ECHR confirms: CSM and ÎCCJ punished inconvenient magistrates

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has definitively ruled that magistrates have the right to freedom of expression, including on their own Facebook pages, when they defend the independence of justice, the constitutional order or a general interest and cannot be sanctioned by either the Superior Council of Magistracy or the High Court of Cassation and Justice for opinions expressed online in relation to these subjects.

The decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in the case Cristi Danileţ versus Romania, pronounced yesterday, December 15, 2025, falls on the Romanian justice system as a devastating moral sentence, exactly at the moment when the system is shaken by the documentary Recorder-Justiţia acaparată, by the defensive-aggressive press conference of the Bucharest Court of Appeal last Thursday and by the explosive interview published Sunday evening by Recorder with judge Raluca Moroşanu. It is not a coincidence, but a confirmation. The ECHR says, with the supreme authority of European law, what an increasing number of magistrates, journalists and citizens have been saying for years: the Romanian judiciary not only abusively sanctions uncomfortable voices from within, but does so "without pertinent and sufficient reasons” and without responding to an "imperative social need”.

In the case of former judge Cristi Danileţ, the European Court abolished the mechanism by which the Superior Council of Magistracy and the High Court punished a judge for opinions of public interest expressed on Facebook. The verdict is unequivocal: "the disciplinary sanction applied to the applicant constituted an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression”. Furthermore, the Court finds that the Romanian authorities have not demonstrated "convincingly how these statements would have disrupted the proper functioning of the national judicial system or would have harmed the dignity and honour of the profession of magistrate or the trust that litigants should have in it”. In other words, the exact opposite of the official narrative obsessively repeated every time by the Supreme Court of Justice, the Judicial Inspection and the High Court of Justice when a magistrate steps out of line.

This ECHR ruling does not just speak about an individual case. It describes a pattern. A pattern in which the "obligation to reserve” is transformed from a reasonable deontological requirement into an institutional muzzle. The Court explicitly warns that a balance must be struck between the freedom of expression of magistrates and this obligation, but notes that, in Romania, the balance has been broken: the sanction did not protect the judiciary, but suppressed speech.

In this sense, the ECHR emphasizes that judges have the right to express themselves publicly when "democracy or the rule of law are seriously threatened”, and statements made in such a context "generally benefit from a high level of protection”.

This exact pattern is exposed, with evidence, names and facts, in the documentary Recorder - Justiţia acapară. This is exactly the pattern that was defended, with a cold and institutionalized arrogance, in the press conference of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, where the implicit message was that the problem is not what the critical judges say, but the fact that they dare to speak. And this is exactly the pattern that is confirmed from within, with lucidity and courage, by Judge Raluca Moroşanu, who describes a system in which silence is rewarded and verticality is sanctioned.

The ECHR clearly states that the mere fact that a judge participates in a political controversy "is not, in itself, sufficient to prevent a magistrate from taking a position on a matter of public interest”. The Court also shows that opinions on the functioning of the judiciary and legislative reforms "entitle a high level of protection under Article 10”, that expressions considered "indecent” by the authorities cannot be arbitrarily sanctioned, as long as the courts do not explain "in what way” they would exceed the limits of the function and do not analyze the context. In the case of former judge Cristi Danileţ, the Court explicitly finds that the Romanian authorities "failed to examine the context” and did not carry out "the rigorous examination required by the circumstances of the case”.

This lack of rigour is the core of the problem. Not the prestige of the judiciary, not the image of the institutions, not the "decency of language”. The Court notes that the sanction, although not the most severe, "was likely to have a deterrent effect on the profession as a whole”.

This is the true purpose of these disciplinary procedures managed by the SCM, the Judicial Inspection and the ÎCCJ: to produce fear. Fear of speaking. Fear of reporting irregularities. Fear of saying that the judiciary is captured by networks of influence, hierarchical obedience and authoritarian reflexes.

The ECHR has definitively dismantled the idea that these sanctions would protect anything. They do not protect public trust, because, as the Court finds, "no element in the file supports the thesis that the messages would have effectively compromised and impartiality and independence of the judiciary”. They do not protect the dignity of the judiciary, because there is no evidence that it has been affected. They only protect the status quo and those who control it.

In this context, the defensive reactions of court managements and veiled attacks on magistrates who speak publicly can no longer be read as simple misunderstandings. They are part of the problem. The ECHR ruling in the Danileţ case is not a legal accident, but an indictment of the way Romania understands the independence of the judiciary: as independence from society, not from power.

When the ECHR finds that the interference with freedom of expression "was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons” and "did not respond to an urgent social need”, the message is devastating for a system that claims to be European and reformed. It is the official confirmation that the internal control mechanisms have failed, that the procedural guarantees are formal and that the discourse about the rule of law is, in too many cases, a screen.

After the Justice monopolized, after the testimonies of Raluca Moroşanu and after this decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR, there is no longer an alibi of ignorance. Everything is documented, analyzed and settled.

And for the magistrates who still believe that silence will protect them, the ECHR indirectly formulates a clear warning: fear does not protect justice, but suffocates it.