Echilibrul fragil al justiției: judecătorul, între neutralitate și activism în faza preprocesuală
The fragile balance of justice: the judge between neutrality and activism in the preliminary proceedings

Summary/Abstract: The pre-trial phase is not merely a preliminary stage of adjudication but a forum where fundamental values of law intersect: judicial neutrality and activism, procedural formalism and flexibility, tradition and modernity. At this stage, the architecture of the proceedings is defined and the foundations of a fair trial are established. The contemporary judge can no longer be confined to the role of a passive arbiter; rather, he is called upon to act as the architect of the procedural framework, a guarantor of impartiality, and a builder of public trust in justice. The analysis underscores the relevance of internal normative foundations–such as the principle of party disposition and the mechanism of regularisation–together with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights on impartiality, proportionality, and the avoidance of excessive formalism. A comparative perspective on the German, French, and Italian models reveals a European trend towards a strict separation between investigative and adjudicative functions, thereby consolidating the judge’s role as guarantor of legality and procedural balance, including through the promotion of amicable settlements and the filtering of claims. The conclusion is unequivocal: in the pre-trial phase, what is at stake is not only the fate of the dispute but the very legitimacy of justice in a state governed by the rule of law, through a demanding equilibrium between neutrality and proportionate judicial intervention.

• Details
• Contents