Rule of law with a fixed price? The Supreme Council of Magistracy claims that democracy is in danger in the absence of special pensions

Yesterday, the Superior Council of Magistracy convened general assemblies of judges and prosecutors for August 26-27 to express their views on the draft law initiated by the government on magistrates' pensions. From the press release issued by the Supreme Council of Magistracy, we practically remember that this convocation is presented as a battle to "protect the status of magistrates and the independence of justice".

In fact, we are witnessing a fight to maintain financial privileges that no other state employee has.

"Given the escalation of hostile public attitudes towards judges and prosecutors", the Supreme Council of Magistracy announces that it has convened general assemblies of magistrates, because - isn't that right? - nothing defends democracy better than an internal debate about one's own privileges. The release describes a generalized siege. Politicians are to blame because they "in an unqualified manner, seek to blame the judicial system for economic and budgetary difficulties”. The media, in turn, "run campaigns against the judicial system” and the idea that service pensions are "privileges” is, supposedly, just an aggressive manipulation. In this picture, magistrates appear as lone knights who "exercise their duties with honesty and professionalism, managing a huge volume of activity”. The public is invited to believe that the Romanian judiciary, although perfectly functional and above the European average, is the victim of a lynching.

In reality, it is hard to ignore the irony: when the CSM writes that "the situation in which the independence of the judiciary and the democratic course of Romanian society would become mere illusions” just because the government wants to reduce special pensions, the message no longer sounds like an institutional warning, but like a veiled threat. That is, if the high pensions do not remain, democracy will fall. Meanwhile, the ordinary citizen who struggles with interest rates, inflation and bills does not really feel that his fundamental freedoms are linked to the amount of a magistrate's pension.

Furthermore, the CSM speaks of "an inflexible position, of force and authority of the executive power in relation to the judiciary, unacceptable in a democratic society". Correct, except that in the mirror we are also talking about an inflexible position on the part of the magistrates, who refuse to accept any adjustment and put at stake the very idea of the rule of law in order to protect their incomes.

And the conclusion of the communique is also spectacular: "the actions of the other powers in the state seriously destabilize the judicial system and create risks with regard to the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens". A formulation so dramatic that you expect the courts to close tomorrow morning and the procedural codes to disappear, just because special pensions come into question.

Wrapped in the shiny packaging of the Constitution, European jurisprudence and inter-institutional loyalty, special pensions remain, in the end, still special pensions, ladies and gentlemen members of the Superior Council of Magistracy!