Almost 24 centuries ago, in his dialogue The Republic [1], Plato said that the ideal state should include three classes:

a) craftsmen and ploughmen, who meet the living needs of the population;

b) warriors, who defend the state against all attacks;

c) magistrates, who govern the state and ensure everybody’s happiness, as the state’s fundamental virtue is justice, which maintains order and unity of the state.

Nowadays, in a real world, in an overwhelming majority of states, magistrates and justice, without governing in the common sense, have reached the status of power within the state, together with the legislative and the executive power, thus applying the principle of separation of state powers, the foundations of which were set by Montesquieu in his famous work De l'esprit des lois, published in 1748.

We can speak about the separation of powers within the state and about the beginnings of independence of the judicial power in Romania from the moment of creation of the High Court of Review and Justice, a fundamental institution of the United Principalities, when the Prince lost his judicial powers and duties and prerogatives.

The idea of a High Court of Review and Justice for both Romanian Principalities occurred and was recorded in the Paris Convention of 7/19 August 1858 because, at that time, each principality had its own supreme court: the High Council in Wallachia and the Princely Council in Moldavia[2].

In respect of the union of the two principalities, the Convention prefigured the creation of a confederation, but had established as unity elements three joint authorities:

• the Central Committee, as a forum for legislative unification and for initiating joint laws;

• the unification of militias of the two principalities in a joint army, in the executive area;

• a High Court of Review and Justice, in the judicial power area.

Article 38 of the Convention stipulated that, in the United Principalities, Moldavia and Wallachia, a joint High Court of Review and Justice will be created, which will have its headquarters in Focşani, and its members will be irremovable.

After the double election of Alexandru Ioan Cuza as a ruler, the urgent creation of a High Court of Review and Justice was imposed not only from the inside but also from the outside, by pressures placed by representatives of the Guarantor Powers.

Even under these circumstances, the Central Committee of Focşani finalized the draft law on the creation of the High Court only in February 1860, and this was transmitted to the Legislative Assemblies of the two Principalities in March of the same year.[3]

These voted the law on 30 June 1860, in Bucharest[4], and on 6 July 1860 in laşi, but different texts had been reached, and, consequently, significant political maturity act was necessary from the part of the Legislative Assembly of Bucharest, which, on 19 July 1860, approved the text voted in Iaşi by unanimous vote.

In the following time period, the enactment of this law was delayed because of a dilemma existing in relation to the headquarters of the High Court of Review and Justice: in Focşani, according to the stipulations of the Paris Convention, or in Bucharest, according to the will of politicians who sought the Union’s completion.

Pressures placed by the Guarantor Powers made it so that such delay could no longer be prolonged, therefore Ruler Alexandru Ioan Cuza enacted the Law on 12 January 1861, this being published in Official Gazette of Wallachia no. 18 of 24 January 1861, in Bucharest, and in Official Gazette of Moldavia no. 88 of 23 January 1861, in Iaşi[5].

The Union was to be completed only on 24 January 1862, so that the appointment of members of the Court and its setting into operation had to be delayed. Only on 11 February, 1862, through Decree no. 82, Ruler Alexandru Ioan Cuza appointed the 25 councilors, and through Decree no. 83 of 11 February 1862, he decided that the High Court of Review and Justice would be installed on the date of 15 March 1862.[6]

The preparations for its setting into operation were going to be hindered, not long before the installation of the High Court of Review and Justice in Bucharest, by a group of 32 deputies of Moldavia who requested that the Elective Assembly move its headquarters to laşi, as a compensation for the fact that the other unified authorities had their headquarters in Bucharest.

Fortunately, the proposal was rejected by 53 against 35 votes and, on 15 March 1862, the High Court of Review and Justice was installed in Bucharest, in the headquarters of the former High Council of Wallachia, and its members took the oath of office before Ruler Alexandru Ioan Cuza.

In response to the speech by Minister of Justice C.N. Brăiloiu, the first Prime President of the High Court of Review and Justice, Vasile Sturdza, former President of the Council of Ministers of Moldavia between 17 January and 6 March 1859, stated as a closing remark: "Therefore, we should make all efforts in order to be able to hear soon that Justice rules in Romania!"

Unfortunately, 140 years later, vicissitudes of history, and not only, brought us present-day High Court justices to also declare and hope for the same thing, namely that we will soon hear those who need the protection of law saying: "Justice rules in Romania!”

About the headquarters of the High Court of Review and Justice, we also need to mention that there were another two attempts to move it from Bucharest to Iaşi, in 1866 and 1867, the proposals of Moldavian deputies being rejected by the Legislative Assembly, but only by a narrow margin[7].

After this beginning, marked by numerous difficulties and great effort, but also by enthusiasm and perseverance, the history of the High Court of Review and Justice followed the history of the country, and its evolution was marked by the laws regulating its organization and operation, which in turn were marked by the framework established through the Constitutions adopted in time by various governance forms.

* * * * *

The Law of 12 January 1861, taking over the ideas contained in the stipulations of Articles 38-41 of the Paris Convention of 7/19 August 1858, established that the High Court had duties and prerogatives as a High Court of Review and Justice, and that it could review final rulings of all courts and, as a High Court of Justice, it could try ministers, high officials and its own members, being also a disciplinary court for magistrates.

Its main mission was to contribute to the unification of the interpretation of legal stipulations and to establish a consistent jurisprudence, Article 75 specifying that the decisions of the High Court of Review and Justice were to be published in a collection, the Bulletin of the High Court of Review and Justice of the United Principalities.

The Court was headed by a Prime President and had three divisions, each headed by a Division President. Each division comprised 7 councilors, and a total number of 25 members, and their positions were irremovable.

The three divisions were: the 1st Division, dealing with complaints, the 2nd Civil Division and the 3rd Criminal Division, and the judges were distributed per divisions by drawing lots.

Court members, prosecutors and court clerks were appointed by the Ruler, while the remaining personnel was appointed by its President, based on an informative note sent to the Minister of Justice.

Even though the law established for Court members a set of requirements related to age, citizenship, domicile and studies, Article 90 contained transitory stipulations according to which, for eight years as from its creation, former ministers, former presidents of the High Court, of the Princely Court, of courts of appeals and of the Central Committee, former prosecutors of the High Court, of the Princely Court, and of courts of appeals could be appointed as presidents, members and prosecutors of the Court.

The Annex to the law contained the job(title) list, in which monthly wages were mentioned: the Prime President had LEI 4300/month, division presidents and the Prosecutor General had LEI 4000/month, and its members had an individual salary of LEI 3700/month, at a time when a minister or councilor of the State Council or of the Court of Audit had a salary of LEI 2500/month, which proves the high appreciation from which members of the High Court of Review and Justice benefitted from the legislative power and the Ruler[8].

For trials, a panel of 7 members was created at the level of each division, which adopted decisions based on at least 5 votes (voices), and when trying in United Divisions, a panel of at least 16 members, plus the President, was created, which decided based on the vote of at least 11 judges.

Each division had to have at least three hearings a week, while the United Divisions held hearings whenever such were necessary[9].

The first amendment to the Law of 1861 was made through the Law of 7 August 1864, enacted by Decree no. 968 and published in Official Gazette of the United Romanian Principalities no. 174 of 7 August 1864, a law which dissolved the 1st Division, dealing with complaints, with the consequence of cutting a position of Division President, 7 councilor positions and one prosecutor position.

The Law of 19 August 1864, enacted by Decree no. 1.032, published in Official Gazette of the United Romanian Principalities no. 184 of 19 August 1864, established that the High Court was composed of 17 members, out of which a Prime President and two Division Presidents. The Civil Division decided upon reviewing applications in the civil area, the Criminal Division decided upon reviewing applications in the criminal, correctional and simple police area, and the United Divisions examined cases dealing with conflicts of jurisdiction, and with the jurisdiction of courts, in which case at least 12 judges, plus the President, had to participate.

* * * * *

The Law of 12 March 1870, which remained in force until 1 July 1905, the names of divisions and their jurisdiction were changed. The Civil Division became the 1st Division, and the Criminal Division became the 2nd Division. The 1st Division decided upon appeals on law in the civil area, and the 2nd Division decided upon appeals on law in the criminal, correctional and simple police area, as well as upon appeals on law in the electoral, expropriation and commercial area, filed against rulings of the Court of Audit and so on.

* * * * *

On 1 March 1877, the operation of the Law of the High Court of Review and Justice was amended in respect of Articles 7-15, referring to the Registry of the Court and to the Public Ministry, which was reassigned down to the Prosecutor General and a division prosecutor.

* * * * *

An important amendment to the Law of the High Court of Review and Justice was made through the Law of 30 June 1905, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 72 of 1 July 1905, when the 3rd Division, dealing with administrative and commercial litigation, was created [10]; its jurisdiction was established by Article 5, under which the 3rd Division would decide upon appeals on law filed against rulings rendered in the commercial area.

The Court decided also on appeals on law filed:

• against decisions of the Court of Audit;

• against decisions rendered in the area of expropriation for public utility purposes;

• against decisions rendered in the pension area;

• against court decisions in the administrative or fiscal area, as well as in the area of misdemeanors against fiscal laws, state monopoly laws and against the prosecution law, when special laws offered access to a appeal on law;

• against decisions issued by county or commune councils, when the registration of an uncontested, liquid and enforceable debt to the budget was required;

• against decisions of courts of appeals in situations listed under Article 6 of the Law on the Organization and Management of Theaters of Romania;

• against decisions of courts of appeals in situations listed under Article 10 of the Law on Names;

• against regulations and ordinances issued in breach of the law by the central, county or commune executive power or by public authorities, except for government acts;

• regarding irremovable servants, legally appointed, who were replaced, transferred or retired in breach of the law;

• against decisions and ordinances of prefects, mayors and other public authorities that would infringe a financial right, as well as against refusals of such authorities to settle applications related to such right.

The text of this article listed restrictively the decisions and ordinances that could be appealed and, in the end, it stipulated that the 3rd Division decided also upon arbitration conflicts.

According to the stipulations of Article 37 item 7 of the same law, reviewing applications assigned under the jurisdiction of the 3rd Division, listed under Article 5, could be accepted only for reasons of excess of power, lack of jurisdiction, alteration of acts and violation of a law or regulation, and only in cases where a right of the appellant was prejudiced through one of the above-listed documents.

It is obvious that the legislator of 1905 [11] sought also to assign actions for cancellation, namely a judicial mean for the examination of legality of administrative documents and for deciding their nullification, under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Review and Justice, and also to maintain the system prior to this law.

Thus, ordinary tribunals maintained the same jurisdiction of examining the legality of administrative documents, as an exceptional mean, and of granting damages to private parties prejudiced in their rights, according to Article 35 of this law [12].

At the same time, according to the stipulations of Article 3, the President of the 1st Division had the title as and the duties and prerogatives of the Prime President of the Court.

* * * * *

Subsequently, a law adopted under no.  1.108 of 7 March 1906, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 270 of 8 March 1906, amended Article 3 of the Law of the High Court of Review and Justice, in the sense that the Prosecutor General was delegated from among the 22 of councilors of the Court, the 3 divisions being composed of 7 councilors each, headed by one Division President, and the President of the 1st Division had also the title and duties and prerogatives as the Prime President of the Court.

* * * * *

The Law of 24 March 1910, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 288 of 25 March 1910, withdrew the cases in the area of administrative litigation from under the jurisdiction of the 3rd Division, and Article 74 established that these cases were reassigned under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, without recognizing their right to annul illegal administrative documents.

The reasons for such return were presented in the rationale of the law, which stated that the Law of 1905, which granted the Court the jurisdiction and right to annul administrative documents, prejudiced blatantly the principle of separation of powers within the state[13].

Some hostility of politicians of that time may have intervened, determined by interests or egos, such politicians being unable to accept the fact that administrative documents, particularly those of ministers, are censored by the High Court of Review and Justice, which had a legal possibility to nullify the illegal ones.

The Government having supported this law in the Parliament was headed by Ion I. C. Bratianu, President of the Council of Ministers, Minister of Interior and Interim Minister of Foreign Affairs, with Toma Stelian being the Minister of Justice. The mandate of this government was exerted starting from 4 March 1909 and lasted until 28 December 1910, when conservatories returned to the power, led by Petre P. Carp, as President of the Council of Ministers, Mihail Cantacuzino being appointed as Minister of Justice.[14]

* * * * *

After a short while[15], the Law of 16 February 1912, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 252 of 17 February 1912, stipulated that appeals on law of those claiming that they were prejudiced in their rights by authority administrative documents issued in breach of the law, as well as appeals on law filed against refusals of administrative authorities to settle applications related to such rights, were assigned back under the jurisdiction of the 3rd Division, without a distinction between pecuniary or non-pecuniary rights.

The system created by this law in the administrative litigation law area has some differences compared to that established by the Law of 1905.

Thus, in order to eliminate the accusation of unconstitutionality hovering over the Law of 1905, the Court was no longer vested with the right to nullify documents but only with a right to declare them illegal, after which it requested the administrative authorities to nullify or amend such documents, to the extent that these damaged the rights of private parties.

As we have already mentioned, the jurisdiction of the High Court of Review and Justice was no longer determined, as in the case of the Law of 1905, based on the enumerative method, but through a general expression. The 3rd Division was declared to have jurisdiction to decide upon appeals on law "filed by those claiming to be prejudiced in their rights through an administrative authority document issued in breach of laws and regulations, as well as appeals on law filed against refusals of administrative authorities to settle applications referring to a right".

In conclusion, through the amendments made, the Law of 1912 gave back to the High Court of Review and Justice the jurisdiction over administrative litigation, which was however reduced down to cases related to the ascertaining of the illegality and not to nullify illegal administrative documents.

As we will also see below, the history of the jurisdiction of the High Court of Review and Justice was closely connected with the process of extension and strengthening of administrative litigation, as well as with the confidence in the professional probity and impartiality of magistrates, particularly of those of the High Court of Review and Justice, which represented an ideal also for servants of the public administration[16].

* * * * *

Following adoption of a new Constitution in 1923, a new Law of the High Court of Review and Justice was also adopted, being voted by the two Parliament Chambers on 19 December 1925 and published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 282 of 20 December 1925.

The rationale presented by Minister of Justice George G. Mârzescu described the four reasons that had imposed the amendment of the law from the scratch:

• the stipulations of Articles 98, 99, 103 and 107 of the new Constitution[17];

• the new Law on Judicial Organization;

• the new Law containing stipulations for procedure unification in the commercial and civil area, for the purpose of facilitating and accelerating trials;

• internal needs imposed by the Court’s organization and activity, which had been presented by the Prime President at the beginning of the 1924 judicial year.

Through this law, the number of the Court members was increased up to 46, out of which a Prime President and three division presidents, the 1st Division having 18 councilors, while the 2nd and 3rd Divisions had 12 councilors each.

The Public Ministry under the High Court of Review and Justice comprised a Prosecutor General and 5 division prosecutors, who were irremovable under the same terms as the Court members.

The Law introduced the category of assistant magistrates, who were members of the corps of judges, the prime assistant magistrate having the rank of a court of appeals councilor.

The 1st Division had two panels, and the 2nd and 3rd Divisions had a panel each, composed of 7 judges, who made decisions based on at least 5 votes and had at least 4 hearings a week, for each panel.

In United Divisions, the Court decided upon cases in the presence of at least 31 members, and made decisions based on an absolute majority.

This law assigned under the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of Review and Justice the examining of the constitutionality of laws deferred for settlement to any jurisdiction, constitutional litigation being under the jurisdiction of the United Divisions[18].

As High Court of Justice, it decided in United Divisions upon allegations brought against ministers, other high officials  set by special laws, as well as against its own members after the 2nd Division had examined previously the admissibility of criminal allegations[19].

Referring to jurisdiction, we need to mention that, in private law cases, the Court was acting as High Court of Review and Justice, deciding upon applications filed against decisions of first instance tribunals that were not subject to appeal and against final decisions rendered by appeal courts.

Also, the High Court of Review and Justice decided upon case transfer applications, conflicts of jurisdiction and contrary decisions rendered by the same court or by different courts or by a tribunal and a court in the same case, implying the same parties, and for " the same circumstances of persecution".

Per divisions, the jurisdiction of the High Court was as follows:

• the 1st Division decided upon appeals on law in the civil area, except for those assigned by law to other divisions;

• the 2nd Division decided upon appeals on law in the criminal area and on enforcements, in the mining and the Forest Code area, and against arbitrators in the civil area;

• the 3rd Division decided upon appeals on law filed against decisions of arbitrators and court decisions rendered in the commercial area, against decisions of the Court of Audit, against decisions rendered in the expropriation and pension areas, against court decisions in the administrative and fiscal area, in the administrative litigation area[20], and in cases of conflicts of duties and prerogatives.

At the end of each year, the High Court of Review and Justice, in United Divisions, established the proposals for amending the legislation and, for this purpose, prepared a communication to the Ministry of Justice, such report being published in the annual Bulletin of the Court.

* * * * *

In the next time period, the Law of 1925 was subject to successive amendments through the following laws: the Law of 1 January 1929, published in Official Gazette no. 1/1929, the Law of 3 January 1930, published in Official Gazette no. 3/1930, the Law of 12 June 1930, published in Official Gazette no. 125/1930, the Law of 1 January 1931, published in Official Gazette no. 79/1931, the Law of 25 July 1931, published in Official Gazette no. 170/1931, and the Law of 29 March 1932, which established also a republication of the law in Official Gazette no.77/1932, the law coming into force on 15 April 1932.

The number of members of the High Court of Review and Justice was increased up to 54, out of which one Prime President and three division presidents, and the number of division prosecutors was increased up to 6, while that of assistant magistrates was set at 55.

Also, a second judge panel was created within the 3rd Division, and all panels were to have at least four hearings a week, while the United Divisions gathered whenever this was necessary.

In situations where a division deemed that it was necessary to revise the jurisprudence established in the 5 years prior to the settlement of a appeal on law, such case was examined by the panel required for divergences, comprising 11 judges, and the decision could be made based on the vote of at least 7 members.

Cases in the area of electoral litigation were also assigned under the jurisdiction of the 1st Division, and the terms for filing a appeal on law were diminished down to 30 calendar days from the decision communication, in any law area, and appeals on law had to be reasoned in the application through which it was filed.

* * * * *

Until 1939, the Law of the High Court of Review and Justice was subject to several amendments through the laws that were published in Official Gazette no. 150 of 3 July l934, in Official Gazette no. 77 of 1 April 1936, in Official Gazette no. 67 of 22 March 1937, in Official Gazette no. 142 of 24 June 1938, in Official Gazette no. 122 of 30 May 1939, in Official Gazette no. 159 of 13 July 1939 and in Official Gazette no. 212 of 14 September 1939, when it was  republished entirely, based on Law-Decree no. 3.319 of 5 September 1939.

In this last form, the law continues to stipulate that, in the entire territory of Romania, there was a single High Court of Review and Justice and that, in the cases established by law, the Court acted as High Court of Justice, in United Divisions.

A fourth division was created [21], and the jurisdiction of all divisions was established as follows:

• the 1st Division decided upon appeals on law in the civil area and all appeals on law the law area of which was not assigned to other divisions;

• the 2nd Division decided upon appeals on law in the criminal area that did not fall under the jurisdiction of courts of appeals and tribunals, as well as on appeals on law filed against rulings of military tribunals and in the forestry and customs law area;

• the 3rd Division decided upon appeals on law in the commercial area, in the area of collective bargaining agreements, and in mining and oil consolidation legislation filed against court decisions rendered by arbitrators in any law area;

• the 4th Division decided upon appeals on law in the administrative litigation law area, expropriation, in administrative, fiscal and pension areas, as well as upon conflicts of jurisdiction.

We also need to mention that the United Divisions maintained their jurisdiction to decide in the area of constitutionality of laws (Article 29 of the Law of 1925 and Article 145 of the Law of 1939), a prerogative that was making the High Court of Review and Justice one of the most important state institutions and represented a title of glory for the Romanian law.

The number of councilors was increased up to 64, and that of division prosecutors up to 10. Panels were composed of 6 judges, and decisions were adopted based on at least 4 votes, the divergence panels being composed of 11 members, and decisions were adopted in this case based on at least 7 votes. At least 33 de members had to participate in the sessions of the United Divisions, and decisions were adopted based on an absolute majority.

Through Article 50 of Carol the 2nd’s Constitution of 1938, the High Court of Review and Justice was granted the prerogative to validate elections for both Assemblies and to verify the mandates of members belonging to any of them.

At the same time, the law maintained a stipulation according to which the United Divisions took note of the legislation flaws and deficiencies identified during the year, which was communicated to the Minister of Justice, as a government member having the right to introduce legislative initiatives.

Also, it was stipulated that, in public ceremonies, the Prime President, the Prosecutor General and division presidents of the High Court of Review and Justice took seats immediately behind the government.

* * * * *

Until 1947, the Law of the High Court of Review and Justice was subject to several amendments and additions[22], the most important of them being introduced by Law no.63/1945, published in Part I of Official Gazette of Romania no. 25 of 1 February1945.

The number of divisions was diminished down to three, and that of councilors down to 51, each section having 17 councilors, plus division presidents and the Pime President[23].

The Public Ministry under the High Court of Review and Justice was represented by the Prosecutor General and 8 division prosecutors. Assistant magistrates were diminished down to 41, compared to 45 as they had been previously.

Judge panels were extended from 6 to 7 judges, and decisions were adopted based on at least 5 votes.

The jurisdiction of divisions was as follows:

• the 1st Division decided upon all appeals on law in the private law area, except for those assigned under the jurisdiction of other divisions;

• the 2nd Division decided upon appeals on law in the criminal, customs and forestry law area filed against decisions of military courts;

• the 3rd Division decided upon appeals on law in the areas of administrative litigation and expropriation, in the administrative and fiscal area, in the pension, nationality, mining and oil consolidations areas, in the labor legislation area, in the area of decisions of the Court of Audit, and in cases of conflicts of prerogatives.

* * * * *

If the previous amendments foretold only the diminishing of the duties and prerogatives and of the role of the High Court of Review and Justice, the year 1948 marked the beginning of the decline and of the loss of the status of fundamental institution of the state, its role being limited to the highest tribunal of the country, and also of the decline of the judicial power, in general[24].

Thus, the organization and operation of the High Court of Review and Justice was established by Law no.341/1947 on Judicial Organization, published in Part I A of Official Gazette of Romania no. 282 of 5 December 1947, the High Court losing the privilege of having its own organization and operation law[25].

The number of divisions was diminished down to two, each having 18 councilors [26], and panels comprising 4 judges, and, in case of divergence, 7 judges. The United Divisions examined cases with at least 21 members, always being an uneven number, and decisions were adopted based on an absolute majority of votes.

Adopted decisions were signed, in all cases, by all panel members, without mentioning minority opinions. The jurisdiction of the two divisions was as follows:

• The Public Law Division examined conflicts of duties and prerogatives, as well as appeals on law in the criminal area, in the administrative, fiscal and customs area, in the forestry law area, in the administrative litigation law area, in the area of expropriation and citizenship, and those filed against decisions of the Court of Audit and against rulings of military courts.

In respect of appeals on law in the pensions and administrative litigation areas, it was established that these would be examined by special and permanent judge panels;

• The Private Law Division examined all other appeals on law that were not assigned under the jurisdiction of other courts.

As High Court of Justice, it examined, in United Divisions, allegations brought against, ministers, high priests and high officials or magistrates, under the terms set by law.

The number of assistant magistrates was diminished down to 25, and that of prosecutors down to 7, plus the Prosecutor General.

* * * * *

As a result of adoption of the 1948 Constitution, Decree no. 132/1949 on Judicial Organization of the Presidium of the Great National Assembly of the Popular Republic of Romania was issued, which was published in Part I of Official Bulletin of the Popular Republic of Romania no. 15 of 2 April 1949. Afterwards, the High Court of Review and Justice being was referred to as the Supreme Court[27].

The organization and operation of the Supreme Court "was expedited" across eight articles of Chapter IV (in the previous law, 9 articles of Chapter V were reserved to it). The number of councilors [28] was diminished down to 28, divided into two divisions: the Criminal Division, which decided upon appeals on law in the customs area, in the forestry law area, appeals on law filed against rulings of military courts, and criminal appeals on law, while the Civil Division decided upon all other appeals on law.

The Supreme Court decided in panels comprising 5 or 9 judges in cases of change of jurisprudence, and the United Divisions examined cases with at least 21 members[29].

The Prime President was granted the prerogative to seize the Supreme Court with correction applications in case of final and irrevocable court decisions that were contrary to the law or blatantly unjust[30].

On 19 June 1952, Law no. 5/1952 on Judicial Organization, voted by the Great National Assembly on 8 June 1952, by unanimous vote, was published in Part I of Official Bulletin of the Popular Republic of Romania no. 31. This is the law through which the third jurisdiction level, namely the one of courts of appeals, was suppressed, and the High Court of Review and Justice, which, based on the previous rules, had become the Supreme Court, became the Supreme Tribunal, a name that was to last for almost four decades.

Thus, it was established that, in the Popular Republic of Romania, there was a single Supreme Tribunal, having its headquarters in the capital city, headed by a president, who is assisted by one or more deputy presidents, and that this had 3 collegiums: the Civil Collegium, the Criminal Collegium and the Military Collegium, which had a president and the number of required judges.

Presidents, Vice-presidents, Collegium Presidents and judges were appointed by the Presidium of the Great National Assembly[31], upon proposal by the Government, based on a report of the Minister of Justice, and in case of the president and judges of the Military Collegium, such report was prepared jointly with the Minister of Armed Forces [32].

The Supreme Tribunal was a appeal on law court for decisions rendered in first instance by regional tribunals, by military tribunals of the military regions and by the Military Marine, by territorial military tribunals, as well as by Bucharest Tribunal.

At the same time, the Supreme Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide on the merits of cases assigned by law under its jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the Supreme Tribunal supervised the trial activity of courts, by examining correction applications and through the guidelines issued through decisions that were adopted by the plenum of the Supreme Tribunal, in the presence of the Minister of Justice and with the participation of the Prosecutor General.

* * * * *

Following adoption of the 1965 Constitution, a new law on judicial organization, Law no.58/1968, was adopted and published in Part I of Official Bulletin of the Socialist Republic of Romania no. 169 of 27 December 1968, a law that had been voted on 26 December 1968, by unanimous vote, by the Great National Assembly, and which remained in force, with some amendments, until the coming into force of Law no. 92/1992 on Judicial Organization.

According to Law no. 58/1968, courts were established as district courts, tribunals and the Supreme Tribunal, which was elected by the Great National Assembly, for a mandate equal to the legislature term and, in between sessions, the State Council could appoint and revoke the president, vice-presidents and other members of the Supreme Tribunal.

This continued to have three divisions: civil, criminal ad military ones, the vice-presidents having the prerogative to head a division each.

Its duties and prerogatives consisted of:

• conducting of general control over the trial activity of tribunals and district courts, by examining appeals on law filed against rulings rendered in first instance by tribunals and extraordinary appeals on law filed against final rulings by the Minister of Justice or the Prosecutor General;

• issuance of guidance decisions, for a consistent application of laws in trial activities;

• examination in first instance of cases assigned by law under its jurisdiction, as well as of other applications set by law.

The Supreme Tribunal’s Divisions examined cases in panels comprising 3 judges, and appeals on law and  extraordinary appeals on law, respectively, filed against its own rulings were decided upon by panels comprising 7 judges.

Extraordinary appeals on law filed against court decisions rendered by the 7-judge panel, as well as guidance decisions fell under the jurisdiction of the Plenum of the Supreme Tribunal, in the sessions of which all Tribunal members had to participate.

Guidance decisions were subject to control by the Great National Assembly and, during the time interval between sessions, by the State Council, to which the president of the Supreme Tribunal had the obligation to submit reports regarding the activity of the Tribunal, legislative proposals and proposals for the interpretation of laws in force[33].

We need to mention that this law reintroduced the mandatory dress code for court sessions, except for military judges and prosecutors, who were wearing the military uniform corresponding to their rank.

* * * * *

After the December 1989 Revolution and the return of Romania among the countries with democratic traditions, the 1991 Constitution was adopted, coming into force on 8 December 1991, following its approval through referendum, which repealed the 1965 Constitution, with all consequences.

One of these was a new regulation of the judicial power, as distinct public authority among the state powers, which were restructured constitutionally based on the principle of separation, which does not exclude however collaboration and mutual control[34].

Article 125 of the Constitution stipulated expressly that, in Romania, justice was rendered through the Supreme Court of Justice and through the other courts of law. The previous name of the institution was abandoned but, unfortunately, the idea of supreme tribunal was not. Therefore, there was no return either to the name or to the traditional principles of the High Court of Review and Justice, which was a fundamental institution of the state and, at the same time, the Supreme Court of courts of Romania.

Being tributary to the same half measures, the 1991 Constitution granted irremovability to judges of lower level courts, but limited the mandate of judges of the Supreme Court of Justice to 6 years, which in reality proves to be a serious attempt against their independence, in particular, and against that of justice, in general, as it is difficult to presume that a judge’s independence can exceed his/her desire to be reinvested in his/her position by the President of the country, upon proposal by the Superior Council of Magistrates (an authority elected by the Parliament), which can make such proposal only based on a recommendation from the Minister of Justice, who will always be a representative of the political power.

* * * * *

Law no.92/1992 on Judicial Organization, published in Part I of Official Gazette of Romania no. 197 of 13 August 1992, taking over the constitutional principles, established that, in Romania, courts are: district courts, tribunals, courts of appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice, stipulating that its organization and operation will be regulated by a distinct law.

This was accomplished by Law no.56/1993 on the Supreme Court of Justice, published in Part I of Official Gazette of Romania no. 159 of 13 July 1993, adopted by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate on 30 June 1993 as an organic law, according to the stipulations of Article 74 para. (1) of the Romanian Constitution.

This Law stipulates that the Supreme Court has the prerogative to decide upon appeals on law filed against rulings of courts of appeals and other rulings set by law, as well as to decide upon actions for cancellation and referrals in the interest of the law. At the same time, it has jurisdiction to decide on the merits of cases set by law.

Through the aforementioned law, the Supreme Court of Justice did not reacquire its prerogative to rule in the area of constitutionality of laws, but was granted the possibility to seize the Constitutional Court in this area, prior to the enactment of laws.

Also, in the electoral area, the Supreme Court of Justice did not reacquire jurisdiction to validate parliamentary elections[35] or the Senator and Deputy mandates. Law no.68/1992 on Election of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate established that the 7 judges who are part of the Central Electoral Office are appointed by drawing lots from among judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, and such drawing was done by the Court President. Being supplemented by 16 representatives of political parties and groups, the Central Electoral Office, headed by a president elected from among the 7 judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, has the duties and prerogatives regulated by Law no. 68/1992, as subsequently amended.

In respect of the Court divisions, 5 of them were established initially: the civil, criminal, commercial, administrative litigation and military ones. Each division had its own jurisdiction and was headed by a president[36]. In addition to a maximum number of 80 judges, the Court has a president and a vice-president who ensure the administrative management, and who, together with division presidents, compose the standing Collegium.

According to the law, the president, vice-president, division presidents and judges are state high officials and are irremovable, but only for the term of their mandate.

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice’s divisions is as follows:

• the Civil Division decides upon appeals on law in the civil area, except for those assigned by law under the jurisdiction of other divisions, as well as upon appeals on law filed against decisions in labor litigation and in any other cases related to law areas that were not assigned under the jurisdiction of other divisions;

• the Criminal Division decides upon appeals on law in the criminal area, including those filed against court decisions rendered in the criminal area by military courts;

• the Commercial Division decides upon appeals on law filed against court decisions rendered in the commercial area, in cases established by law;

• the Administrative Litigation Division decides upon appeals on law in the administrative litigation law area, in cases established by law, in the expropriation and in the fiscal area.

The 9-judge panel decides upon appeals on law in cases settled in first instance by the Supreme Court of Justice, and upon actions for cancellation, in situations where Court divisions have rendered sentences that remained final due to the fact that a appeal on law was not filed against them, or upon decisions for the settlement of ordinary appeals on law.

United Divisions have jurisdiction to decide upon actions for cancellation in cases where the 9-judge panel decided upon ordinary appeals on law and referrals in the interest of the law, as well as to settle notifications regarding changes in the Court’s jurisprudence and to seize the Constitutional Court for control of constitutionality of laws, prior to their enactment.

In first instance, the Supreme Court of Justice decides upon criminal cases and other cases involving:

• Senators, Deputies and Government members[37];

• marshals, admirals and generals;

• its own judges and assistant magistrates, judges of courts of appeals, including the military one, as well as prosecutors under these courts;

• judges of the Constitutional Court;

• members , judges, prosecutors and financial auditors of the Court of Audit;

• the president of the Legislative Council;

• heads of religious cults and other High Clergy members;

• other cases set by law.

In Title V, the law contains stipulations referring to the activity of the Prosecutors’ Office under the Supreme Court of Justice[38].

We also need to mention that the President of the Court chairs the Superior Council of Magistrates when the latter acts as Disciplinary Council of Judges, as well as the fact that the United Divisions, at the end of each year, establish the situations where an improvement of the legislation is required, and communicates these to the Minister of Justice, who, as a government member, has the right to legislative initiative.

For a detailed regulation of its organization and operation, the Supreme Court of Justice, in United Divisions, adopted the Regulation of 18 January 1999, published in Part I of Official Gazette of Romania no. 10 of 18 January 1999.

A further detailed analysis of the current rules on the organization and operation of the Supreme Court of Justice exceeds the limits and intentions of this study, so we will postpone such analysis until the favorable moment that will be offered to us by the debates regarding a new law.

[39][1] Plato, Works V, The Republic, the Scientific and Encyclopedic Publishing House, 1986.

[40][2]The Organic Regulation of Moldavia established in its section VIII, Articles 362-366, that the Princely Council was the highest court (see page 181, Emanuel Albu, From the High Court of Review and Justice to the Supreme Court of Justice, Regia Autonomă Monitorul Oficial, Bucharest, 2001).

- The Organic Regulation of Wallachia, in its section VI, Articles 319-330, referred to the High Council as the highest court of the principality, composed of 6 judges and a president, the Great “Ban” (see page 179, Emanuel Albu, op. cit.).
- Article 91 of the 1861 Law on the High Court of Review and Justice stipulated that, on the date of its creation, the High Court and the Princely Council will be dissolved and their positions will cease to exist (see page 46, Emanuel Albu, op. cit.).

[41][3] Page 371, Emanuel Albu, op. cit., presents in facsimile the letter accompanying the draft law to the Legislative Chamber of Bucharest, with the signature of Alexandru Ioan Cuza and the countersignature of interim Minister of the Department of Justice Gheorghe Cretzeanu in the Government of Bucharest (it is about the Ion Ghica Cabinet, which had its mandate between 11 October 1859 and 28 May 1860, and in which Vasile Alecsandri was the Minister of Foreign Affairs).

[42][4] The draft law was supported before the Legislative Chamber of Bucharest by the Report of the Ad Hoc Commission for Its Analysis and Presentation, chaired by Constantin Bosianu, Dean of the Law School and, subsequently, councilor of the High Court of Review and Justice.

[43][5] The law text was published with Cyrillic letters in the Official Gazette of Moldavia, and we found it necessary to present extracts of it in facsimile at page 367. In the Official Gazette al Wallachia, the law text was published with Latin letters and is partially reproduced at page 369.

[44][6] The two decrees (ordinances) are reproduced at page 381 and page 382, respectively, Emanuel Albu, op. cit.

[45][7] Details related to these aspects are offered by Andrei Rădulescu in the two communications prepared in 1933 and 1943, which are kept with the Romanian Academy, in the Memoirs of the Historical Section, 3^rd series, volumes XIV and XXV.

[46][8] In support of this statement, we found it necessary to include in our work, at page 383, the Program for the New Year’s Day of 1864, which established the order of presentation of public authorities in the Royal Throne Room, the High Court of Review and Justice being placed after the High Clergy and the Legislative Assembly and before all ministries.

[47][9] For court sessions, judges and prosecutors had different uniforms, depending on whether the Court examined cases in ordinary sessions or in the United Divisions. Separately, for special occasions, there was a uniform for ceremonies. In all cases, the uniforms of division presidents and of the Prime President had ornaments that distinguished them from the other judges.

[48][10] The Law of 11 February 1864 created the State council, with duties and prerogatives to examine, in the administrative litigation law area, disputes that could occur between the state and private parties. Through Article 131 of the 1866 Constitution, the State Council was dissolved, and the Law of 12 July 1866, which distributed its duties and prerogatives, established that matters of administrative litigation nature were transferred to ordinary tribunals. However, courts deemed themselves to have jurisdiction, and decided on cases related to management acts, but refused to cancel administrative authority documents on the ground that such cancellation could represent an interference with the duties and prerogatives of other power. In such situations, the private party prejudiced in his/her rights could defend him/herself through an objection against illegality, which did not constitute a full defense of citizens’ rights.

[49][11] In 1904, G. Gr. Cantacuzino, head of the Conservatory Party, created a commission (S. Neniţescu, Barbu Catargiu, Paul Negulescu, Paul Greceanu şi Mihail Rabtivan), which handled the preparation of the draft law that was presented in 1905 by Minister of Justice Al. Bădărău, and supported before the Parliament, and which was to become the Law of 1 July 1905 amending the Law of the High Court of Review and Justice.

[50][12] Constantin G. Rarincescu, Romanian Administrative Litigation Law, 2^nd edition, ALCALAY Universal Publishing House, Bucharest, 1936, page 73 et seq.

[51][13] The rationale is, to a large extent, a true indictment against the Law of 1905 and the idea of applications for cancellation.

[52][14] Stelian Neagoe, History of Governments of Romania, from the Beginning – 1859, and until Nowadays - 1999, Machiavelli Publishing House, Bucharest, 1999, page 75

[53][15] This time, the rationale, presented by Minister of Justice Mihail Cantacuzino was a plea and a true study related to administrative disputes.

[54][16] This ideal made Minister of Interior Vasile Lascăr to state that he wished that public administration became a second magistracy of the country (Alexandru Negoiţă, Administrative Law, SYLVI Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998, page 220).

[55][17] Article 98 of the Constitution regulated the prerogative of both the Assemblies and the King to request for prosecution of ministers and to send them before the High Court of Review and Justice, which, in United Divisions, was entitled to try them under the Law of Ministerial Accountability.

Article 99 stipulated that any party prejudiced by a decree or order signed or countersigned by a minister, and which violated a stipulation of the Constitution or of a law, could request compensations from the state for the suffered prejudice. Article 103 established that the High Court, in United Divisions, was entitled to decide upon the constitutionality of laws and to declare those that were contrary to the constitutional stipulations as inapplicable.
Article 107 stipulates, on one hand, that special authorities of any kind, with administrative litigation duties and prerogatives, could not be created and that, on the other hand, administrative litigation fell under the jurisdiction of the judicial power, according to a special law.

[56][18] Article 29 builds on the stipulations of Article 103 of the 1923 Constitution, constitutional disputes being assigned under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Review and Justice, which marked the beginning of a new peak era for it as fundamental institution of the state and as supreme authority of the judicial power.

[57][19] Article 58 et seq. took over and developed, to a large extent, the stipulations of Article 98 of the 1923 Constitution referring to instances in which the Court acted as High Court of Justice.

[58][20] In respect of administrative litigation, according to Article 11 of the Law on Administrative Litigation, voted by the two Assemblies in the sessions on 19 December 1925 and published in Official Gazette no. 284 of 23 December 1925, the High Court of Review and Justice decides upon appeals on law filed against decisions of courts of appeals, which suspended enforcement, with no bail. Consequently, the 1923 Constitution took administrative litigation from under the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of Review and Justice, which meant also a separation from the tradition according to which the stipulations referring to administrative litigation were contained in the Law of the High Court. The 1923 Constitution imposed the adoption of a special law for administrative litigation, which was maintained under the jurisdiction of the judicial power until 1948, when the law was repealed, as that system was deemed incompatible with the political and legal philosophy of the communist regime (Alexandru Negoiţă, op.cit. page 221).

[59][21] In his report to the Council of Ministers, Minister of Justice Victor lamandi stated that the main role of the High Court of Review and Justice was to ensure the rendering in due time of Justice to the community, without prejudices caused by never-ending delays, which could not be attained under the circumstances of courts overloaded by works, "with magistrates working over their powers, working in two panels in the same day and with innumerable trials that are postponed ex officio due to a lack of time...". The Minister of Justice hoped that through the creation of the 4^th Division, the other Court divisions would be relieved of the huge number of "matters pending before them for years").

[60][22] It is about Decree no. 1.157 of 24 April 1941 amending some articles of the Law on the High Court of Review and Justice, published in Official Gazette no. 100 of 30 April 1941; Decree no. 3.065 dated 6 September 1940 regulating the oath taking with the High Court of Review and Justice, published in Official Gazette no. 206 A of 6 September 1940; Law no.307/1945 amending stipulations of the Law on the High Court of Review and Justice, published in Official Gazette no. 93 of 21 April 1945; Law no. 420/1945 amending Article 21 para. 2 of the Law on the High Court of Review and Justice, published in Official Gazette no. 121 of 31 May 1945.

[61][23] In his report addressed to the King, Minister of Justice Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu argued that a decrease in the number of judges of the High Court of Review and Justice was required, because the supreme courts of most of the countries had a lower number and because it was necessary to exist a single panel in each division, in order to prevent the adoption of different solutions in similar cases.

[62][24] Through Decree no. 297/1948, published in Official Gazette no. 252 of 29 October 1948, three law schools were created in Bucharest, Iaşi and Cluj, with a schooling term of one year, which were attended and graduated by pupils who registered based on a recommendation from county labor union councils, approved by the Ministry of Justice. Upon completion of such "studies", pupils "passed" an exam, and the graduation diploma gave them the right to be appointed in the magistracy, prosecutors’ offices or in any other legal positions.

Through Decree no. 370/1932, published in Official Bulletin no. 3 of 6 October 1952, the Law School under the Ministry of Justice was created for the training of judges and prosecutors, with a schooling term of 2 years, which could be attended by workers and farmers with ages between 24 and 38 years, who had graduated minimum four elementary grades and maximum 4 secondary grades. During the term of courses, students were taken out of the production and were entitled to receive a basic wage. Upon graduation, students took an exam and obtained a certificate that allowed them to fill judge or prosecutor positions.

[63][25] Law no. 341/1947 was amended shortly after through Decree no. 1/1948 published in Official Gazette no. 95 of 22 April 1948, which introduced the following novelties:

- the High Court of Review and Justice became the Supreme Court;
- councilors of the High Court of Review and Justice became members of the Supreme Court;
- the Prime President, division presidents and members of the Supreme Court were appointed by the Presidium of the Great National Assembly, upon proposal by the government, and based on a recommendation from the Minister of Justice;
- the jurisdiction of the Criminal Division consisted of deciding upon criminal appeals on law, as well as on appeals on law in the customs area, in expropriation for public utility purposes, in the Forestry Code area and in the citizenship area, but also upon appeals on law filed against rulings rendered by military courts in cases set by law;
- the Civil Division decided upon all other appeals on law that were not assigned under the jurisdiction of other courts;
- it was established that, for the application of the stipulations of Article 90 of the Constitution, the Prime President or the Prosecutor General, within one year as from the date when a decision remained final and irrevocable, could seize the Supreme Court through an extraordinary appeal on law;

- transitorily, it was established that the matters pending with the Public Law Division were to be taken over by the Criminal Division, and the matters pending with the Private Law Division were to be taken over by the Civil Division.

[64][26] Until 30 December 1947, judges were appointed by a royal decree. Through Law no. 363 of 30 December 1947, published in Official Gazette no. 300 A of 30 December 1947, the Assembly of Deputies took note of the abdication of King Michael the First, specifying that his executive prerogatives were taken over by the Presidium of the Popular Republic of Romania

- According to the stipulations of Decree no. 3 of 8 January 1948 on establishing the duties and prerogatives of the Presidium of the Popular Republic of Romania, published in Official Gazette no. 7 of 9 January 1948, this Assembly had, among other prerogatives, that of appointing and confirming in positions, under the law.

[65][27] Through Decree no. 434/1949, Articles 21 and 27 of Decree no. 132 of 2 April 1949 on Judicial Organization were amended. The number of councilors of the Court was set at 30, the Prime President being assisted by two councilors for the fulfillment of duties and prerogatives related to the notification of the Supreme Court with correction applications filed against final and irrevocable court rulings or documents, in exerting its supervision right established by Article 90 of the 1948 Constitution of the Popular Republic of Romania.

[66][28] According to Article 89 of the 1948 Constitution, the Prime President, presidents and members of the Supreme Court were appointed by the Presidium of the Great National Assembly of the Popular Republic of Romania, upon proposal by the Government, based on a recommendation from the Minister of Justice, a stipulation that was taken over by Article 67 of Decree no. 132/1949. These stipulations were inserted for the first time in Decree no. 1/1948, which had amended and supplemented Law no. 341/1948.

[67][29] Prosecutors were no longer under the Supreme Court. The 1948 Constitution, maintaining the terminology, stipulated that the Prosecutors’ Office comprised the Prosecutor General of the Popular Republic of Romania and several prosecutors, while its organization, duties and prerogatives and operation were to be regulated by a special law.
During the entire communist time period, the Prosecutors’ Office had the privilege to have its own organization and operation laws (Decree no. 2 of 22 April 1948 on the Organization of Prosecutors’ Offices, Law no. 6/1952 on the Organization of Prosecutors of the Popular Republic of Romania, and Law no. 60/1968 on the Organization of Prosecutors of the Socialist Republic of Romania).

[68][30] Under the terms of Article 90 of the 1948 Constitution, the Supreme Court had a new prerogative, namely that of supervising the trial activity of courts and of judicial bodies.

[69][31] Starting with Law no. 363/1947 and continuing with the Constitutions of 1948, 1952 and 1963, until 1974, Romania had the institution of collegial head of state: the Presidium of the Popular Republic of Romania, the Presidium of the Great National Assembly and, respectively, the State Council (Ioan Muraru, Constitutional Law and Political Institutions, Actami Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998, page 442).

[70][32] Just like the previous regulation contained in Decree no. 132/1949, Law no. 5/1952 no longer included the stipulations referring to the court session dress code, the element related to the solemnity of court sessions being dropped at all levels.

[71][33] These servitudes were the expression of subordination of judicial bodies, in general, and of the Supreme Tribunal, in particular, which, according to Article 106 of the 1965 Constitution, was responsible for its activity before the Great National Assembly and, in between sessions, before the State Council. This constitutional stipulation needs to be correlated with the stipulations of Article 52 para. 3 and of Article 58 para. 2 of the same Constitution, according to which the Constitutional and Legal Committee of the Great National Assembly was hearing regularly the reports of the President of the Supreme Tribunal, and each deputy could ask questions and address interpellations to the President of the Supreme Tribunal.

Also, all these constitutional and legal stipulations need to be correlated with the stipulations of Article 75 of the 1965 Constitution, which regulated the duties and prerogatives of the President of the country, some of these being also to appoint and revoke members of the Supreme Tribunal and its president, as an expression of the uniqueness of the state power during the communist era.

[72][34] The independence of justice, really consecrated by the guarantees granted by the 1991 Constitution, does not exclude, but even implies constitutional relations that result naturally from the constitutional system (Ioan Muraru, op.cit., page 464).

[73][35] According to the stipulations of Law no.68/1992 on Election of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, the validation of general parliamentary elections falls under the jurisdiction of each Chamber that is created following the ballot, which validates the mandates of its own members.

Regarding the election of the President of Romania, according to the stipulations of Article 27 of Law no. 47/1992, the Constitutional Court supervises the observance of the procedure for election of the President of Romania and confirms the vote results, under the terms of Law no.69/1992 on Election of the President of Romania (Ioan Muraru and Mihai Constantinescu, Constitutional Court of Romania, Albatros Publishing House, Bucharest, 1997, page 173).

[74][36] Through Law no. 79 of 12 July 1996, published in Official Gazette no. 150 of 17 July 1996, the Court organization was changed, being set that the Court, in addition to the 5 divisions, included also a 9-judge panel and the United Divisions, each having its own jurisdiction. Afterwards, through Law no. 153 of 15 July 1998, published in Official Gazette no. 267 of 17 July 1998, the military division was dissolved.

[75][37] According to Law no. 115 of 28 June 1999 on Ministerial Accountability, as subsequently amended, published in Official Gazette no. 300 of 28 June 1999, the criminal prosecution of Government members for acts perpetrated while in office is conducted by the Prosecutors’ Office under the Supreme Court of Justice, and these are tried by the Supreme Court of Justice, under the law.

[76][38] Initially, Article 11 of Law no. 56/1993 referred to the General Prosecutors’ Office under the Supreme Court of Justice. This article was repealed expressly by Article V of Law no. 142/1997, published in Official Gazette no. 170 of 25 July 1997.