As a lawyer, I view the current situation arising from the protests by judges in Romania with respect and concern. These demonstrations reflect genuine grievances and once again show how fragile the balance within the judicial system can become when structural problems are not addressed in a timely manner.
Nevertheless, I believe it is important for the public to understand that the administration of justice does not come to a halt when court activity slows down or is suspended. Our legislation provides alternative mechanisms through which citizens can protect their rights and resolve disputes within a lawful and fair framework. I am referring to the following:
MEDIATION, governed by Law no. 192/2006 and recognised by the Code of Civil Procedure. Article 2 provides that “natural or legal persons may resolve disputes of any nature through mediation, even after proceedings have been initiated before a court of law.”
Accordingly, even where a person is already involved in court proceedings but no longer wishes to wait for the judges' protests to end, or to challenge their legality on the grounds of a disguised strike and a breach of Article 6 of the ECHR, they may turn to a mediator to resolve their legal matter more quickly.
This is a voluntary and confidential procedure through which the parties, with the assistance of an authorised mediator, can reach an amicable settlement. The agreement resulting from mediation may be authenticated by a notary public, thereby acquiring the enforceable force of a court judgment. Thus, even to obtain enforceability, there is no need to resort to a court of law.
ARBITRATION, governed by Articles 541–621 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allows disputes concerning pecuniary rights to be resolved by independent arbitrators appointed by the parties.
An arbitral award has the same legal force as a court judgment and may be enforced through compulsory enforcement proceedings.
Arbitration stands out for its confidentiality, speed and the specialised expertise of arbitrators in complex economic or commercial matters.
TAKING OF EVIDENCE BY LAWYERS, provided for under Article 366 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, is a mechanism whereby the parties' lawyers may, in compliance with the procedure laid down by law, take documentary evidence, witness statements and out-of-court expert reports.
This method relieves courts of time-consuming activities and allows the case file to be presented in a more complete and better-substantiated form from the very first hearing.
Accordingly, the time effectively lost as a result of the judges' strike can be put to good use through this procedure, ensuring that the case file is complete and the evidentiary stage has been concluded, so that the judge need only deliver the decision in the case on the basis of the evidence already gathered.
Conclusion:
These three mechanisms are not emergency measures, but modern instruments recognised and widely used across European countries. Particularly at a time when litigants are caught in the crossfire between two giants, the Government and the Justice System, they can offer a practical way for citizens to pursue their claims without being entirely dependent on court activity.
As a lawyer, I have a duty to remind clients and citizens in general that their rights can also be defended and enforced through these complementary methods. At the same time, lawyers, through the UNBR (National Union of Romanian Bar Associations), remain dialogue partners for both judges and state institutions in seeking solutions that will restore the stability and efficiency that society needs from the justice system.
I would also like to recall the role of the lawyer as set out in Article 2(5) of Law no. 51/1995, which provides that “In exercising the right of defence, the lawyer has the right and the duty to strive to ensure free access to justice, a fair trial and a trial within a reasonable time.”
Lawyer Ștefan Bălan, Cluj Bar Association, founding partner of Trifan, Cuibuș, Bălan Law Firm S.C.A.