Ce fel de judecător protejează CEDO? Hotărârea Danileț c. România [MC] și cele două modele ale funcției judiciare
What Kind of Judge Does the ECtHR Protect? The Danileț v. Romania [MC] Decision and the Two Models for Judges

Summary/Abstract: The study examines the decision in Danileț v. Romania [MC] as a moment of clarification of the model of judge protected by the conventional order. The central thesis is that the decision does not support militant judges and does not weaken the obligation of reserve but instead confirms that the legitimacy of the judicial function is not limited to institutional silence. The analysis distinguishes two competing models: the civic judge and the reserved judge, the difference between them being not the existence of the obligation of reserve, but the threshold from which it ceases to be a virtue and becomes an obstacle. The study traces the Western genealogy of these models, from the legalistic judge to the judge-interpreter and the judge-guardian. At the normative level, it shows that the decision is part of a progressive sedimentation of international and European standards regarding the freedom of expression of judges. The hermeneutical dimension of the analysis holds that the judge cannot be reduced to a completely impersonal function, since the act of judging presupposes interpretation, application and justification. In this context, Danileț v. Romania [MC] appears not only as a resolution of a disciplinary case, but as an inflection point in the contemporary definition of the judicial function. The decision shifts the focus from prohibition to balance and forces the doctrine to rethink the relationship between reserve, institutional responsibility and public presence of the judge. Finally, the study argues that the defense of democratic justice requires judges capable of remaining both reserved and responsible, prudent and present.

• Details
• Contents