trust in the justice system is NOT at minimal levels, but at a similar level to other European countries, such as Italy or Spain. One of the most frequently repeated false statements relates to trust in the justice system, which is claimed to be at minimal levels.

On the contrary, the European reports reveal a level of trust at the average level of the European Union. In 2024, the perception of judicial independence was good and very good for 52% of the general population and for 56% of companies. In 2025, the percentages dropped, in the context of the prolonged electoral campaign and the public campaign against judges, 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 governmental interference in the justice system is the main factor of distrust, according to the data presented by Eurobarometer.

In the coming period, the appellate courts will present to citizens the reality regarding the specific workload of the courts, the issues related to infrastructure, working conditions, and human resources they face, for proper information. The independence of the judiciary is not a privilege of magistrates but a fundamental right of every citizen, the last barrier in defending freedom and democracy, which must be permanently protected by both citizens and judges alike.

Judge Oana Maria Petraşcu, president of the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

Judge Ionela-Diana Pătraşc-Bălan, president of the Bacău Court of Appeal

Judge Daniela Niculeasa, president of the Braşov Court of Appeal

Judge Liana Nicoleta Arsenie, president of the Bucharest Court of Appeal

Judge Dana Cristina Gîrbovan, president of the Cluj Court of Appeal

Judge Alina-Gabriela Jurubiţă, president of the Constanţa Court of Appeal

Judge Manuela Cristina Berceanu, president of the Craiova Court of Appeal

Judge Doru Benescu, president of the Galaţi Court of Appeal

Judge Diana-Mihaela Cheptene-Micu, president of the Iaşi Court of Appeal

Judge Florica Roman, president of the Oradea Court of Appea

Judge Emilia Raluca Trandafir, president of the Piteşti Court of Appeal

Judge Paul Mihail Frăţilescu, president of the Ploieşti Court of Appeal

Judge Titiana Ilieş, president of the Suceava Court of Appeal

Judge Maria Cristina Dica, president of the Timişoara Court of Appeal

Judge Ioana Delia Lucaci, president of the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal.

Judge Petre Valentin Bădița, president of the Military Court of Appeal