A group of senators and deputies announced their intention to submit a parliamentary motion to suspend President Nicusor Dan following his announcement of plans to hold a referendum among magistrates regarding the activities of the High Council of the Magistracy (Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii, CSM). The initiators accuse the head of state of direct interference in an independent constitutional body and of violating the principle of separation of powers.
The group of senators and deputies, including Senator Ninel Peia from the PACE – Romania First parliamentary group, sent a letter to the presidents of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies requesting the initiation of proceedings to suspend President Nicusor Dan under Article 95 of the Romanian Constitution. The initiative requires the support of at least one-third of parliamentarians. The document accuses the president of repeated public attacks on magistrates (judges and prosecutors) and the High Council of the Magistracy (CSM), constituting direct interference in the functioning of the judiciary.
Particular criticism has arisen over Nicusor Dan’s Sunday announcement of a plan to organize a referendum in January exclusively among members of the judicial corps. The single question is to read: “Does the CSM act in the public interest, or in the interest of an internal group within the judicial system?” The initiators stress that such an action violates the autonomy of the CSM – a constitutional body guaranteeing judicial independence – and the principle of separation of powers. They claim that the president’s actions exert pressure on judges, undermine public trust in the impartiality of the courts, and threaten the rule of law.
“It is spectacular and extremely serious that the president is proposing a referendum among magistrates, precisely those whom the Constitution protects through the CSM,” the letter reads.
President Nicusor Dan justifies the referendum initiative by citing reports from hundreds of judges about pressures, arbitrary decisions within the CSM, and promotions based on loyalty to an internal group rather than professional merit. The announcement of the referendum has been sharply criticized by judicial institutions and experts, who consider it an unconstitutional interference with judicial independence.
The judicial section of the CSM stated that the proposed referendum “is not provided for in legal regulations for any profession, let alone for the judiciary.” The CSM emphasized its autonomy as a guarantor of judicial independence and declared that “it will not tolerate any form of interference, direct or indirect, in the activities of the judiciary.”
Judge Alin Ene, a member of the CSM, called the president’s statements “absolutely unacceptable in any democratic rule-of-law state.” He compared them to a situation in which “the judiciary would organize a national referendum on the dismissal of the president or the dissolution of parliament,” which would constitute a blatant violation of the separation of powers. Meanwhile, Adrian Toni Neacsu, a former CSM member, stated that “the president of Romania cannot organize a referendum within the judiciary or dismiss the High Council of the Magistracy.” He urged the CSM chair to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court due to a constitutional conflict and described the initiative as “the madness of a small operetta dictator who forgot to take their pill.” Augustin Zegrean, former president of the Constitutional Court, emphasized that a presidential referendum must concern “issues of national significance” and requires consultation of the entire electorate, not just a professional group such as magistrates. Critics argue that the president’s actions exceed his constitutional role as mediator between branches of power and could set a dangerous precedent undermining judicial independence.