Bucharest, November 10, 2025 – Today will not be marked in history by a vital law or an administrative reform, but by an unprecedented act of institutional crisis: the criminal referral of a deputy prime minister by the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM).
Although the story began with a simple complaint, the debate is not about an individual, but about the survival of a principle. What we are witnessing is an open, total, and most gravely, public struggle between the Judicial Power and the Executive Power, a battle in which both sides lose, and the costs are borne by democracy.
The United Front of Justice
The Judiciary’s response was tectonic. On the same day, the presidents of district courts and tribunals from across the country issued identical messages of solidarity with the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) and its president. Magistrates denounce a “concerted attack” and an attempt by the Executive to “subjugate the judicial power,” using even terms of extreme gravity, such as “confiscation of the state” and the application of the dictum “I am the State.”
This united front is proof that the judicial system feels vulnerable, attacked at an existential level, and also a signal that it has chosen to retaliate, not retreat.
The Danger of Pre-Judgment and Manipulation
The tone of the judicial response, while justified in the essence of defending independence, nonetheless raises serious questions. The CSM’s communiqué, calling for a criminal investigation into Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu for incitement to hatred, uses language that dangerously flirts with pre-judgment. When the guarantor of judicial independence publicly declares that an offense has been committed, it undermines, in fact, one of the most sacred democratic principles: the presumption of innocence.
On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister’s accusation, which pitted justice funding against funds for “the hungry child,” is nothing more than populist emotional manipulation. It is a cynical tactic to divert public discontent towards the Judiciary, transforming constitutional guarantees into privileges and fueling an extremely dangerous hate speech for social cohesion.
The Supreme Court’s Dilemma
The big problem now is one of legitimacy: who will judge this case? Although, legally, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) is the only competent court to judge a member of the Government, the public perception will be that the Judiciary is judging itself against the Executive.
This case becomes a litmus test for the impartiality of the ICCJ. Every judge will have to prove not only that they are impartial but that they appear impartial – a standard required by the European Court of Human Rights.
The Cost: A Silent Erosion
At the end of this fierce debate, both sides seem to have forgotten who pays the bill. As has been rightly observed, neither the magistrates nor the members of the Government lose their salaries. Salaries flow, the budget flows.
The real loss is that of the citizens and the Rule of Law. The energy consumed in this sterile conflict is energy lost for real reforms. The Judiciary loses public trust through its judgmental tone, and the Executive loses legitimacy through its toxic discourse.
This total war is not a simple “washing of dirty linen,” but a slow and dangerous erosion of the country’s democratic foundation. When the powers of the state accuse each other of totalitarianism and incitement to hatred, we find ourselves in an alert zone that cannot be ignored.
“The editorial concludes with a clear warning: The political and judicial classes are obligated to urgently find a way out of this crisis, one based on Constitution and dialogue, not on threats and emotions. Otherwise, we might witness the collapse of the platform upon which the fragile balance of Romanian democracy rests.”- Robert Williams ,Editor in Chief
Discover more from Justice News247
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.