President Nicușor Dan commented on Tuesday morning the dispute between magistrates and Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu. The head of state considers her statement regarding magistrates’ pensions to have been unfortunate, and the reaction of the CSM – which referred the case to the Prosecutor’s Office – as exaggerated.
“The statement by the Vice Prime Minister was unfortunate. The reaction of the CSM was exaggerated,” said the president, as quoted by News.ro.
Nicușor Dan specified that in the case of the deputy prime minister's statements, there is no question of a criminal offense and announced that he will not sign the request for criminal prosecution.
- CSM refers Oana Gheorghiu to the Prosecutor's Office after statements about magistrates' pensions. Accused of incitement to hatred, violence, or discrimination
- Minister of Justice says he did not sign CSM's complaint against Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu
- USR leaders express support for Oana Gheorghiu: Freedom of expression is sacred. How many criminal complaints did CSM file when corrupt individuals escaped justice?
Asked whether Oana Gheorghiu should leave the government, Nicușor Dan stated that she should stay, arguing that "everyone makes mistakes, and it's not such a big mistake."
The president noted that magistrates' pensions have become a political campaign issue, and magistrates have become a kind of "scapegoats," which is "not right."
CSM refers Oana Gheorghiu to the Prosecutor's Office
The Superior Council of Magistracy announced on Monday that it is referring Oana Gheorghiu to the Prosecutor's Office after her statements regarding magistrates' retirement pensions.
CSM stated that it decided to notify the competent authorities "to conduct investigations into the commission of the offense of incitement to violence, hatred, or discrimination."
- Chief Prosecutor at DIICOT feels offended by Oana Gheorghiu: I was shocked to learn that my pension will be paid from the money of children and the sick
- CSM member upset after Oana Gheorghiu compared special pensions to a Caritas. Calls it an attack on judicial independence
The Superior Council of Magistracy further states that Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu's statements constitute attacks on a constitutional power.
“The Superior Council of Magistracy strongly condemns the statements made by Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu during a televised interview, in which judicial independence and the status of magistrates were irresponsibly and populistically violated.
Statements deliberately made in an emotional tone, referring to funds allocated for minors affected by serious pathologies, and the comparison between their situation and the financial guarantees of judicial independence cannot be mere personal opinions when coming from a representative of the executive power.
Such allegations constitute attacks on a constitutional power, fueling a dangerous discourse that incites hatred and discrimination, aimed at antagonizing society against the professional body of magistrates.
The artificial opposition between magistrates and the "hungry child whose food is taken away" is manipulation and an attempt to divert public discontent towards the judiciary, placing the assurance of financial resources in a direct relationship with the financial independence of magistrates,” specifies CSM.
The Statement that Upset
Deputy Prime Minister Oana Gheorghiu stated, in an interview on Digi24, that the special pension system is unsustainable and comparable to a Caritas, arguing that "Romania can no longer afford to have special pensioners".
According to her, the funds allocated to retirement pensions could come "from the mouth of a hungry child or from the budget of a hospital without medication".
The statements were made shortly after the Constitutional Court published the reasoning behind its decision declaring unconstitutional the law on magistrates' pensions.
The Constitutional Court emphasized that the state has the right to modify the level of retirement pensions to ensure budgetary balance, as long as it does not affect the independence of the judiciary. The Court also stated that the reform does not violate the principle of legitimate expectations, as it is implemented gradually, over a period of over a decade, and aims for the "common good."