Visiting European Commission experts on a mission to Romania to assess the country’s progress with judicial reform under the European Commission’s Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) on Thursday and Friday met members of the Supreme Council of Magistrates (CSM), Judicial Inspection and the National Institute of Magistracy to discuss, among other things, pressure on judges and prosecutors coming from mass media and politicians.
In a press statement released on Friday, CSM says at a first meeting they discussed defending judiciary independence and magistrate’s reputation; elections to the CSM; relations with magistrates, courts and other law professionals and the civil society; monitoring the implementation of the new codes of law, as well as professional career of magistrates and judiciary organisation.
In relation to judiciary organisation, monitoring measures were presented along with aspects related to improving justice quality; managerial measures regarding consistency of court rulings; compliance with the provisions and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), as well as the latest developments in the implementation of information instruments such as the ROLLI jurisprudence web portal; e-files and Statis.
Also discussed were appointments to senior positions and changes in the legislation regarding the professional career of judges and prosecutors.
“The European Commission experts have shown special interest in the pressure on judges and prosecutors coming from mass-media and politicians, as well as in measures to defend the professional reputation and independence of magistrates and justice. CSM reaffirmed openness to dialogue and cooperation with all the decision makers in the area of judicial reform, with members of the magistracy and representatives of professional associations,” says CSM.
Attending a second meeting, on Friday, were officials of the CSM, Judiciary Inspection, the Supreme Court and the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) to discuss justice independence and accountability of magistrates.
Discussed at the meeting were disciplinary sanctions, feedback on management, as well as the implementation of integrity and corruption prevention provisions.