Dezbaterile în Dosarul Ursu: de la libertatea de exprimare la afectarea independenței justiției
Debates on the Ursu Case: from freedom of expression to damaging the independence of the courts

Summary/Abstract: The study analyzes the adequacy of the Public Statement in which the Superior Council of Magistracy defended the decision of the HCCJ judges regarding Gheorghe Ursu’s torturers in the face of a wave of criticism following that decision. I showed that it is difficult to assess the extent to which a public debate can be hindered on the grounds that it would hurt the independence of the courts. Given the sensitivity of the subject, the standards defining these limits are described in international instruments. Not being sufficiently known, they have been ignored by the Superior Council of Magistracy which preferred to admonish the press, politicians and civil society that they are not allowed to debate a final court decision on a subject extremely provocative for the public - the methods used by the communist Securitate against dissidents. Criticism of court decisions, combating judges’ arguments, debating cases and court acts in the public space are fundamental instruments of democracy. When the pluralism of ideas and the debates about irregularities and possible abuses by the three branches of government are blocked, this is the exact opposite of democracy. As far as justice is concerned, the lack of accountability is the beginning of the magistrocracy.

• Details
• Contents