II. DEZBATERI RRDJ 1. Răspunderea disciplinară a magistraților. (I) Manifestările care aduc atingere onoarei sau probității profesionale ori prestigiului justiției, săvârșite în exercitarea sau în afara exercitării atribuțiilor de serviciu
II. RRDJ DELIBERATIONS 1. Disciplinary liability of magistrates. (I) Acts affecting the honor or professional uprightness or prestige of justice, perpetrated in relation to or outside the exercise of professional duties

Summary/Abstract: The disciplinary offence consisting in “acts affecting the honor or professional uprightness or prestige of justice, perpetrated in relation to or outside the exercise of professional duties”, regulated by Article 99 (a) of Law no. 303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, as republished and amended, is not a novelty in the matter, being reintroduced under Law no. 24/2012, covering all the actions or inactions of the judge or prosecutor whereby certain generally accepted conduct standards are overruled or affected or whereby the reputation of the judiciary as a whole is prejudiced. For the material element of the objective approach relating to this disciplinary offence to be established, the following criteria must be cumulatively met: an act/ acts of the magistrate to have occurred likely to affect the honor, professional uprightness or prestige of justice; these to have been perpetrated in relation to or outside the exercise of professional duties; to have occurred in public or become public knowledge, so that the causal relationship between such acts and the consequence thereof is beyond doubt. As regards the subjective approach, disciplinary offence can be perpetrated both intentionally and by negligence, the cause determining the judge’s or prosecutor’s act whereby the honor or professional uprightness or prestige of justice are affected, as well as the purpose pursued by the same shall not condition the existence of the subjective approach, which can be envisaged only in relation to the individualization of the penalty imposed. Concurrently, in the case of this disciplinary offence it is also questioned the existence of disciplinary liability limits imposed by the need to respect for the magistrate’s private and family life, as well as the freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 26 and Article 30 of the Romanian Constitution and the provisions set forth under Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

• Details
• Contents