Criminal liability of judges for abuse of office

Abstract

The criminal liability of judges for abuse of office is undoubtedly one of the sensitive issues in any legal system. In Romania, the matter raises particular concerns, given that the offense of abuse of office is formulated in a concise manner, lacking specific details, thereby placing the burden on the legal doctrine and case law to interpret the legal provision in a manner as predictable as possible in order to ensure compliance with the principle of legality.
This article seeks to examine how the principles of judicial independence, the pursuit of truth, and the legality of criminal proceedings serve to narrow the scope of the offense under analysis within this legal context.
A particular challenge lies in identifying an appropriate criterion for objectively understanding and defining the unlawfulness of a judge’s conduct, viewed through the lens of its potential contradiction with the law. Another defining element of the analysis concerns the clarification of the subjective component – namely, the existence of bad faith.
Last but not least, the article also examines the relationship between the criminal liability of magistrates (especially judges) for the offense of abuse of office and their disciplinary liability for performing their duties in bad faith. Within this framework, the issue of res judicata is also addressed.