Judicial reform was considered a necessity in the early 90s, so by adopting the Law on Judicial Organization nr.92/1992, almost entirely repealed by Law no.304/2004 on judicial organization, was reorganized the whole system of courts andprosecutors 'offices attached to them, by law nr.92/1992 have established courts of appeal and appropriate prosecution and new judges and prosecutors' offices attached to them.
Accordingly the new judicial organization were amended and supplemented by the introduction of procedural rules call devolutive ordinary means of attack, concomitant with the establishment of courts and prosecution powers.
The same law was regulated status of judges and were devoted to the principles of independence, tenure, and obedience only to the law and the specific status of prosecutors - legality, stability and fairness.
Also, an important role in shaping new legal system it was adopted by Parliament two very important laws, namely Law nr.51/1995 for the organization and the Legal Profession and Law. 36/1995 on notaries and notarial activity.
Judicial reform in Romania has become a priority effect in deepening and accelerating the European integration process, which required a consistent and coherent approach of justice in all its components, other areas related to social reforms in line with the acquis communautaire.
As you know, Romania applied for EU membership in 1995, and the actual accession negotiations were opened in February 2000.
The application for accession to the European Commission Romania monitored in terms of the criteria and conditions for membership. Annual monitoring results were included in the Monitoring Report.
Since 1998, the Commission concluded Romania concerns the operation of the judicial system, but has made a number of requirements: strengthening the independence of the judiciary and protecting it against corruption; shortening proceedings, improve the status and remuneration of judges and prosecutors, andneed to improve their business.
In the year 1999, despite the measures taken, the judicial system in Romania was characterized as deficient in terms of awareness of Community law, finance, taxation and banking, organized crime and money laundering. Corruption remained a widespread problem in central and local level.
Considering some progress in improving the judicial reform in 2000, the Commission found little progress in combating corruption. However, it was appreciated Law No.78/2000 on prevention, detection and punishment of corruption.
In 2001, continued reform of judicial procedures and implement new legislation on public procurement has been positively assessed by the Commission, being regarded as an important means to fight corruption. Commission recommended to take effective measures to guarantee judicial independence.
In 2002, judicial reform has been affected by lack of resources. Commission recommended that judicial reform to become a public priority, based on a comprehensive strategy. In the strategy, judicial independence should be the decisive goal.
In this context we developed the judicial reform strategy 2003-20074 which was followed by important developments in achieving an independent judiciary, which allowed the completion of negotiations for accession to the European Union in December 2004.
A significant contribution to closing negotiations for Chapter 24 on the justice had adopted in September 2004, the legislative package on the status of judges (Law no. 303/2004), Judicial Organization (Law no. 304/2004) and organization andfunctioning of the Superior Council of Magistracy (Law no. 317/2004), completed with the adoption of the Statute Law nr.567/2004 specialized staff from courts and prosecutors' offices attached to them, which falls on the same coordinates.
Law no. 303/2004 regulated the incompatibilities and prohibitions concerning the magistrates (common for judges and prosecutors), admission to the bench and initial training of judges, magistrates skills training, appointment, training, promotion and evaluation of magistrates, the rights and obligations, their disciplinary responsibility and punishment.
By adopting the legislative package, the Superior Council of Magistracy has acquired exclusive competence for the proposed appointment, promotion, transfer and sanctions against judges and prosecutors, and all other powers owed Ministry of Justice in recruitment and career magistrates.
It was generalized competition or examination for appointment and promotion of magistrates were provided conditions for promoting and conducting contests or exams.
Were also set standards for initial and continuous training of magistrates, and to prepare and train staff.
It was also reconsidered the role of prosecutor and the prosecutor to ensure its independence and performance gains of criminal activity.
The so-called immunity of magistrates, search, detention or arrest them, can only with the consent of the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Minister of Justice is without that power.
Council increased powers Superior returning to coordinate the National Institute and the National School Magistraturii7 Grefieri8, institutions designed to contribute to initial and continuous training and professional development training for judges, prosecutors and support personnel from specialized courts courts and prosecutors' offices attached to them.
New goals of judicial reform strategy has been initiated following the law to revise the Constitution of September 18, 2003, which enshrined the principle of separation and balance of powers, including the judiciary, and enshrined in the Superior Council of Magistracy guarantor of judicial independence.
It should be noted that the judiciary system may be considered only in terms of its legal regulation, but also in relation to how it actually works. Therefore, characterization of the judiciary can not be divorced from the challenges that has to face, of which are: the increasing workload in the courts, legislative instability and incoherence, fragmented nature of the practice of law, insufficient material resources.
Thus, considerations on the development / reform of justice, that the judiciary system in Romania, also point out that the change since 1990 to date in this area has many contradictory aspects.
Also in this sense, knowledge of the existing disorders is likely to help policy directions and priorities for justice reform so necessary in terms of strengthening the rule of law.
In the following we present the rationale issues important legislative acts of justice reform in Romania, both before Romania's EU accession and post accession.