Talgerele fisurate ale balanței, sau despre tensiunile din justiția românească
The Cracked Scales of Justice, or on the Tensions within the Romanian Judicial System

Summary/Abstract: This article examines the structural tensions that have recently emerged within the Romanian judiciary, beyond the contingent circumstances of institutional conflicts or debates concerning the status of magistrates. The central hypothesis is that these tensions cannot be adequately explained through a purely positivist or procedural approach, but rather reflect a deeper crisis of meaning affecting the concept of judicial independence. Starting from the qualification of the judge as an exponent of a state power and from the understanding of independence as a public guarantee, the article analyses the risks of corporatist self-referentiality and the transformation of institutional autonomy into autarky. It addresses the role and limits of the Superior Council of Magistracy, the relationship between the judiciary and the other state powers, as well as European models of judicial governance, with particular reference to the French and German experiences. Special attention is devoted to the temporal dimension of justice, the principle of reasonable time, the moral significance of limitation periods, and the role of collective deliberation as a constitutive act of jurisdiction. The refusal of deliberation is interpreted as a form of justice denied, capable of undermining both the continuity of judicial power and the legitimacy of judicial decision-making. The article concludes that judicial reform cannot be reduced to normative or institutional adjustments alone, but requires a rebalancing between independence and public responsibility, between form and conscience. Only such an approach, explicitly acknowledging the ethical dimension of the judicial function, can restore the credibility and authority of justice within a state governed by the rule of law.

• Details
• Contents