The constitutional court bulletin

Equal rights
Adjudicating within the a posteriori review, the Constitutional Court allowed the objection of unconstitutionality and held that the provisions under Article 44 paragraph (2) of Law no. 303/2004 on the statute of judges and public prosecutors are unconstitutional. The subject matter of the objection of unconstitutionality had the following contents: “Upon calculation of the length of service provided under paragraph (1) shall be taken into consideration also the period in which a judge or public prosecutor acted as a lawyer”.

Of the people allowed at the contest of admission in the magistracy, only those who acted as lawyers may subsequently get registered at the contest of promotion within higher courts or prosecution offices without having the effective length of service in magistracy as required pursuant Article 44 paragraph (1) of Law no. 303/2003 and benefiting of the assimilation of the length of service as lawyer with the length of service as magistrate.

Therefore, as concerns the requirements that should be met with a view to accede to the office of judge or public prosecutor within higher courts or prosecution offices, it is established a privilege in favour of those who were lawyers detrimental to the others. Taking into account the fact that, upon registration at the contest for allowance in the magistracy, all candidates were equal in terms of profession and length of service required pursuant Article 33 paragraph (1) of Law no. 303/2004, appears as inequitable such privileged treatment at a later instance of a certain category of magistrates. There is nothing that may justify the occurrence of such differentiation between the two moments in the career of a magistrate, respectively the moment of allowance in magistracy and that of promotion. As long as all were allowed at the contest of admission in the magistracy, it can only be assumed that all magistrates, irrespective of their previous occupation in the legal field, have evolved and improved within similar professional landmarks, and therefore there is no reason as concerns the promotion to higher courts or prosecution offices of a certain category of magistrates as during the professional development the discrepancies derive only from the individual training, and not from particular circumstances, preceding the allowance in magistracy.
Decision no. 778 of May 12^h 2009, published

in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 465 of July 6^th 2009