‘Regulation’ of accountability for miscarriage of justice

Justice Minister Cătălin Predoiu criticizes magistrates because, in his opinion, they do not militate in favour of an actual accountability for miscarriage of justice of which they are guilty. A magistrate is one of the few professions in Romania where the insiders do not pay for their acts, Minister Cătălin Predoiu noticed.

He argued his statements giving as example the situation of damage recoveries as a result of some convictions at the ECHR.

Justice Minister Cătălin Predoiu was discontent with the situation that there is no legislation imposing magistrates to pay for miscarriage of justice, although the idea was long discussed.

The problem is that the Judicial System is against it, Predoiu said. The Minister added that, before actually assuming responsibility for their errors, magistrates should face disciplinary or criminal charges, which has never been the case by now, because the prescription of the charges was alleged.

‘The review indicates the fact that an actual accountability does not work, while disciplinary accountability is sublime, but almost completely absent, as quoted from a classic. No recourse action carried by the state against magistrates who caused miscarriage of justice in the course of their judicial duties was applied, since 2004, when it was implemented, till present’, Cătălin Predoiu stated.

He says that he wants the judicial inspection to be reformed, so it can act against unprofessional and corrupt magistrates.

He is in favour of the regulation of an actual accountability of magistrates, different from disciplinary or criminal accountability.

‘We will never accept an actual accountability to be subject of disciplinary or criminal accountability. Here lies the disparity between the Ministry and the Judicial System. I hope that, in the last minute, the policy of the Superior Council of Magistracy would change’, Cătălin Predoiu also stated.

On the other side, President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice Livia Stanciu was against the legislation regarding the actual accountability of magistrates, which was lately debated.

She claimed that these legislative interventions should not be aimed at sanctioning the magistrate, but only at holding him responsible, in order to increase public confidence in the Judicial System.

‘First of all, magistrates’ accountability should be the consequence of their autonomy, because any imbalance that might occur in the balance of their values, such as responsibility, autonomy, it affects the magistrate first and puts him into a defensive position, I may say. The temptation of extending judges’ liability for their judicial activity is a great danger’, Livia Stanciu mentioned.

The Justice Minister also stated that, if they reach an arrangement with the Judicial System, they will promote the legislation, but if no agreement is reached, they will implement their own legislative proposal.

Translated by: Mihaela Grigoraş

MA Student, MTTLC, Bucharest University