In December 2025, Romania’s independent media outlet Recorder published a series of investigations examining the functioning of the country’s justice system. The publications were followed by protests in Bucharest and other large cities and prompted renewed public debate regarding the capacity of citizens to influence political and institutional outcomes. While electoral processes are often presented as the primary means of democratic accountability, these developments have raised questions about the role and effectiveness of judicial institutions beyond electoral competition.

The report argues that recent allegations concerning a “captured justice system” represent a governance challenge because they combine institutional design issues, declining public trust and an unclear pathway for reform. The first part outlines the main allegations presented in Recorder’s investigation into the leadership of key judicial institutions, including the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) and the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM). The second part examines reactions from political actors, magistrates, and the public, based on verified statements and publicly reported events.

To understand who the people talked about in the documentary are, it is necessary to outline the relationship between the three highest institutions of Romania’s justice system at the national level. The High Court of Cassation and Justice decides final appeals and ensures the uniform interpretation of the law, the Public Ministry, including the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA), investigates and prosecutes criminal cases, and the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) manages the careers, appointments, and disciplinary oversight of judges and prosecutors.

Allegations from the Documentary

Justiție capturată (“Captured Justice”) is a two-hour documentary arguing that Romania’s justice system has been manipulated and constrained by a small number of powerful political actors. According to the investigation, this has enabled systemic wrongdoing affecting both ordinary citizens and high-ranking public officials.

At the beginning of the 2000s, under pressure from Western partners during Romania’s EU accession process, the country established the National Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, formally known today as the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA). The institution was created to ensure that no one’s crimes would go unpunished, an objective that appeared to have been achieved between 2005 and 2013, when media coverage frequently showed prominent political figures being investigated, prosecuted, and convicted.

Recorder interviewed Crin Bologa, Chief Prosecutor of the DNA between 2020 and 2023. During his mandate, the institution appeared, according to the documentary, to regain momentum in major cases. Expecting a second term, Bologa applied for reappointment but lost to Marius Voineag, who was appointed by the Minister of Justice, Cătălin Predoiu, through a procedure that formally complied with the law.

The period that followed was marked, according to interviews conducted by Recorder, by the introduction of internal control mechanisms. Prosecutors featured in the documentary, including Liviu Lascu, identified as head of the DNA’s military division, claimed that these mechanisms, although legal in form, were allegedly used to restrict investigations or influence outcomes.

Lascu stated that he was dismissed from his position after only a few weeks, without an official explanation. At the time, he was working on a case involving alleged irregularities in military uniform procurement by several state institutions, including the Romanian Intelligence Service. According to his account, preliminary findings suggested large-scale fraud, with between 20% and 70% of the equipment missing. The documentary claims that while the case stalled during the leadership transition, it was halted entirely once Voineag assumed office. No official justification for this decision has been made public .

Other key figures interviewed in the documentary included civil servantats from the Bucharest Criminal Court, among them Laurențiu Beșu, one of the judges who accepted to appear in Recorder’s investigation. He described judicial practices that appeared, in his view, designed to protect individuals accused of serious crimes. These included repeated judicial reassignments that delayed proceedings until cases reached the statute of limitations (prescription).

Under Romanian law, prescription periods depend on the maximum penalty for an offense and can extend up to ten years. According to the documentary, prescription has become not an exception but a systematic loophole through which many individuals involved in serious crimes have avoided punishment. While formally legal, it operates without effective safeguards against abuse.

Institutional Context and Publicly Verified Developments

In 2022, Parliament adopted a package of laws regulating the statute of judges and prosecutors, judicial organization, and the functioning of the Superior Council of Magistracy. These laws were adopted rapidly and criticized at the time by civil society organizations and professional associations, though they remain in force.

Lia Savonea, a senior judge who has held leadership roles within both the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the CSM, is presented in the documentary as a central figure of influence within the system. Her formal positions are a matter of public record; the extent of her informal authority is alleged by documentary interviewees.

Two days after the investigation was published, during a press conference at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, Liana Arsenie, president of the institution, was expected to explain and respond to the serious claims raised in the documentary regarding delayed corruption cases, internal pressures, and controversial judicial practices. She attempted to defend the institution and labeled the documentary as manipulative.

The plan was derailed when Judge Raluca Moroșanu stepped forward unexpectedly at the beginning of the conference and directly contradicted the court’s leadership, stating publicly that former Judge Laurențiu Beșu was telling the truth. She asserted that judges work in a toxic environment and face constant pressure from those in charge. This intervention changed the tone of the conference, contradicting Liana Arsenie’s written statement.

During the conference, following rising tensions created by Judge Moroșanu’s intervention, one of the vice presidents of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, Ionela Tudor, told Liana Arsenie, without realizing the microphones were recording, that “Lia” was calling her. Tudor left the room for a few minutes and, upon returning, communicated to Liana Arsenie what answers she might give to the press.

Subsequently, Lia Savonea addressed the event and explained that she was not aware of the conference at the time of the call or of who was present in the room, despite the precision of the answers and the topics discussed.

In his first reaction to the documentary, on December 10, 2025, Romania’s President, Nicușor Dan, gave a neutral response, stating that problems within the justice system cannot be resolved through public indignation, but through the investigation of evidence and legal mechanisms. He congratulated Recorder’ s journalists for bringing the debate forward and announced that he had begun working on a report to analyze the issues within the system, inviting magistrates to contact him directly with concrete complaints and evidence.

Nevertheless, his tone shifted after more than 200 magistrates signed an open letter and began protesting. The President stated that the issue represents a systemic problem that requires dialogue and institutional reform. He announced open-ended consultations with judges and prosecutors at the Presidential Palace.

In an interview with Euronews Romania, PSD representative Gheorghe Sârbu stated that his party did not intend to amend the justice laws, citing the absence of negative assessments from EU institutions. PNL deputy Ciprian Dobre referred to the lifting of the EU’s Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) as evidence of progress and of the performance of Cătălin Predoiu as Minister of Justice.

On 17 December 2025, Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan acknowledged concerns related to prescription and inconsistent judicial outcomes and announced the creation of a working group with representatives of the CSM. He did not provide a response regarding public calls for the dismissal of senior judicial figures, including Lia Savonea and Cătălin Predoiu.

On the same day Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan gave an interview for Digi FM, Raluca Morosanu, the judge who talked openly at the press conference at the Court of Appeal on 11th of December, was removed from working on a case involving drug trafficking accusations, following the admission of a recusal request filed by the defense attorney. He invoked “the existence of suspicions regarding her impartiality, in light of information that appeared in the public space”.

The recusal request was initially examined by her fellow panel judge, Bogdan Dari, and by Nicoleta Nolden, a judge on duty who previously worked as an adviser to former justice minister Cătălin Predoiu and is considered close to High Court chief Lia Savonea. The two disagreed, so a third judge, Violeta Ashemimry, the head of the First Criminal Section of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, joined the panel and sided with Nolden, leading to Moroșanu’s recusal.

On the 21 December, President Nicusor Dan announced, in a public conference, that he had received around 2,000 pages containing proposals and complaints on the current functioning of the justice system. Despite an increased level of alerts raised by judges, he reminded citizens that these confessions remain allegations rather than verified accusations, and that institutional reform may require a prolonged period of time. He expressed support for reintroducing written tests for promotions in high-ranked positions. However, no clear endorsement was given for other notifications, including the introduction of mechanisms to limit statues of limitations or addressing judges’ reported fear of court presidents and vice-presidents.

At the conclusion of the conference, he announced his intention to initiate a referendum within the magistracy with a single question: if the Superior Council of Magistracy acts in the public interest or primarily in the interest of a particular group within the judicial system. Depending on the outcome, the proposed course of action would either focus on reshaping legislative measures or on the urgent removal of the entire Council of Magistracy.

The Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) published its own questionnaire addressed exclusively to Romanian judges from courts across the country, who voluntarily responded. A document was subsequently released presenting a preliminary analysis based on those responses.

The questionnaire covered a range of issues affecting the judicial system at a macro level. Allegations raised by Recorder, in contrast, focused on specific institutions and officials rather than the broader justice system. Nevertheless, the responses indicate many areas of the judicial system that may benefit from technical reform.

At the time of writing, none of the allegations presented in Recorder’s investigation have been formally refuted through disciplinary or judicial proceedings. This report has addressed only a limited portion of the documentary, focusing on institutional leadership rather than individual case files in which abuses of power have been alleged.

Public protests have brought attention to ongoing disputes, while key political figures, who are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the state, responded cautiously to the allegations raised by Recorder. The interaction between the legislative and judicial branches is under scrutiny, increasing public demand for transparency and institutional reform.