OPINION When justice takes a break for a pension bonus

The judiciary decided yesterday to take a break or continue the judicial vacation. No, judges and prosecutors do not want a break to reorganize their files or to find solutions regarding the over-demanding of the courts, but to protest against the Government's intention to modify special pensions.

Prosecutors of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest Tribunal and judges of several Courts of Appeal in the country announced the suspension of activity "for an indefinite period", until the legislative project initiated by the Bologna government is withdrawn. Citizens who have been waiting for months or years for a file to be resolved are thus invited to be extra patient, because justice, in Romania, also takes a vacation when it feels threatened in its pocket. The only ones who are probably happy are high-ranking criminals, the so-called white collars, who still have a few days to register the term necessary to fulfill the prescription of criminal liability.

Official explanations speak of defending the status of magistrates and the independence of the judiciary, values that are undoubtedly fundamental in a state governed by the rule of law. However, curiously, independence seems to be invoked especially when it comes to maintaining financial privileges.

This is not the first time that the Superior Council of Magistracy has deplored "public hostility” and press campaigns that would "demonize” judges and prosecutors. In fact, it is not the demonization that produces social irritation, but simple arithmetic: in a country where the average pension is at a low level, around 2000 or 2500 lei, a magistrate retires from activity with a few thousand euros per month, and still at an age when many Romanians are barely paying their last installment on their apartment. Under these conditions, accusing ordinary citizens of not understanding the sacrifice behind the position risks sounding, at the very least, like an unfortunate joke.

What is worse is that the chosen form of protest bears a striking resemblance to a strike, although magistrates do not have the legal right to resort to it. Suspending work, whether partial or selective, gives the impression of justice being put on hold until their own interests are resolved. If teachers or doctors were to do the same, they would be condemned for irresponsibility; if magistrates do it, the defense of the "statute” is solemnly invoked. Perhaps this difference is not entirely accidental and says a lot about the perception that the judiciary has of itself. In the end, the essential question remains: where does independence end and blackmail begin? It is the right of magistrates to express their dissatisfaction, but not to block a vital public service. When the causes of ordinary people are put on hold so that special pensions remain intact, trust in the system cannot grow. And perhaps it is not the media or politicians who are "undermining" the prestige of justice, but rather those who, instead of being the guardians of justice, choose to be the guardians of their own privileges. The irony is that, in the name of defending the dignity of the profession, a blow is dealt to its very credibility.