147
ROMANIAN JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS AGAINST
PROPOSED CHANGES OF LAWS REGARDING THE JUDICIARY
AUGUST-OCTOBER 2017
ROMANIAN JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS AGAINST
PROPOSED CHANGES OF LAWS REGARDING THE JUDICIARY
AUGUST-OCTOBER 2017
EDITURA UNIVERSITARĂ
Bucureşti, 2017
Redactor: Gheorghe Iovan Tehnoredactor: Ameluţa Vişan Coperta: Monica Balaban Editură recunoscută de Consiliul Naţional al Cercetării Ştiinţifice (C.N.C.S.) şi inclusă de Consiliul Naţional de Atestare a Titlurilor, Diplomelor şi Certificatelor Universitare (C.N.A.T.D.C.U.) în categoria editurilor de prestigiu recunoscut.
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României DOI: (Digital Object Identifier): 10.5682/
© Toate drepturile asupra acestei lucrări sunt rezervate, nicio parte din această lucrare nu poate fi copiată fără acordul Editurii Universitare Copyright © 2016 Editura Universitară Editor: Vasile Muscalu B-dul. N. Bălcescu nr. 27-33, Sector 1, Bucureşti Tel.: 021 – 315.32.47 / 319.67.27 www.editurauniversitara.ro e-mail: [email protected]
Distribuţie: tel.: 021-315.32.47 /319.67.27 / 0744 EDITOR / 07217 CARTE [email protected] O.P. 15, C.P. 35, Bucureşti www.editurauniversitara.ro
5
SHORT INTRODUCTION
The materials collected in this brochure should not have existed in a democratically consolidated state, member of the European Union.
In the context of Romania's joining the European Union, the justice system of the former communist state seems to have changed and to be aligned with those of the democratic states of Western Europe. On the one hand, many young magistrates have entered into the judiciary system, the National Anticorruption Directorate has consistently achieved good results, and hundreds of corrupt politicians and magistrates have already been finally convicted. On the other hand, the mechanism for cooperation and verification of Romania's progress in achieving specific benchmarks in the field of judiciary reform and the fight against corruption has not been lifted even after 10 years from the EU accession, and the assault against those who struggle with the scourge of corruption is in full action.
Concering Romania, the latest Report of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (2017)1 expressly recommends, "for further improvement of transparency and predictability of the legislative process, as well as for strengthening the internal guarantees of irreversibility", "the Romanian Government and Parliament (...) should ensure full transparency and take into due account of consultations with relevant authorities and interested parties in decision-making and legislative work related to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, anti-corruption laws, (incompatibilities, conflicts of interest, illicit wealth), the laws of justice (relating to the organization of the justice system), as well as the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code. "
Although in a society still grinded by corruption, it seems necessary to increase the institutional capacity to fight it, including the recovery of damages, which discourages this phenomenon, thus the Romanian politicians proposed in January 2017 to pardon or reduce penalties for crimes, including for corruption.2 More than 600,000 citizens went out on the streets, so the draft of the emergency ordinance in this matter, adopted in the cold winter night, was abandoned for the moment.3
On August 23rd, 2017, by a PowerPoint document presented at a press conference, the Minister of Justice proposed a new set of amendments to the "laws of justice" (Law 303/2004, Law 304/2004 and Law no. 317/2004), without impact studies and prior consultation on key legislative issues, to ensure decisional
1 See the web page https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/com-2017-44_en_1.pdf [last accessed on October 17th, 2017]. 2 The Romanian Judges' Forum Association's reaction was immediate. See webpage https://rlw.juridice.ro/11226/the-romanian-judges-forum-association-ref-the-projects-of-emergency-government-ordinances-concerning-the-collective-pardon-and-the-amendments-of-the-criminal-code-and-the-procedural-criminal.html [last accessed on October 17th, 2017]. 3 See webpage https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/world/europe/romania-corruption-coruptie- guvern-justitie.html?mcubz=3 [last accessed on October 17th, 2017].
6
transparency regarding the magistrates (judges and prosecutors) and the civil society.
The draft was communicated to the Superior Council of Magistracy, and in its meeting of September 28th 2017 the Plenum issued a negative opinion on the whole project, taking into account the votes expressed in numerous general assemblies of the judges and prosecutors from the courts and prosecutor's offices, where they were rejected, in overwhelming proportion, among other things, all substantive changes to the draft law, reorganization of the Judicial Inspection as a structure with legal entity within the Ministry of Justice, the amendments of the decisions for al the nominations at the top of the judiciary system (General Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor's Office attached to HCCJ, first deputy and assistent, the chief prosecutor of the NAD, his deputies, the chief prosecutors of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the HCCJ and the NAD, as well as the chief prosecutor of DIICOT and his deputies), the proposed amendments regarding the magistrates' liability regime, the changes of the recruitment system of the magistrates - the age limit (30 years) for admission to the National Institute of Magistracy and the required seniority in another legal profession of at least 5 years, the amendments regarding the exams for promotion in executive positions, maintaining the court budget at the Ministry of Justice, as well as the establishment within the Public Prosecutor's Office attached to HCCJ of a specialized directorate with exclusive competence to carry out criminal prosecution for the offences committed by judges and prosecutors, regardless of their nature and gravity.
In October 2017, approximately 4,000 Romanian judges and prosecutors, more than half of their total, appropriated the Memorandum to withdraw the draft amendment to the "laws of justice",4 addressed to the Romanian Government following the refusal of taking into account the negative opinion on the whole project issued by the Superior Council of Magistracy. The supporters of the Memorandum believe that these changes promoted by the Minister of Justice flagrantly violate the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism, its constant reports and the foundations of a natural magistracy in a democratic state. Consequently, the undeniable will of the majority of magistrates, which, according to the supporters of the Memorandum, the Romanian Government (to which the Minister of Justice belongs) cannot disregard in a Member State of the European Union, converges in the sense of removing any doubt about the diversion of this project detrimental for magistracy, requiring its immediate withdrawal, the Ministry of Justice failing to develop a effective, concrete dialogue with the magistrates, the Superior Council of Magistracy, the professional associations of judges and prosecutors, to improve the legislative framework, after carrying out the necessary impact studies and after presenting serious and credible grounds regarding the proposed changes, in order to modernize the judicial system, in accordance with the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.
The gesture of the approximately four thousand judges and prosecutors seems to be a most unusual one. As a rule, magistrates are silent, magistrates express themselves more in their interior self and of course through the decisions or documents they issue, and less in the agora. It is a genuine public statement of the independence of the judiciary system, but not a change of attitude, while the rejection of the laws of justice was a continuous coordinate. Also, for the first time in the 4 See the web page http://www.forumuljudecatorilor.ro/index.php/archives/2866 [last accessed on October 17th, 2017].
7
post-communist period, civil society thanked the thousands of magistrates who supported the Memorandum, joining its conclusions.5
When democracy and fundamental freedoms are in jeopardy, the judge's duty to be a reserved becomes subsidiary to the indignation obligation.6 Therefore, the judges' reactions, through their representatives or by the professional associations they have set up, are legitimate and expected.
Next years are difficult and the support of the European Commission in the field of the Mechanism for cooperation and monitorizing of progress made by Romania created for achieving specific benchmarks in the field of the judicial reform and the fight against corruption will be essential.
The brochure contains the opinion of the Romanian Judges' Forum Association on the 10 main proposals for amending the "laws of justice", the negative opinion issued by the Superior Council of Magistracy by Decision no. 974 of September 28, 2017, the text of the Memorandum for the Rejection of the Amendments to the "Laws of Justice" (Law 303/2004, Law 304/2004 and Law 317/2004), appropriated by approximately 4,000 Romanian judges and prosecutors, and some reactions from the civil society.
We thank Mr. Cristian Mihăilescu for the cover of the brochure, as well as the magistrates involved.
Dragoş Călin,
judge, Bucharest Court of Appeal
5 Approximately 100 non-governmental organizations have asked the Romanian Government to waive the bill initiated by the Ministry of Justice on the amendment of the laws of justice, for details see https://www.vedemjust.ro/index.php?p=societatea-civila-impotriva-modificarii-legilor-justiiei [last accessed on October 25th, 2017]. Also, on October 11th 2017, in front of courts in the main Romanian cities, messages were posted with the text "Thank you 3500+" to encourage the protest of Romanian magistrates. See webpage http://epochtimes-romania.com/news/multumim-3500-cetatenii-le- multumesc-magistratilor-care-au-spus-nu-politizarii-justitiei---266432 [last accessed on October 25th, 2017]. 6 See the Declaration on Judicial Ethics, adopted by the General Assembly of the European Network of Judicial Councils, held in London on June 2-4, 2010.
8
ROMANIAN JUDGES' FORUM REGARDING THE MAIN 10
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE ON THE LAWS REGARDING THE JUDICIARY
I. On the reorganization of the Judicial Inspection, as a legal personality structure within the Ministry of Justice
With reference to this amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice on the
„laws of justice”, there has never been during prior talks, beginning with 2016, such an issue put forward concerning any modification of the statute of the Judicial Inspection. There is no reasonable explanation to proceed to such a modification, it is unknown why the current statute should be subject to change and what where the reasons underlying such an initiative.
The report issued by the Judicial Inspection for the year 20167 reveals the following data:
– there have been 6823 referrals (218 ex officio) lodged regarding the activity and the conduct of judges and prosecutors, out of which 4762 referrals regarding judges (177 ex officio) and 2061 referrals regarding prosecutors (41 ex officio);
– solved at the end of preliminary verifications: 5751 closed for lack of probable cause of having committed any disciplinary offence (4030 – Inspection Service for Judges, 1721 – Inspection Service for Prosecutors);
– closing resolutions challenged: 182 (114 - Inspection Service for Judges, 45 - Inspection Service for Prosecutors) out of which 157 rejected and 2 admitted (Inspection Service for Judges); the admission decisions have been appealed by the Judicial Inspection and are pending before the High Court of Cassation and Justice; the other challenges have not yet been solved;
– solved at the end of the disciplinary action: 119 (1,65% of all the referrals), out of which 93 regarding judges and 26 regarding prosecutors;
– 51 referrals admitted (0,71% of all the referrals), out of which 40 regarding judges and 11 regarding prosecutors, and 68 referrals rejected;
– legal remedy against referral rejection resolutions: 3 challenges (percentage of challenges 4,41 %), all rejected (annulment index 0%);
– the Judicial Inspection proceeded to disciplinary action for: 36 judges (37 disciplinary actions) for 60 disciplinary offences and 14 prosecutors (13 disciplinary actions) for 22 disciplinary offences; the most common disciplinary
7 Found on the web page http://old.csm1909.ro/csm/linkuri/09_03_2017__86944_ro.pdf [last accessed on 17th October 2017].
9
actions are those provided under letters t (21), h (14), a (11) and m (9) of art. 99 of Law no 303/2004 regarding the statute of judges and prosecutors;
– disciplinary actions solved by the Superior Council of Magistracy: 17 regarding judges for 23 offences (15 sanctioned and 8 rejected); 5 regarding prosecutors for 11 offences (5 sanctioned, 6 rejected);
– 12 disciplinary sanctions enforced to judges: warning - 4, reduction of gross monthly salary – 3, suspension – 3 and dismissal from magistracy – 2;
– 4 disciplinary sanctions enforced to prosecutors: warning - 2, reduction of gross monthly salary – 2;
– professional deontology – 6 referrals regarding the possible infringement of the Code of deontology for judges and prosecutors (4 regarding judges, 2 regarding prosecutors) of which 2 ex officio;
– good reputation of active judges and prosecutors – two referrals (each regarding a judge), proposals of the Judicial Inspections have been confirmed by the Plenary of the SCM;
– defence of the independence of the judiciary: 26 referrals (4 regarding judges and 22 regarding prosecutors) of which 23 solved by SCM (23 admitted);
– defence of the professional reputation, independence and impartiality of magistrates – 36 requests (17 made by judges and 19 by prosecutors) of which 21 solved by SCM (16 admitted).
These data show that the Judicial inspection, in its current organization, delivers efficient results. Thus, the real reason why it would be necessary to change its statute is unknown.
Moreover, as in the case of the appointments of the heads of the prosecutor’s offices, no MCV reports has brought any criticisms to this institution, in view of its statute as a structure within the Superior Council of Magistracy having legal personality, acting on the basis of the operational independence principle (art. 65 of Law no. 317/2004 regarding the Superior Council of Magistracy).
The reorganization of the Judicial Inspection within the Ministry of Justice, regardless of its legal formula (autonomous, under the authority etc.) will create, at least apparently, the impression of political subordination, which leads to the infringement of the principle of the separation and balance of powers within the framework of constitutional democracy.
Considering all the above arguments, there is no legal or factual basis for modifying the statute of the Judicial Inspection.
The assertion and the guarantee of the independence of judicial inspectors means excluding any influence from political factors, including from a minister of justice, member of a political government. Any misfunction of the present organization could be easily corrected instead of proceeding to the proposed institutional transfer.
II. Regarding the material liability of the magistrates Regarding the Justice Minister’s proposal of the review of justice laws even
though this is a very common subject, in fact, it requires an extremely technical analysis.
10
1. In view of the European legal framework The Consultative Council of European Judges, through the 55th par. of the
third Notice recommends as a general principle that the judges must be exempted of any liability concerning the direct complaints against them regarding the goodwill exercise of their function. The legal errors, related to assessing and law enforcement, or to evidence assessment, either related to the jurisdiction or to the procedure, must be corrected by way of appeal; other judicial errors which cannot be amended in that manner (including the excessive delay) must lead at the most to a claim against the State of an unhappy litigator.
European Charter on the Statute for Judges, in the 5.2th alignment, emphasizes the need to restrain the civil liability of the judges to the state’s indemnification for „gross and inexcusable negligence” using legal procedures and having the prior agreement of an independent authority based on a pertinent legal representation (such as the represented one at the 43th article of The Opinion of CCJE No 1/2001). Furthermore, with regard to the material liability of the judge, the Charter states that the State should provide the compensations for illegal damages incurred following a decision of the judge or due to the way of exercising his office. Therefore, the State is the constant guarantor to the victim for damage compensation.
By stating that, this State guarantee shall be applied to the damages incurred in a illegitimate way following a decision of the judge or due to the way of exercising his office, the Charter does not necessarily refer to the wrong nature of the decision or the judge’s behaviour, but rather insists on the damages arising thereof or illegally incurred. This is perfectly compatible with the liability that doesn’t rely to the judge’s error but based on the unusual, special and serious character of the damage that arises from his decision or from his behaviour. The meaning of this emerges from a particular consideration to the fact that the judicial independence of the judge should not be vitiated by a civil liability regime.
In fact, the Charter states that, when the damage that the State has to ensure is the result of a gross and inexcusable ignorance of the rules governing the judge’s activity, the Statute can provide the State the possibility to require the beneficiary judge to reimburse the compensation for the reimbursement, by a jurisdictional action, within the limits of the Statute.
The need for a gross and inexcusable error, the jurisdictional nature of the repayment action must provide significant guarantees to avoid an eventual deviation of the procedure. (The European Charter on the Statute for Judges).
Without affecting the disciplinary procedures or any right of appeal or State compensation, according to the national law, the judges should have personal immunity towards civil suits intended to obtain material damages for inappropriated acts or omissions made in the performance of their judicial function. (Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by The Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan, from 26 august to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985).
11
2. European standards Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) – Opinion no. 18 (2015) “The position of the Judiciary and its relation with the other powers of state in a modern democracy”
The Judiciary, just as the other two powers of state, provides a public service. It is self-evident that it has to be held responsible to the society it serves. The judicial authority needs to be exercised in the interest of the rule of law and of those seeking justice. Accordingly, the Judiciary is confronted with the task of proving the other powers of state and society in general the utility in whose service it has dedicated its competencies, its authority and its independence. The beneficiaries of justice are increasingly demanding a more efficient Judiciary. A better access to justice is regarded as increasingly important. The efficacy and the accessibility are elements that demonstrate the “responsibility”. The CCJE admitted the existence of these trends on other occasions as well. When it notes that the judiciaries in democratic systems have to produce justice of the highest quality and with adequate responsibility, the CCJE is emphasizing an aspect of the judicial “responsibility” that needs to be provided to society in general. In recent years, the public services have evolved to become more open and have accepted the fact that they need to provide the public that they serve with explanations that are more thorough. Consequently, the concept of responsibility towards the public has become increasingly important in the overall setting of the public activities. A public agency will be seen as “responsible” if it provides explanations for its actions and, equally important, if it assumes responsibility for them.
This accountability is as vital for the Judiciary as it is for the other powers of state because the Judiciary, just as the others, has public service as its main objective. Additionally, if a careful balance is maintained, the two principles, of judicial independence and of accountability, are not irreconcilably opposite. In the judicial sense, “accountable” needs to be read as being held to account for one’s actions, in other words to indicate the reasons and provide explanations for the decisions and the conduct in relation to the cases the judges are called to adjudicate. “Accountable” does not mean that the Judiciary is responsible or subordinated to another power of state because this would contravene its very constitutional role of being an independent body, whose function is to adjudicate disputes in a way that is impartial and in accordance with the law. If the Judiciary were “responsible” to another power of state, as in respond or be subordinated to it, it would follow that in those situations in which the other powers of state are involved, the Judiciary would not be able to fulfil its abovementioned constitutional role.
The accountability of individual judges and the Judiciary, as a whole, is twofold. First, they are responsible to the private individuals that are engaged in the particular judicial proceedings. Second, they are responsible to the other powers of state and, through them, to society in general.
There are multiple forms of accountability. First, the judges are accountable for their rulings through the appealing procedure (“judicial accountability”). Second, the judges have the duty to act transparently. By organizing public hearings and by providing reasoning in the publicly available (save for exceptional circumstances) rulings, each judge provides the justice seekers with arguments for their actions and decisions. At the same time, the judge provides justifications for his or her actions to the other powers of state and the society in general. This type of accountability can be described as “explanatory accountability”. Third, if a judge acts improperly, (s)he
12
will be held liable in a more rigorous way, for instance by being subject to disciplinary procedures and, as the case may be, to criminal prosecution. This is called “punitive accountability”.
As far as civil, criminal and disciplinary liabilities are concerned (what was previously called “punitive accountability”), the CCJE stresses that the main remedy for the judicial errors that do not implicate bad faith has to be the appealing procedure. At the same time, in order to protect the independence of justice against improper influences, a great deal of attention has to be paid when setting up a framework for the criminal, civil and disciplinary liability of judges. The tasks of interpreting the law, weighing the evidence and finding the facts that are undertaken by a judge in ruling on the cases before him or her should not give rise to his/her civil or disciplinary liability, save for situations when his/her bad faith, malice or gross negligence have been proven. In addition, when the state is ordered to pay damages to a party due to the faulty administration of justice, it is the state, and not the party, who holds the power to determine, through judicial action, the civil liability of a judge.
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice
Commission). Republic of Moldova Amicus Curiae Brief for the Constitutional Court on the right of recourse by the state against judges (Article 27 of the Law on Government Agent no. 151 of 30 July 2015) adopted by the Venice Commission at the 107th Plenary Session (Venice, 10-11 June 2016).
As far as the procedure of holding judges liable, initiated because of a decision by the Court, keeping up with the Court’s jurisprudence can prove to be a difficult task. The Court has repeatedly held that the Convention is a living instrument that has to be read in light of the latest developments in society. The way in which the Court makes use of the living instrument doctrine makes it difficult for domestic courts to anticipate the rulings that are to be rendered in its pending cases. The contested legal issue may be a novel one or specific to a certain jurisdiction so that the existing jurisprudence of the Court does not provide clear guidance for interpretation by the national judge. The Court’s jurisprudence can be more or less rooted or evolving, depending on the legal issue and the affected rights.
The core issue here is the way in which requests for a more extensive accountability of the Judiciary are dealt with, while safeguarding the fundamental principle of the independence of judges.
Article 66 of the Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 weighs up the
independence of a judge and his/her accountability as follows: “The interpretation of the law, assessment of facts or weighing of evidence carried out by judges to determine cases should not give rise to civil or disciplinary liability, except in cases of malice and gross negligence.”
Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary by the
Conference of Chief Justices of Central and Eastern Europe, Brijuni, Croatia, 14 October 2015
Without prejudice to any disciplinary procedure or to any right of appeal or to compensation from the State in accordance with national law, judges should enjoy personal immunity from civil suits and immunity from paying indemnification, based on allegations of improper acts or omissions in the exercise of their judicial functions. No judge should be subjected to criminal proceedings for criminal conduct without
13
the withdrawal or waiver of the judge’s immunity. However, because no judge is above the law, whenever a judge engages in criminal conduct, the waiver of his immunity should be forthcoming.
ENCJ Report 2013-2014 “European and International Standards for Independence and Accountability of the Judiciary”
The independence of the Judiciary as a whole and that of individual judges lie at the heart of the rule of law. Without it, the Judiciary cannot fulfil its functions. However, independence does not stand on its own. It must be recognized that independence is directly linked to accountability. A Judiciary that claims independence but which refuses to be accountable to society will not enjoy the trust of society and will not achieve the independence for which it strives.
ENCJ working group Report on Liability 2007-2008 Generally, State responsibility mechanisms also exist to correct errors caused
by “defective or abnormal functioning” of the justice service. Any deficiency that translates to the justice service being unable to fulfil its mission generally constitutes an error. By way of example, the main causes are unreasonable delays in handling procedures, serious negligence, denial of justice, judicial error, the duration of detention etc.
In certain countries, in such cases where civil errors can be proved against judges, those judges can be declared civilly responsible for the consequences of their decisions independently and outside of the framework of recourse actions. Civil responsibility is of the classic type. A civil error must be present in judgement or the exercise of professional functions and result in damages.
The issue of civil responsibility poses the question of insurance for judges who, although independent in exercising their functions, remain an agent of the State, and thus of its guarantee. Since 1988, Spanish and Italian judges have been insured.
Nevertheless, in no case should civil responsibility be a way of destabilising judges responsible for a case or to either directly or indirectly attach their independence. Moreover, final jurisdictional decisions must retain the authority of the issue being judged after all means of appeal have been exhausted.
Notice no.3 of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE)
With regards to the criminal liability, CCJE considered that judges have to be held accountant to the ordinary laws for crimes committed outside their legal function; criminal liability does not have to be applied to judges for errors unintentionally committed while performing their duties. Regarding the civil accountability, CCJE considered that, with respect to the principle of independence, correcting judicial errors (both related to jurisdiction, substantial or procedural) has to be done through a corresponding system of appeals (with or without the Court permission, any correction in administrating justice – including for instance the excessive delays – are addressed exclusively to the state and it is not appropriate for a judge to be exposed - regarding their job assignments – to any personal accountability, even as damages owed to the state, unless it the error is intentional.
14
The Decision of the Court – September 30, 2003 Gerhard Köbler vs. Austria. The claim asking for a preliminary decision: Landesgericht fur Zivilrechtssachen Wien – Austria. Equality of treatment. Cause C-224/01. ”Any possible liability of a judge towards the victim is in conflict to the principle of the independence of judges”.
3. Situation in the member states of European Union8 a) In the following states, the judge has (personal) immunity – the state is responsible for damages: United Kingdom, Scotland (with some exceptions for local judges – judges of peace, clerks of court and prosecutors). b) In the following states, the judge is responsible only in the case of certain crimes: Latvia, Estonia c) In the following states, the judge is responsible for decisions taken with bad faith or extreme negligence: Sweden, Germany, Croatia, Portugal (regress action is only undertaken with the notice from the Supreme Council of Magistrates), Italy, Serbia, France (state action against a magistrate that committed a personal mistake regarding the public service is optional and has never been used), Austria (except the Supreme Court Judges that have immunity, there is a professional insurance system) d) In the following states, there is no magistrate liability ruled: Poland, Cyprus e) In Hungary there is a complex form of liability 4. Conclusions a. From the analysis upon the suggestions made by the Ministry of Justice, we can conclude the intention is to state one of the harshest regimes in Europe of juridical liability for magistrates, placing Romania only alongside Hungary from this perspective. b. From the above stated, corroborated with the situation in other countries, first of all it needs to be stated that in the hypothesis of a harsher liability (because such liability already exists currently) there is the need for ruling a system of insurance for compulsory professional insurance, to lower the risk of affecting the independence of the magistrate in making the actual decisions in a case. c. Third, we need to stress that in neither of the European states above mentioned, a recourse of the state against the magistrate is not compulsory (as the Ministry of Justice suggests) but rather is optional and depends on a series of circumstances of the case in concreto. Also in the states where one such mechanism already exists, it has never been set in motion for the exact reason to actually enforce the independence of the magistrate. d. Fourth, in order for such suggested mechanism not to undermine the principle of the independence of the magistrate, it is required to make a clear distinction and define the notions of extreme negligence or ill faith. For this matter, the Supreme Court in Italy, in similar circumstances, stated that:
8 See the file regarding the Romanian Judges’ Forum, via judge Georgeta Ciungan, Focsani City Court, regarding to the civil liability of the magistrates, available at the web link http://www.forumuljudecatorilor.ro/index.php/archives/2702 [last consulted October 17, 2017]
15
- Punishable negligence requires a quid pluris over simple negligence, it needs to be presented as inexplicable, with no relation to the particularities of the situation that would make such negligence understandable, without giving an explanation for the error of the judge (Cass. 6950/94) - Extreme breaking of the law determined by punishable negligence does not exclude the processual laws, it is not a reason for liability that moment of performing the judicial duties of a judge regarding the identification of the content of the judicial law and the applicability of the law to a specific situation, even of the solution is debatable or poorly explained, because in this way it would come to a revising of the case that is not allowed for a interpretative or evaluative judgement, while a lack of deciding over a decisive issue being a source of liability. (Cass. 17259/02) e. Fifth, it is imperative to state the fact that patrimonial liability that already exists is in correlation to the European standards, and bringing up the issue of the number or the amount of damages given as a result of convictions the Romanian state got at ECHR does not represent a justifying cause to aggravate the material liability of the magistrate, considering the fact that most of the times the judicial error is not the result of a single action/inaction, but rather the effect of a summing up of factors and incidents that involves also the duties of other powers of the state of law, legislative and executive power. Thus, according to statistics (see the study Hotărârile CEDO în cauzele împotriva României. Analiză, consecinţe, autorităţi potenţial responsabile ECHR decisions of cases against Romania. Analysis, authorities with potential liability), until December 31st 2014, the legislative power is responsible in 76,82% of cases in which a conviction decision was given (769 cases), the judicial power in 57,84% (579 cases), Public Ministry for 19,48% (195 cases), and Constitutional Court for 0,39% of convictions (4 causes). Not least, any legislative intervention with the possibility to create a suspicion of pressure on the judicial system must be heavily based, so that it removes any external interference factor as the objective being precepted as threatened see ENCJ 2013-2014 report on Independence and liability of the judicial system – European and international standards regarding Judicial Independence and Liability. f. Sixth, we stress out the demagogy of this legislative proposal, considering the conditions that the equality between the three powers of the state is not respected. Thus, we notice the fact that in Romania there is no specific procedure for recovering the damages caused by ministries or members of the parliament that are convicted of a penal crime for crimes of corruption, some of them getting an early release without paying in full the damage caused directly to the State. There is no equivalent system of liability for members of the other powers, members of the parliament having no liability whatsoever for the laws that got invalidated at ECHR (with the most notable example being the law for restitution of properties), and members of the government have no form of liability for activities that cause negative consequences, including at ECHR (most notable example being the situation in the penitentiary, where members of the government know the issue for years and the only initiative to solve that was issuing a law of pardon in the form of an Urgent Government Ordinance 13/2017). The convictions at ECHR are not determined just by the conduct of some magistrates, but have a fundamental cause, in most cases, of poor laws, sometimes considered to be constitutional by the Constitutional Court (see for
16
example, ECHR (see, for example, ECHR judgments in Sabou and Pîrcălab v. Romania, 28 September 2004, Dumitru Popescu (No 2) v. Romania, 26 April 2007, Marcu v. Romania, 26 October 2010, Bălteanu v. Romania, 16 July 2013). In such cases where the judges' decision was based on a national legal rule not in conformity with the European human rights law, maintained in the normative fund by a decision of the Constitutional Court, we ask whether the material liability should not be exclusive (or priority, at least) parliamentarians and judges of the Constitutional Court? It is surprising that the initiative of the Minister of Justice, a former judge of the Constitutional Court, to deviate precisely from its constant jurisprudence on matters of magistrates' liability. For example, by Decision no. 633 of November 24, 2005, it was stated that "the rule that the injured party can bring an action only against the State and not against the magistrate who has committed the judicial error offers wider possibilities for the recovery of a possible right to compensation. Thus, making the recognition of the right to compensation exclusively for the judicial error results in the alleviation of the burden of proof, in the case where, alongside the judicial error, the bad faith or serious negligence of the magistrate should be proved, constitutional requirements for the accountability of the follow. Moreover, conferring the status of debtor of the wage-exclusion obligation exclusively to the state is likely to eliminate the creditor's risk of not being able to redeem his claim, being in principle the state is always solvable." g. Finally, it must be said that the establishment of a regime of extremely harsh liability compared to the other European states (with the exception of Hungary), where the rule of law works, without any of the previously exposed guarantees (clarification of the notions of bad faith and serious negligence; professional liability insurance, etc.) will lead to the creation of a new type of magistrate, the fearful, timorous magistrate. If the Romanian society needs a fearful magistrate who, when rendering decisions, would always reflect on the possibility of somebody regarding his/her conduct as being susceptible of patrimonial accountability, then the proposals put forward by the Minister of Justice accomplish just that: they bring in a constraining variable in the decisional process. The argument that the measures are necessary for avoiding abuses is not valid. To the extent that there are abuses presently committed by magistrates, there are mechanisms in place through which they can be held liable, including criminally. There are well-known cases of magistrates that are subjected to various stages of criminal prosecution, as well as magistrates that are sanctioned disciplinarily, according to the Judicial Inspection Report that includes 2016. It has to be noted that the proposed measures are susceptible of “supervising” the reasoning of the judge/magistrate, thus creating a risk that the measure would interfere and censure the very prerogative that is central for the judge/magistrate, namely to adjudicate, for the mere fact that one of the parties or the society is unhappy with a certain ruling (by way of example, see, inter alia, S v. Makwanyane – Constitutional Court of South Africa, in a famous decision regarding the unconstitutionality of the death penalty, rendered despite the fact that a large part of the population had voted for the penalty).
17
III. On the setting up within the SCCP of a specialized directorate with the exclusive competence to carry out criminal prosecution for the acts committed by judges and prosecutors
Regarding this proposal of the Minister of Justice to review the "laws of
justice", first of all, such an idea has lacked explications about the necessity to implement such structure.
A special structure is justified only with a special problem. This measure implies that there is a problem of criminality within the magistrates, which requires special attention.
In addition, at a first glance, such a measure can be analysed from a constitutional perspective due to the fact that this type of special criminal investigation will apply only to the magistrates.
As a support for those presented, is the no.104/2009 Decision of Constitutional Court, which even though it was issued in a unrelated area with this discussion, the Decision was issued in work conflicts domain, it has confirmed the fact that there is no justification for a different treatment and procedure for magistrates.
There is no such type of measure for parliamentarians, nor for the members of the Government, neither for officials and nor for any other professional category.
There is no justification to undergo a special treatment for the magistrates. If the justification is that of the protection of magistrates, then such type of explanation is at least unbelievable and also likely to raise the suspicion that it actually hides something else.
It is not necessary to recall the fact that the SIPA was also established for the "protection" of the magistrates.
It should also be noted that in the present, within the National Anticorruption Directorate there is the "Anti-Corruption Justice Service", established by Order no. 10 of January 31, 2014, whose competence is limited to corruption offenses.
Due to the fact that such an entity exists, no arguments have been put forward and there is no explanation to justify why it is necessary to create a separate structure for all offenses, including corruption.
IV. On the abrogation of the legal provisions related to the
taking over the budget of the other Courts by The High Court of Cassation and Justice
Related to the proposal made by the Justice Department concerning the
review of the „justice laws”, when the Law no. 304/2004 was adopted, the goal was the ensuring of the independence and the stability of the Judges, regardless their level of jurisdiction in which they may activate; the term of January the 1st 2008, for the taking over of the Courts’ budgets by The High Court of Cassation and Justice, was established on purely technical grounds, which makes any delay unjustifiable, at least until January the 1st 2018.
Whatever are the motives discussed in the public space, regarding the delay of the implementation of the legislator’s will, it can be easily considered that if it
18
existed the will the make the change, it would have been done through a legislated shift of attributions or by signing a protocol between the legal entities evolved, by which the officials should be transferred / delegated / seconded and the logistics should be made available, so that all the activities continue without interruption.
According to the Article no. 25 form the Romanian Constitution, the Judges are designated by the President of the Republic and they cannot be removed from the magistracy; any proposal regarding the appointment, promotion, transfer and punishment of the Judges fall on the exclusive power the Supreme Counsel of Magistracy and the position of the Judges is incompatible with any other public or private position, except for teaching positions in higher education.
In the legal level below the Constitution, the magistrates’ statute is regulated in the Law no. 303/2004. According to this law, the Judges are independent, they obey only the law and they must be impartial. The second Chapter from the quoted Law establishes a number of incompatibilities and interdictions applicable for Judges, Prosecutors and Assistant-Magistrates.
The Fundamental Principles regarding the independence of Magistracy, in the way that they were adopted in the 7th Congress of United Nations on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (Milan, august the 26th – September the 6th 1985) and ratified by the General Assembly of the United Nations through Resolutions no. 40/30 from November the 29th 1985 and no. 40/146 from December 13th 1985, provide in an express manner in the article 11 that « the duration of the commission of the Judges, their independence, their safety, their remuneration, the working environment, their retirement remuneration and retirement age are adequately guaranteed by the law »
The Minimal Standards of the Judiciary Independence, adopted by the International Bar Association in 1982, provide that « Judicial salaries and pensions shall be adequate and should be regularly adjusted to account for price increases independent of executive control. »
The Recommendation no. R(94)12 regarding the independence, the effectiveness and the mission of the Judges, adopted in October the 13th 1994 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, emphasizing the importance of the independence of Judges purposely to enforce The Rule of Law in democratic countries and considering the Article no. 6 from European Convention on Human Rights and also the Fundamental Principles regarding the independence of Magistracy, quoted above, established, among other important measures that have to be adopted by the States, that is the duty « of the State to watch that the Status and remuneration of the Judges should be according to the dignity of the profession and the responsibilities they assume. »
The Recommendation no. CM/Rec(2010)12 a the Committee of Ministers of the State Members regarding the Judges : the independence, the effectiveness and the responsibilities (adopted by the Committee in November the 17th 2010, on the occasion of the 1098th meeting of the Ministers’ delegates) provides that « 54. The remuneration of the Judges should be established according to their mission, responsibilities, in such a manner that would make them immune to any sort of pressure meant to influence their decisions. There must be safeguards in order to maintain a reasonable remuneration in case of illness, maternity leave or paternity leave, also in case of the payment of an old-age retirement, that should have a proportional amount, reasonably comparable to the remuneration of an acting Judge. There has to be a specific legislative regulation meant to protect the Judges’
19
remunerations against a reduction in remuneration that would specifically target the Judges. »
The Article no. 6.4 from the European Chart regarding the Status of the Judges, adopted the year 1998, provides “ It specifies in this context that judges who have reached the age of judicial retirement after the requisite time spent as judges must benefit from payment of a retirement pension, the level of which must be as close as possible to the level of their final salary as a judge. ”, and the article no. 1.8 from the same Chat refers to the necessity of consulting the Judges “by their representatives or professional associations on any proposed change in their statute or any change proposed as to the basis on which they are remunerated, or as to their social welfare.”
The Venice Commission (The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe through Law) in the Report on the Independence of the Judicial System, adopted within the pale of the 82nd plenary session (Venice, march the 12th-13th 2010) holds that the salary of a Judge must be compliant to the dignity of the profession and the appropriate remuneration is necessary in order to protect Judges from external interference. Exempli gratia, the Constitution of Poland guarantees to all Judges a consistent salary relative to the dignity of their profession and to the scope of their duties. Their remuneration must be established according to the social situation in the country and must be comparable with the level of salaries that the high officials have, determined according to a general, objective and transparent standard. Any sort of reward, gratification, bonus including a discretionary element must be excluded.
In all these documents, principles and measures established regarding the Status and the rights of magistrates are directly related to the provisions contained within the Article no. 10 from the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and those contained within the Article no. 6 form European Convention on Human Rights, concerning to the fundamental right of any person to be judged by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, established according to the law. Even though some of the quoted documents have only the power of recommendation, those provisions and the purpose sought in those provisions have, individually target directly legal stipulations situated in treaties to which Romania is a party and, by consequence, they enrol in the spirit the provisions found in the Articles no. 11 and no. 20 from the Romanian Constitution.
In Romania, the management of the Courts’ budget it is an attribution of the Justice Department, in consideration of it’s legal main right to distribute credits from the State Budget.
This legislated solution is contrary to the recommendations of the Consultative Counsel of the European Judges (CCEJ) and it raises a serious question on the independence of the justice system, as long as its own budget is controlled by the executive and legislative powers.
The state of underfinancing of the judicial system, the non-payment and the over-dues of the salaries and the rights related to salaries (as they are recognized through subsequent judicial decisions), the inequities from within the salary system, the refusal of the executive power to give up its financial strings regarding the Courts, by passing the management of their budget to the Supreme Court, the increasingly impingement of the main elements of the Status of Judges and Prosecutors constitute the bases of the general protest of Magistrates, back in 2009, that caused a 30days block of all judicial activities.
20
The financial resources may represent for the Justice Department, respectively for the executive power, an element of pressure against the magistrates and any abrupt modification of the remuneration system might become an injury factor to the independence of the magistrates.
V. Regarding the naming procedure of chief magistrates
In this regard the Justice Minister proposes the revision of the laws of justice,
as it follows: ● The President and the Vice-Presidents of the High Court of Cassation and
Justice will be named by Romania`s President after the Superior Council of Magistracy – section for judges proposal, among the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s judges, who ruled at this Court at least 2 years and had not been disciplinary sanctioned.
● The General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the First Deputy Prosecutor General and his Deputy, the Chief Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, his Deputies, the Heads of Sections of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and to the National Anticorruption Directorate, also the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism Chief Prosecutor and their Deputies are named by the section for prosecutors, at the Justice Minister’s proposal.
● Due to a transparent judicial procedure, the Justice Minister presents at least 2 proposals, among the prosecutors having at least 10 years seniority in the practice of the prosecution activity.
1. Regarding the intention to modify These proposed changes to justice laws don’t have any judicial reason, but
obviously, the reasons could be of a different kind. Firstly, beyond any further arguments the naming procedure in this positions
was previously established, but in order for Romania to join the European Union, agreed with the members of the Community field and accepted by the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.
Afterwards, none of the annual reports criticized the naming procedure in these positions, nor sustained that the balance of state powers could be affected.
2. The proposed changes regarding the Heads of Prosecutor’s Offices As the proposal it’s being made by the Justice Minister, the Superior Council
of Magistracy has not a full liberty of choice, the alternative of a refusal being almost excluded within the Decision No 98/7 February 2008 of the Romania Constitutional Court.
This is an unsafe procedure, because, on one side, the SCM has only the choice of a “Yes” or a “No”, regarding the Justice Minister’s proposal, couldn’t be able to choose between the large number of Romanian prosecutors, and on the other side the responsibility for the decision could be lost between the SCM members who might hidden at the guard of the secret vote.
In fact, the Justice Minister will be the one who consolidates a main position in the naming of the Heads of Prosecutor’s Offices.
21
Much worse is that this mechanism which allows the Justice Minister to name the Heads of Prosecutor’s Offices (knowing that he has to choose between 2 proposals) liaised with the proposal which allows the Chief Prosecutor to infirm solutions based either on illegal reason (as it is now), or on unfounded reason (as it’s proposed), generates the right conditions for a political control of the Prosecutor’s Offices, which would affect the credibility of the Criminal Justice.
Therefore, it would not exist any possibility for a democratic control of the criminal investigations, which could be finished or initialized based on the decision of some Chief Prosecutors politically named by the Justice Minister.
Among all the investment procedures or removal from the important positions of the Prosecutor’s Offices (The General Prosecutor’s Office, the National Anticorruption Directorate, the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism) the current procedure was the only one to generate the conditions of a real criminal justice in Romania, thanks to a tripartite mechanism which offers counter-weights like: the Justice Minister (Government’s representative), the President of Romania (directly elected by the citizens), SCM formed of magistrates and civil society representatives.
By maintaining the role of the Justice Minister and removing from the process the Romanian President – the Romanian dignitary with the main democratic legitimacy, directly elected by the majority of Romanian citizens – it would generate a serious imbalance.
VI. On modifying the recruitment system of magistrates
The Minister of Justice proposes to review the "laws of justice", in the following
sense: - Candidates must be physically and psychologically apt to serve as
magistrate; - Candidates must be at least 30 years of age; - Candidates must have at least 5 years of effective employment in one of the
legal professions regulated by law; - The admission examination for direct entry into the magistracy, with a 5-year
seniority in other legal professions is removed; - The admission examination to the NIM (National Institute of Magistracy) will
be announced at least 6 months before the date set; - it is currently announced 60 days before the date set;
- Justice trainees will benefit from the reimbursement of learning materials; - Justice trainees will receive free accommodation in NIM's accommodation
facilities; - Legal provisions on incompatibilities and interdictions of judges and
prosecutors will also apply to justice trainees; - Justice trainees will have the right to be reimbursed for the rent up to a
maximum of 50% of the amount due under this title to magistrates in case there are not enough free places for accommodation in NIM facilities;
- After the completion of the NIM courses, the justice trainees need to pass a graduation exam which verifies the acquirement of the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to perform the function of judge or prosecutor, as well as a psychological test;
22
- Changes are suggested regarding the competence of cases that can be assigned to trainee judges, both in civil and criminal matters;
- The trainee judges also attend court hearings with other types of causes than those provided in paragraph (1), by rotation, to the judges’ panels of the court composed of definitive judges established by the president of the court. In the cases in which he / she is assisting, the trainee judge draws up a consultative report on the case and may draft the decision at the request of the chair of the panel.
As a first observation, it must be said that this idea was not publicly debated in the previous rounds of discussions, from 2016 until today, being a newly presented idea.
Apparently, these measures can be viewed with goodwill - who does not want a mature and well-prepared magistrate? But at a closer analysis it must be noticed that they will have the effect of destroying the NIM's performance system and, in the medium term, lowering the level of training both within the institute and within the magistracy institution.
Thus, the current system allows the presentation of the best-prepared students of each generation, of the valedictorians at the entrance examination at the Institute.
This ensures both a high level of professionalism within the magistracy and an increased exigence, and justifies the existence of the Institute as an elite entity meant to prepare the magistrates.
In the proposed system, this would not be possible. Valedictorians will naturally choose other legal professions and after reaching
the age of 30, assuming they are proficient at their jobs (as lawyer, being a notary public etc.), they will have no reason to look to NMI (INM).
For this reason, the pool of candidates is expected to suffer a decrease in terms of their level of preparation as most of them would probably be jurists merely on paper (given the current state of legal affairs, this is impossible to deny), candidates who will have failed in other legal professions.
In time, after repeated admission exams will have failed to find suitable candidates for all the vacant positions, this fact will lead to the decrease in the level of difficulty of exams, which in turn will result in a pool of magistrates that are less well prepared.
Of course, there will also be exceptions as perhaps some well-prepared candidates would be found but the trend will be the one previously explained.
If the current system can be blamed for certain aspects and, generally, in public, it is said that there is a lack of maturity, this shortcoming can be remedied through other mechanisms, through the extension of the initial period of training at the Institute, through the diversification of the training activities (for instance, in the Netherlands two of the other legal professions require a mandatory 2-year period of training), through the amendment of their jurisdiction for the first years after their permanent appointment (for example, they would be precluded from adjudicating criminal cases or family law disputes where the need for social experience is discernible) etc.
Additionally, in the current system, given that candidates graduate from law school at the age of 22-23 and the NMI (INM), including the training period, lasts for 3 years, it follows that, in fact, a magistrate is effectively starting his work on cases at the age of 27, should (s)he indeed be admitted on the first attempt.
23
Keeping the competence of the Magistrate to judge the technical areas in his first three years of career (contravention complaints, for example) could have the same effect as that which it intends the proposals examined, without however upset the system.
A final reason for which the analysed proposal will not operate is that the situation is different in Romania, in comparison to the Western countries, where the entry in the Magistracy is done later.
Thus, in other Member States with a consolidated democracy, the receipt of the Magistracy represents a natural course of what was called in the Roman Empire "the road of honour", a normal step in the professional career, either to return the society a part of the benefits that have been offered, either to continue to build the career in the service of the justice. In those countries, however, the amount of work of a Judge is much smaller, compared to the amount of work of a Romanian Judge. Also, there are necessary – we are saying this as directly as possible - personal sacrifices, including those of physical nature, the resistance to stress and to public attacks on the profession. These downsides have been compensated for the moment with the abnegation of young people who have sought and found their vocation, especially because the reform presumed, among other things, attracting those who have graduated from the faculty of law after the Revolution in 1989.
The proposal of the Justice Department is not based on a study drawn up by the independent psychologists or a sociological survey, to take account of the specific context of our country, based on the statistics and partial objectives (either at the level of courts of medium level), in which to consider issues such as:
- Checking the results of the evaluations of periodic training, to see if they are weaker in the case of the magistrates under the age of 30 years to receive in the profession, or who have not had the age of 5 years in another legal profession;
- Checking the number cassations or amendments of judgments, in order to observe if the ratio is greater in the case of the magistrates under the age of 30 years or of those who had at least 5 years of professional experience in another legal field;
- Checking the grades, obtained from the promotion exams, according to the specified criteria, to indicate if there is a deficiency caused by the lack of "experience" (the exams would check both theoretical and practical abilities);
- Checking irregularities, disciplinary action or conduct, for the same purpose, considering that they cover the relationship with the lawyers, the citizens, the court;
The Proposal of the Justice Minister is not based on a prior opinion of the Scientific Council of the National Institute of Magistracy or an impact assessment regarding human resources, which takes account of:
- The number of vacancies in the judiciary (judges and prosecutors); - The number of additional posts, aiming to complete the implementation of
the new Codes or of the public procurement laws, for example; - The necessity of adding new jobs, considering the anticipated increase of the
level of the activity (for example, because of the decision of The Constitutional Court of Romania relating to the threshold in Appeals);
- The number of the posts that after the normal evolution of the removal from office of the magistrates but also due to the wave of retirements this decade will be vacancies;
- The hindering of the promotion system due to the suggested changes (the increase of the effective required seniority), which will be affecting the professional mobility toward higher Courts;
24
- The low number of the candidates for direct admission to Magistracy even now (having 5 years of seniority in any legal profession), this would be the only allowed category for the Admission to the National Institute for Magistracy, according to the Justice Minister (with an additional condition: the age of thirty years old);
- The weight of the recruitment by examination (NIM or direct admission), related to the subject difficulties over the last years, preserving an exacting standard;
- The possibility of making an opinion poll on the occasion of the admission examination for NMI (INM) and Direct admission in magistracy from 3rd of September 2017, that sets out the extent that the proportion of those who meet the conditions, and also the proportion of those who indicated their intention to participate to an admission system such as the Ministry did propose.
To the extent that the problem of lack of experience would be correctly identified through studies and polls, then its causes and solving methods are not the same, not the simplistic ones which, in addition to the fact that they are shattering the dreams of generations of Law Graduates, well prepared, will also lead to a decrease of prestige of NMI, influence and relevance, but also to a mitigation in the long term, of the level of training for both, justice trainees and magistrates – afterwards.
VII. On the changes attempted to be made to the conditions of
promoting within magistracy Regarding this proposal made by the Minister of Justice to amend ”the justice
laws”, the CVM reports welcoming the evolution of the magistracy indicated in a certain manner that a merit-based promotion ensures the foundation of an independent judiciary body, free of any influences, both from its inside and from the outside. The return to a manner of promotion on subjective criteria, that lack any form of objective control made by the magistrates, with no possibility to challenge and no predictability, will deprive the judiciary of this foundation.
The establishing of an evidence, for the promotion, evaluating the documents drawn up by the magistrates could lead to situations, for example, in which a seconded magistrate who drew up only administrative documents (administrative proposals approved by the minister / president of SCM / director of the National Institute of Magistracy etc.) receive a maximum rating, as the administrative notes were perfectly drafted, while a sitting judge, with hundreds of decisions annually ruled, have the bad luck and his/her decisions ruled in repetitive cases be analysed in a succinct manner, the decisions being criticisable for „the lack of imagination” in reasoning at least. The latter will not promote, while the seconded judge will be able, without problems, to claim a position to the superior court. The text presumes an effective promotion procedure that is deeply subjective allowing for a lax selection, based on an extreme subjective non-transparent criteria, of those who will have access to the hierarchical superior levels of the courts and prosecutor’s offices. That is to say, an extreme non-transparent procedure for the selection of judges / prosecutors is established, the solution blocking, for extremely unclear reasons, the career path of the magistrates who are not among those favoured by the evaluators. This manner of promotion seriously impairs the independence of the justice system from the perspective of the selection procedure of the magistrates for the superior courts, on the basis of other criteria than the strict professional and
25
merit-based ones. The possibility to regulate the promotion procedure in question by secondary legislation is not only extremely criticisable in terms of opportunity, but also questionable in terms of constitutionality, as long as the provisions of art. 125 par. (2) of the Constitution impose the rule that the promotion of the judges fall within the powers of the Superior Council of Magistracy, under the conditions established by the organic law.
As a consequence, the promotion to the hierarchical superior level of the magistracy is to be made through an extreme no-transparent, subjective procedure (the evaluation of some documents drawn up by the magistrate representing, in fact, the opinion of the evaluators about those documents, the individual opinion being, by definition, of no objective nature) and also volatile (being possible to be regulated at will and directed depending on the interests at moment – under the circumstances in which the procedure is to be established by the SCM Regulation), a circumstance exclusively resulting in the quality of the magistracy being impaired, by increasing the level of dissatisfaction and mistrust, within the system in the first place, at the reliability and objectivity of the promotion procedure. The questionable character of the promotion procedure within the system cannot be kept only intra-professionally, its export to the media and society will lead inclusively to a decrease in trust in the act of justice (the citizen / journalist will have no reason to trust a magistrate promoted to the superior courts following a selection process that is questionable within the judicial profession).
The return to a manner of promotion on subjective criteria, that lack any form of objective control made by the magistrates, with no possibility to challenge and no predictability, will deprive the judiciary of this foundation. We draw the attention that the desired amendments related to the promotion were rejected by the General Assembly of Judges and Prosecutors with over 600 ballots against in September 2015.
In the context in which the promotion of the magistrates in non-managerial positions, according to the current regulation, caused over the years dissatisfactions among the candidates related to the quality of the subjects, the manner of dealing with the complaints challenging the evaluations, to inequalities in the tie-breaking of the candidates with various specialities, remained unsolved till the present day, the introduction in the pass mark of more subjective variables is inexplicable, total non-transparent variables, as: hundreds of various evaluation commissions at the national level, subjective and unpredictable criteria, the inexistence of a transitional rule, making use of a mark obtained following the evaluation of the documents drawn up within a speciality when promoting in another position with another speciality, the impossibility to establish a common base for the evaluation of the magistrates who effectively carry out their activity in courts/prosecuting units and of the magistrates seconded to the Superior Council of Magistracy, the National Institute of Magistracy, the Ministry of Justice etc., although they have the possibility to candidate for the same position (the last years’ experience showing that the tie-breaking mark is at the level of hundredths), and the list of problems remains open.
According to the Fundamental Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United States Congress, approved by the resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation no. 40/32 of November 29th,1985 and 40/146 of December 13th, 1985, „ Persons selected for judicial office shall be individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law. Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial
26
appointments for improper motives” (point. 10). Moreover, point 13 provides that „ Promotion of judges, wherever such a system exists, should be based on objective factors, in particular ability, integrity and experience.” The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended to the governments of the Member States to adopt or strengthen the all measures needed in the promotion of the role of the judges, in an individual manner, but also of the magistracy, as a whole, with the view to promoting their independency applying, in particular, the following principles: (...) I.2.c. „any decision referring to the professional career of the judges has to be based on objective criteria, the selection and promotion of the judges has to be based on their merits and in accordance with their professional training, integrity, competence and efficiency”. Any „objective criteria” seeking to guarantee the merit-based selection and career of the judges, by taking into account the professional training, integrity, ability and efficiency” can be defined only in general terms. Firstly, a content is sought to be offered to the general aspirations for „merit-based appointment” and „objectivism”, aligning the theory with the reality.
The objective standards are deemed necessary not only to exclude the political influences, but also in order to prevent the risk of favouritism, conservatism and of „nepotism”, existing to the extent in which the appointments are made in an unstructured manner. Although the appropriate professional experience is an important condition for the promotion, the seniority in office, in the modern world, is no longer generally accepted as a dominant principle applied for determining the promotion. The public shows an increased interest not only for the independency, but also for the quality of the judiciary and especially in times when great changes occur. A possible sacrifice in terms of the dynamism may occur when the promotions are exclusively based on the seniority, which cannot be justified by a real gain in terms of independency.
VIII. Regarding the reinstatement to magistracy, without
examination, of judges or prosecutors with at least 10 years of relevant experience
Regarding this proposal of the Minister of Justice to review the "laws of
justice", the reinstatement to magistracy, without further examination, of former judges or prosecutors with at least 10 years of experience in these professions is another controversial element found in the MCV Reports.
The profession of being a magistrate is and must remain a career profession that requires vocation. A magistrate who elects another system, for financial (lawyering), political or any other reasons, must assume the consequences of his or her decision. This proposal leaves an open door to the magistracy system, and also delivers the possibility of juggling with entries into and exits from the system, based on considerations other than the professional ones and considering interests other than those of the justice.
The justification given to this change makes it look like the magistrate is almost constrained, due to the incompatibility regime, to leave the system. But if the magistrate resigns once, it means that he does not accept the system’s constraints of which he was thoroughly informed at the beginning of his career, thus being fully aware of what is expected of him. There is no guarantee that the magistrate, after
27
another five years for example, will not resign again from the system, because the incompatibilities and deontological constraints will certainly continue to be regulated in the future, too. Such psycho-professional instability is simply unacceptable, particularly when provided as an explanation emanating from the highest level of magistracy.
Another issue is raised by the concepts of independence and impartiality. A magistrate unsatisfied with the regime of the judiciary may choose to resign and become a lawyer, where he/she has the possibility of being in contact with the criminal environment if he/she works at the criminal court, as he/she was previously a judge/prosecutor. Subsequently, if he/she re-joins the system, and has to adopt a position that is required to be independent and impartial, it will be extremely difficult to achieve, especially because he/she will not appear to be impartial and independent for an external, objective and informed viewpoint. Likewise, a former magistrate may choose to act as a politician, a representative of a political party, or simply in a profession that is outside the legal field. All of these hypotheses have nothing in common with an existing vocation, with the calling of the profession. Through this legislative gap, we cannot help but wonder about the external appearance of the magistrates that have vocation and remain in the system despite not only the massive workload and the low salaries that do not correspond to the level of responsibilities and workload, but also the incompatibilities.
A magistrate might take a step back from these incompatibilities to substantially increase his or her income by joining the Bar or through other methods that do not implicate any constraints, or simply to gain glory and extend his/her political network, after which the SCM allows his/her return to the magistracy, where he/she will share an office with a colleague who all this time remained in the system, by way of example, due to being, should we say, less inspired.
IX. Romanian Judges' Forum regarding the salary rights of
magistrates according to their current positions, regardless of their professional status
Regarding this proposal of the Minister of Justice to review the "laws of justice", first of all, such an idea has never been debated, this being the first time such an amendment has been made, without any previous consultation with the body of magistrates.
Secondly, such a measure is likely to affect the status of the magistrate in one of its essential components- independence, diminishing its authority.
Such a solution raises several problems: a) it is a discriminatory solution, being thus unconstitutional: - throughout the budgetary system consists of certain rules based on
promotion in stages, given by degrees, that affect salaries; in all these cases, the acquisition of a higher position does not compel the person in question to change the workplace and does not make the payment of the degree of such a change conditional; (see annexes to Law No 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid out of public funds);
28
- in the case of the military system, the acquisition of a higher rank does not imply that the military judge/prosecutor will perform other tasks or that he will occupy another role, but only that it contributes to strengthening the vocation to ascend in the military hierarchy;
- in the case of the "diplomatic" occupational family (diplomatic degree is paid regardless of function);
- in the case of assimilated staff from the Justice Ministry, where a large number of the personnel already have a rank equivalent to the one given for the Courts of Appeal, the situation will be aberrant, and the consequences would be preposterous. But this has already been confirmed on several plans, for instance salary and promotion, the assimilated personnel not being limited by the number of vacant places, unlike magistrates. The consequence would be that such assimilated staff would actually be given more rights than the ones whose jobs they bear resemblance to.
- in the case of teachers, doctors (but also in other categories), in the case of school inspectors, management functions for auxiliary teaching functions, patrimony administrator, etc., hospital managers, general managers, research directors, economic directors etc., in the case of the "culture" occupational family; in the case of staff from public authorities and institutions fully financed from their own revenues, subordinated to, under the authority of, in the coordination of the Government, ministries and other specialized bodies of the central and local public administration, under the coordination of the Prime Minister, and of those under the control of Parliament; in the case of the "administrative" occupational family.
b) it represents an intrusion into the status of the magistrate, being thus
unconstitutional; - given that the magistrate's income is included in the notion of his status,
designed to guarantee his independence, the diminishing of income in such a way means the impairment of the status, which impinges on independence, so that the measure is, from this point of view, unlawful;
- no justification for such a measure has been provided, so it can not be known whether its purpose is legitimate or arbitrary;
- Even if a justification (purpose) has been found, the measure does not maintain a level of constitutional proportionality, since it represents the most drastic intrusion into the status of the magistrate, without taking into account other alternative methods of fulfilling it.
c) it raises even more problems of inequity: - assimilated staff will continue to benefit from the professional grades,
although they do not perform judicial activities specific to the profession of magistrate;
- unlike magistrates, the assimilated staff will advance in rank and receive all the rights corresponding to the positions, although they will work in the same office, on the same computer, doing the same work;
- it will diminish the professional development of the magistrate, which will no longer be attracted by the perspective of presenting to sterile thorough examinations, which will not bring any benefit; the magistrate cannot be accused of having regard to the financial aspect of his status as long as the constraints of the position are well known.
29
X. Regarding the strict delimitation between the judges’ careers and the prosecutors’ careers
Regarding this proposal made by the Minister of Justice to amend ”the justice laws”, one has to take into account the fact that the contentious constitutional court has already mentioned by its Decision no.331 of April 3rd, 2007 referring to the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art.29 par.(7), art.35 related to art.27 par.(3) and art.35 letter.(f) of the Law no.317/2004 on the Superior Council of Magistracy and art.52 par.(1) of the Law no.303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, that „according to art.133 par.(1) of the Constitution, the Superior Council of Magistracy is responsible for guaranteeing the independence of the justice system. This being the case, the circumstance that the promotion of the judges to the High Court of Cassation and Justice is made by the Superior Council of Magistracy, in its Plenum, consisting also of prosecutors and representatives of the civil society, through the selection procedure provided by art.52 par. (1) of the Law no.303/2004 and not through contest is not of the nature to impair the impartiality of the judges of the supreme court.
Thus, the provisions of art.52 par. (1) of the Law no.303/2004 are not of the nature to infringe neither the provisions of art.21 par. (3) and art.124 par. (2) of the Fundamental Law nor the provisions of art.6 paragraph 1 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author of the exception enjoying all the guarantees of a fair trial performed in front of an impartial court.
Moreover, the provisions of art.52 par. (1) of the Law no.303/2004 are not of the nature to infringe the provisions of art.124 par. (3) of the Fundamental Law too, these having been adopted in accordance with the constitutional provisions of art.133 referring to the structure of the Superior Council of Magistracy.
The Constitutional Court notes also that the dispositions of art.35 related to the dispositions of art.27 par. (3) of the Law no.317/2004 express the powers of the Superior Council of Magistracy, as they were regulated by art.134 of the Fundamental Law. Therefore, these cannot be construed as infringing the provisions of art.124 par. (3) of the Constitution”.
Moreover, the manner in which the constitutional legislator regulated the formation of the Superior Council of Magistracy cannot make the object of a constitutionality control.
Finally, the provisions of art.35 letter (f) of the Law no.317/2004 are in accordance with the provisions of art.134 par. (4) of the Fundamental Law, according to which the Superior Council of Magistracy performs other functions too, set by its organic law, being responsible for guaranteeing the independence of the justice system. Thus, no violation is brought to the provisions of art.61 par. (1) of the Constitution, according to which the Parliament is the supreme representative body of the Romanian people and the sole legislative authority of the state, as the regulatory function by organic law falls within its exclusive competence, and the regulation referred to in the criticised text of law is adopted in accordance with the law.
As a consequence, the Constitutional Court appears to assert that under the circumstances in which the decisions of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) are made, according to art. 133 par. 5 of the Constitution, by secret ballot in order for the members of SCM not to be exposed to external
30
pressures, under the circumstances of a lack of an imperative mandate, the fact that the prosecutors are part of SCM with their retained members and take the decisions in the Plenum together with the judges members and the members of the civil society, the respective decisions are not of the nature to impair the independence of the judges.
The circumstance that distinct sections exist in respect of the judges or the prosecutors does not involve the fact that the decisions made by these sections are final or that the complaints challenging these decisions are solved by the very section that ruled the challenged decision.
The constitutional architecture of the Superior Council of Magistracy, a collegiate body, involves the challenging in the Plenum of the decisions ordered by each section (except for the decisions ruled by the disciplinary sections, also as an effect of a constitutional text).
The only manner in which a strict delimitation between the judges’ careers and the prosecutors’ careers can be made is by a constitutional amendment.
In France or Belgium, the traditional constitutional models for Romania too, the presidents of the supreme courts have recently ruled in favour of the unity of the judiciary within the same council.9
The Romanian Judges’ Forum Association, an independent, non-profit,
non-governmental and apolitical association of Romanian judges, having legal personality under Romanian law, has as main goal to bring its contribution to the progress of society through actions aimed to create an independent, impartial and efficient justice, the assertion and the defence of the independence of justice in relation to the other powers of the state, as well as through the initiation, organization, support, coordination and implementation of projects concerning the improvement, the modernization and the reform of the administration of justice. Contact: [email protected], [email protected], www.forumuljudecatorilor.ro.
9 For details see the interview with the President of the Court of Cassation from Belgium, Mr. Jean de Codt, published in the Judges’ Forum Rewiev no.1/2017, pg.15-16, available on the webpage http://www.forumuljudecatorilor.ro/index.php/archives/2706 [last consulted on October 17th, 2017], as well as the stand taken by the President of the Court of Cassation from France, Mr. Bertrand Louvel, the webpage https://www.courdecassation.fr/venements_23/derniers_evenements_6101/ magistrature_bertrand_37040.html [last consulted on October 17th,2017].
31
3700 ROMANIAN MAGISTRATES:
MEMORANDUM FOR THE REJECTION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE "LAWS OF JUSTICE" (LAW 303/2004, LAW 304/2004 AND LAW
317 / 2004)
To the Government of Romania,
To Mr Mihai Tudose, Prime Minister of the Government
To Professor Tudorel Toader,
Minister of Justice
Your Excellencies, On 23 August 2017, in a PowerPoint paper presented at a press conference, the
Justice Minister proposed a set of amendments to the "laws of justice" (Law 303/2004, Law 304/2004 and Law 317/2004), without impact studies and without prior consultation on key legislative issues, in order to ensure decisional transparency vis-à-vis magistrates (judges and prosecutors) and civil society.
The draft was communicated to the Superior Council of Magistracy. In its meeting of 28 September 2017 the Plenum of the Superior Council of
Magistracy issued a negative opinion on the whole project, taking into account the votes casted in numerous General Assemblies of judges and prosecutors, held in numerous courts and prosecutor's offices, where they were rejected, in overwhelming proportion.
Among other things, the negative votes referred to: - all substantive changes to the draft legislation, - the reorganization of the Judicial Inspection, as a legal personality structure
within the Ministry of Justice, - the appointments at the top of the judiciary (the Prosecutor General of the
Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice - HCCJ, first deputy and his deputy, the chief prosecutor of the National Anti-Corruption Department - DNA, his deputies, the chief prosecutors of the Prosecutor's Office attached to HCCJ and the DNA, as well as the chief prosecutor of DIICOT and their deputies)
- the proposed amendments regarding the magistrates' liability regime, susceptible of violating the independence of the judiciary;
- the change of the magistracy recruiting system - the changes are regarding the promotion to a higher court / higher prosecutor’s Office;
- the maintenance of the actual status quo regarding the budget of the courts of justice which is administrated by the Ministry of Justice;
- the establishment within the Prosecutor's Office attached to HCCJ, of a specialized directorate with exclusive jurisdiction to carry out criminal prosecution for
32
the acts committed by judges and prosecutors, regardless of their nature and gravity (jurisdiction per personam, aiming to a professional category instead of illegal deeds).
In 2017, Romania is still being subject to the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (MCV) [European Commission Decision 2006/928/CE of December 13, 2006], 10 years after its accession to the European Union, precisely in order to align its justice system with those of the states with historical democratic traditions. Thus, it is no longer acceptable the return in time to legislative regulations existing before 1989, it is no longer acceptable the restoration of placing the judiciary under political control, and it is no longer acceptable the unjustified extension of the duties of the Minister of Justice.
All these substantive changes proposed by the Minister of Justice flagrantly violate the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, its constant reports and the foundations of a normal magistracy in a democratic state. These proposals, once enacted, will influence the career and professional activity of magistrates for a long time and will create imbalances in the judiciary, aspects that have been repeatedly condemned by the European Commission.
By Decision no. 2 of January 11, 2012, the Constitutional Court of Romania considered that, by being a member of the European Union, the Romanian state has the obligation to apply this mechanism and follow the recommendations established in this framework, according to the provisions of Article 148 paragraph (4) of the Constitution, according to which "the Parliament, the President of Romania, the Government and the judicial authority shall guarantee the fulfilment of the obligations resulting from the acts of accession and from the provisions of paragraph 2".
Thus, although the opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy is not mandatory, according to the law, it also cannot be ignored, as the recent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Romania develops and emphasizes in particular a new dimension of the provisions of Article 1 para. 5) of the Constitution ("In Romania, observance of the Constitution, of its supremacy and of the laws is mandatory"), in the sense of attaching its normative content to the principle of loyal cooperation between state’s institutions and authorities [2]. Therefore, the legislative norms which ask for the opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy must be interpreted in the spirit of loyalty to the Fundamental Law and in the spirit of an obligation for the public authorities to apply the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism and to follow the recommendations established in this framework.
Even though the draft issued for consultation by the Ministry of Justice partially contains proposals formulated over time by the Superior Council of Magistracy, Magistrates or Professional Associations, these proposals are simple corrections of the current system. The unrealistic preparation of a genuine "judicial experiment", in the absence of any impact studies and forecasts, may lead to very difficult or even impossible to remedy consequences.
Therefore, in view of the will of the overwhelming majority of magistrates, we ask you, in order to remove any doubts about the misappropriation of this project to the detriment of the magistracy, to dispose its withdrawal (rejection at the Government level, as the case may be, avoiding its advancement to the Parliament), and to initiate and develop a concrete and effective dialogue with magistrates, the Superior Council of Magistracy, professional associations of judges and prosecutors, in order to improve the legislative framework, after carrying out appropriate impact studies and after presenting serious and credible motives regarding the proposed changes, in the purpose of modernizing the magistracy and the justice system, in line with the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.
Please receive, Your Excellencies, the expression of our highest consideration,
33
LIST OF MAGISTRATES THAT SUPPORT THE MEMORANDUM
1. Dragoş Călin, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2. Ionuţ Militaru, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3. Claudiu Drăguşin, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 4. Dana Iuliana Stancu, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Argeş 5. Costin Andrei Stancu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 6. Ioan-Paul Chiş, prosecutor, DNA 7. Marius Vâlcu, prosecutor, DNA 8. Anca Gheorghiu, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 9. Georgeta Ciungan, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 10. Gabriel Mustaţă, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 11. Lucian-Cosmin Manoloiu, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 12. Elena Mihaela Toma, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 13. Florina Ionescu, judge, Tribunalul Neamţ 14. Anca Codreanu, judge, Tribunalul Covasna 15. Bogdan Pîrlog, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 16. Rebecca Dinu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 17. Ana-Maria Aparaschivei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Suceava 18. Sergiu Cârlan, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 19. Florin Cotoi, judge, Tribunalul Botoşani 20. Dragoş Daniel Tatu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buzău 21. Adina Octavia Tatu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buzău 22. Constantin Dehenea, judge, Judecătoria Medgidia 23. Ioana-Luciana Hanganu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 24. Alexandru Bogdan Popescu, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Jiu 25. Corina Maria Florea, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 26. Mihai Ştefan Ghica, judge, Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 27. Adrian Postelnicescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria 28. Andreea Nicolai, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 29. Elena Cretescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 30. Ioana Andreea Popescu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 31. Cătălina Stoian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 32. Adrian Nicolae Dasca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Paşcani 33. Adrian Valentin Aparaschivei, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 34. Daniel Bosînceanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Răducăneni 35. Marian Căluşaru, prosecutor, DNA 36. Natalia Gherman, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 37. Valentina Liliana Petrescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 38. Sorina Marinaş, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 39. Doina Zavalaşi, judge, Tribunalul Olt 40. Sorin Pasăre, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 41. Ionuţ Călina, prosecutor, DIICOT Olt 42. Andreea Crăciun, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 43. Raluca Ancuţa, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 44. Catalina Bran, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 45. Minola Constantinescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 46. Cirstea Marcu, judge, Judecătoria Bălceşti 47. Neacşu Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Urziceni 48. Ailene Ancuţa, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa
34
49. Cioplea Augustina, prosecutor, DIICOT Craiova 50. Chiurtu Greta, prosecutor, DIICOT Craiova 51. Niţă Manuela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 52. Ruxandra Grecu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 53. Cristina Căluşaru, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 54. Laura Uce, judge, Tribunalul Vâlcea 55. Codruţa Rusu, judge, Tribunalul Mureş 56. Irina Dumitru, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Mureş 57. Ioana Ruxandra Malaescu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 58. Ramona Mornailă, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 59. Florin Mornailă, prosecutor, DIICOT Cluj 60. Cornel Dobranişte, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 61. Alexandru Bica, judge, Judecătoria Segarcea 62. Bogdan Cornea, judge, Judecătoria Balş 63. Andreea Sima, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 64. Dana Corina, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 65. Cristian Ciolacu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 66. Bogdan Stoica, judge, Judecătoria Brezoi 67. Pena Marian Dan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Gorj 68. Pena Emilia Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 69. Anghel Pop, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 70. Livia Mercan, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 71. Alexandru Codreanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 72. Ştefan Aurelian Ispasoiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 73. Adina Botezatu, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 74. Anca Patriche, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 75. Adelina Zamfir, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 76. Constantin Manoliu, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 77. Valentin Florian Enache, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Brezoi 78. Florentina Sandu, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 79. Catalina Irina, judge, Judecătoria Piatra-Neamt 80. Ştefania Bivolaru, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 81. Adrian Finică, judge, Curtea de Apel Bacău 82. Sorina Finică, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bacău 83. Barbu Lavinia, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 84. Bîrţă Tatiana, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 85. Liana Anişoara Cocis, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 86. Neacsa Ioana Mihaela, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 87. Rareş Ciauşu, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Cluj 88. Anamaria Trancă, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 89. Florin Tohatan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 90. Amuscalitei Alin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 91. Amuscalitei Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 92. Cristian Monenci, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 93. Ana-Maria Chirila, judge, Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 94. Mandache Ionut, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 95. Mandache Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 96 Popa Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 97. Florin Vilceanu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 98. Stefan Dobre, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 99. Besu Ionel Laurenţiu, judge, Tribunalul Giurgiu
35
100. Bilan Paul, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 101. Elena Hach, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 102. Roxana Maria Călin, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 103. Profir Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Targu Jiu 104. Coman Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Bolintin Vale 105. Andrei-Radu Dincă, judge, Judecătoria Alexandria 106. Francisc Nemeth, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 107. Mara Isabella Iacob, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 108. Irina Tirlea, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 109. Iulia Popescu, judge, Judecătoria Găeşti 110. Popescu Octavian Adrian, judge, Judecătoria Pucioasa 111. Predescu Monica Raisa, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 112. Elena Ciulin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 113. Ana Maria Ghiata, judge, Judecătoria Hârlau 114. Andra Vasile, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 115. Angelica Neacsu, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 116. Ancuta Blanariu, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 117. Stangaciu Horatiu Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bacău 118. Adrian Victor Vank, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 119. Alexandra Luiza Barea Brezae, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 120. Bianca Patras, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 121. Hira Mădălina, prosecutor, DIICOT, ST Constanţa 122. Andrea Costache, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 123. Mihai Cepes, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 124. Stan Rareş Petru, prosecutor, DIICOT 125. Adrian Ilie Ghirdoveanu, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Dâmboviţa 126. Grigore Surd, judge, Tribunalul Satu Mare 127. Irina Gabriela Popescu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 128. Simona Elena Podea, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 129. Mihai Irina Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Târgovişte 130. Ciprian Cosnita, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 131. Domniteanu Irina, judge, Judecătoria Braila 132. Anca-Anamaria Mihai, judge, Judecătoria Strehaia 133. Iuliana Cristina Velniciuc Ciuparca, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 134. Bogdan Zdrenghea, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 135. Chisbora Mircea Cristian, judge, Judecătoria Bistriţa 136. Luiza Elena Tuca, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 137. Ionut Borlan, judge, Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 138. Corina Muresan, judge, Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureş 139. Flavius Muresan, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Mureş 140. Larisa Isabella Munteanu, judge, Tribunalul Ialomiţa 141. Ursa Gabriel Cristian, judge, Tribunalul Mureş 142. Oana Maria Hodorogea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Iaşi 143. Valentin Iordan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Iaşi 144. Moldovan Anca, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 145. Irimia Andreea Raluca, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 146. Dan Dumitru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bacău 147. Dumitru Bogdan Mihai, judecător la Judecătoria Constanţa 148. Dumitrescu Cornelia, procuror DIICOT STConstanta 149. Laurentiu Bratosin, procuror DIICOT STConstanta 150. Simona Dicu, judge, judecătoria Brezoi 151. Gilda Dancu, judge, judecătoria Brezoi 152. Bozga Marian judge, Judecătoria Marghita
36
153. Timar Dana-Florica. judge, Judecătoria Marghita 154. Sălăjan Mădălina judge, Judecătoria Marghita 155. Daniela Androhovici, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 156. Diana Grigorean, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 157. Iulia Gabriela Lulciuc judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 158. Temneanu Cătălin, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 159. Neculai Alina, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 160. Sas Remus, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 161. Ilenuta Bădiceanu, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 162. Negrea Drucan Petronela, judge, Judecătoria Deva 163. Negrea Drucan Gheorghe Daniel, judge, Tribunalul Hunedoara 164. Resmerita Clement-Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 165. Roescu Ioana – Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Drăgăşani 166. Predescu Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Drăgăşani 167. Coşerea Constantin, judge, Judecătoria Drăgăşani 168. Liciu Ioana Herimina, judge, Judecătoria Drăgăşani 169. Mirela Cristina Stroe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Drăgăşani 170. Cătălina Marcu, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 171. Duţă Camelia – Tatiana, judge, Tribunalul Ialomiţa 172. Sofia Sînziana Crişan, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 173. Julien Stoiculescu, prosecutor, DIICOT Craiova 174. Camelia Stanciu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 175. Adrian Tomozei, judge, Judecătoria Oneşti 176. Monica Rodina, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 177. Troaca Denisa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 178. Adelina Codreş, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 179. Nedelcu Nicolae, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 180. Milu Graţiela Ramona, judge, Curtea de Apel Braşov 181. Andra Dutescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 182. Dragoş Păduraru, prosecutor, DNA 183. Eniko Ivanovics, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 184. Ioan Timiş, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 185. Oana Rugina, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 186. Miron Carmen, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 187. Marcela Teaha, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 188. Laura Ursu, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 189. Ciprian Hambaras, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 190. Florin Popa, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 191. Corina Gavra, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 192. Burlacu Mirela Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 193. Gogea Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Covasna 194. Gogea Ştefăniţă, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Covasna 195. Monica Criste, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 196. Cimpoieru Natalia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 197. Draghiceanu Florentina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 198. Badan Adelina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 199. Valcu Dragos, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 200. Cristea Flavius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 201. Croitoru Marcela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 202. Barbu Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 203. Pantelimon Amina Speranta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Craiova
37
204. Baciu Paula, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 205. Rădulescu Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 206. Cîlniceanu Andra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 207. Ghinescu Alina, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Craiova 208. Scarlat Daniel, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Craiova 209. Donka Eniko, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 210. Husar Elena-Loredana, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 211. Cojocariu Dana, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 212. Doncea Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ilfov 213. Bodnar Alinel, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 214. Soponar Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 215. Pojoga Valerian-Adrian, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 216. Coste-Palincaş Simona, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 217. Alexandra Carmen Lancrajan, prosecutor, DNA– S.Centrala 218. Scridon Ana-Maria, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 219. Cristian Popa, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 220. Matei Dorel George, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 221. Belei Nicolae Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ineu 222. Puf Ciprian Olivian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ineu 223. Semen Eleonor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Deta 224. Ungureanu Alin Gabriel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Timişoara, delegat Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătorie Deta 225. Curici Seia Iasmina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Deta 226. Bianca Laura Găzdac, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tg.Mureş 227. Axinte Maria, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Tulcea 228. Băetrău Ionuţ, procuror DIICOT BT Tulcea 229. Stoica Marian Bogdan, judge, Judecătoria Brezoi 230. Puşcaş Adina, judge, Judecătoria Caransebeş 231. Pîţu Adrian Cătălin, judge, Judecătoria Caransebeş 232. Negoiţă Liliana, judge, Judecătoria Caransebeş 233. Olariu Doina, judge, Judecătoria Caransebeş 234. Galescu Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Caransebeş 235. Zîncă Thea, judge, Judecătoria Caransebeş 236. Gulutanu Alina Nadia, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 237. Alb Codruţa Violeta, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 238. Petrariu Roxana Mirela, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 239. Abraham Adriana, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 240. Balint Camelia, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 241. Giuroiu Cătălin, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 242. Soare Farc Anda, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 243. Pop Virginia, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 244. Gondor Oresia, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 245. Simon Ligia, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 246. Alina Mihaela Palancanu, judge, Tribunalul Neamţ 247. Paul Ardeleanu, prosecutor, DIICOT STConstanta 248. Vasile Bejan, prosecutor, DIICOT STConstanta 249. Ţucă Marius Valentin, prosecutor, DIICOT STConstanta 250. Ţucă Ionuţ Daniel, prosecutor, DIICOT STConstanta 251. Tănase Carmen Ecaterina, prosecutor, DIICOT STConstanta 252. Drăguşelea Codruţa Diana, prosecutor, DIICOT STConstanta 253. Nicoleta Dogariu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 254. Petronela Ionita, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 255. Stefana Pascaru, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi
38
256. Dana Titian, judge, Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia, detaşată la DNA 257. Feurdean Ramona Marina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 258. Dari Bogdan Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 259. Laura Moroiu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 260. Adina Dumitrita Munteanu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 261. Ellzica Elena Tentiuc, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 262. Oana Afloarei, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 263. Petronela Botu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 264. Mircea Emil Amza, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 265. Maria Raducu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 266. Raluca Magdalena Baltog, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 267. Claudia Veronica Vasiliu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 268. Iulia Emilia Apostol, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 269. Mihaela Maria Bumbu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 270. Cristina Dumitriu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 271. Catalin Mirel Mormoe, judge, Judecătoria Piatra-Neamt 272. Roman Nelu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 273. Constantina Monica Turcu, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 274. Iulia Laura Opariuc Dan, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 275. Augustina Livia Nistor, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 276. Mirela Carapcea, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 277. Loredana Violeta Motoc, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 278. Alexandru Burtescu, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 279. Dumitru Radu Comsa, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 280. Moisă Cristina, judge, Curtea de Apel Braşov 281. Fitigau Vasile judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 282. Prepelita Nicolae judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 283. Adam Veronica judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 284. Zamfir Maria judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 285. Paicu Mihaela judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 286. Matei Viorica, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 287. Blidaru Mateescu Elena, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 288. Pintea Andreea, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 289. Alex Pop, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Mureş 290. Bălan Laurenţiu, judge, Tribunalul Covasna 291. Rusu Cătălin, judge, Tribunalul Covasna 292. Velican Ioan Adrian, judge, Tribunalul Covasna 293. Munteanu Cosmin, judge, Tribunalul Covasna 294. Riza Florentin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 295. Radian Tudor, procuror DIICOT ST Cluj 296. Irimies Corina procuror DIICOT ST Cluj 297. Oltean Emanuela, procuror DIICOT ST Cluj 298. Deritei Daciana, procuror DIICOT ST Cluj 299. Serena Militaru, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 300. Andreea Mihaela Popescu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 301. Mircea Popescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 302. Mădălina Enache, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 303. Lixandroiu Elena, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 304. Preda Simona, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 305. Pandel Ciprian, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 306. Sultana Remi, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 307. Zaharia Daniel, judge, Tribunalul Mehedinti 308. Andrada-Roxana Penciuc, judge, Judecătoria Deva
39
309. Daniela-Cristina Ivan, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 310. Alexandra Voinea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 311. Anca-Maria Bănică, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 312. Mitroi Cosmin-Radu, judge, Judecătoria Alexandria 313. Brateş Livia, judge, Judecătoria Alexandria 314. Matei Dima, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Gherla 315. Zaharciuc Monica-Oana, judge, Judecătoria Alexandria 316. Mihalaşcu Marius-Ionuţ, judge, Judecătoria Alexandria 317. Chivu Anita-Georgiana, judge, Judecătoria Alexandria 318. Lăcătuşiu Maria Isabela, judge, Judecătoria Alexandria 319. F rancesca Bujor, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 320. George Nicolae Ionescu, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 321. Gudumac Octavian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 322. Ion Anca-Mihaela, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 323. Irina Branduşa Ghilan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Moineşti 324. Loredana Foltea Creşu, judge, Judecătoria Moineşti 325. Luis Magdalena Alexandu, judge, Judecătoria Moineşti 326. Carmen Nela Paţilea, judge, Judecătoria Moineşti 327. Darie Daniel, judge, Judecătoria Moineşti 328. Anca Madalina Stan, judge, Judecătoria Moineşti 329. Andreea Prichici, judge, Judecătoria Moineşti 330. Paul Manciu, judge, Judecătoria Moineşti 331. Ioana Dragusanu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 332. Ene Diana, judge, Judecătoria Baia Mare 333. Precup Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Baia Mare 334. Farcaş Mădălina, judge, Judecătoria Baia Mare 335. Avram Platon Anca, judge, Judecătoria Baia Mare 336. Axenta Marcel, judge, Judecătoria Baia Mare 337. Neamţ Ioan Ilies, judge, Judecătoria Baia Mare 338. Ştef Diana, judge, Judecătoria Baia Mare 339. Riza Livia Constanţa, judge, Judecătoria Băileşti 340. Ciomaga-Matostat Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 341. Pată Daniel Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Urziceni 342. Iancu Margareta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Urziceni 343. Andrieş Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Urziceni 344. Ion Aurelian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Urziceni 345. Moldoveanu Laurenţiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Urziceni 346. Liviu Zidaru, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 347. Crina-Cristina Capota, judge, Judecătoria Dej 348. Corina-Maria Giurgiu, judge, Judecătoria Bistriţa 349. Ştefan Dorina –Roxana, judge, Judecătoria Calafat 350. Georgescu Diana, judge, Judecătoria Corabia 351. Vîntu Ana-Maria, judge, Judecătoria Năsăud 352. Mihalache Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Focşani 353. Miclescu Camelia- Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 354. Băluţoiu Andreea Corina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 355. Draghici-Oprean Florenţa Rodica, judge, Judecătoria Orşova 356. Drob Ana- Melinda, judge, Judecătoria Roşiorii de Vede 357. Ştirbu Mirela Mădălina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Slatina 358. Călin Radu Bogdan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Slatina 359. Dobre Corina Teodora, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Cărbuneşti 360. Crihana Anca, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi
40
361. Răducu Alecsandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Câmpina 362. Suciu Sorana, judge, Judecătoria Beclean 363. Stasiuc Mădălina, prosecutor, Bacău 364. Ciobanu Tudor, judge, Judecătoria Podu Turcului 365. Brindea Oana Rozalia, prosecutor, Târgu- Mureş 366. Stoian Ioan-Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Reghin 367 Stroescu Georgeta Ancuţa, judge, Judecătoria Ploiesti 368. Iordache Laura, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 369. Bărbieru Ionel, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 370. Puiu Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buftea 371. Gheorghe Mihai- Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 372. Stîrlea Valentin Constantin, judge, Judecătoria Calafat 373. Frunză Mălina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Roman 374. Ilaşcu Iuliana Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Suceava 375. Simion Iuliana-Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 376. Albescu Andrada, judge, Judecătoria Novaci 377. Scaleţchi Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tulcea 378. Şipoş Andreea Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 379. Gabor Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 380. Monica Palaghia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 381. Marius Palaghia, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 382. Adrian Romulus Stoian, judge, Curtea de Apel Timişoara 383. Florin Postolache, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 384. Corina Sacerdoteanu, judge, Judecătoria Turnu Magurele 385. Mihaela Durnea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 386. Băra Răzvan Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 387. Blănaru Larisa Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 388. Leontina Popescu, prosecutor, DIICOT Craiova 389. Cadea Stelian, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 390. Cuciureanu Iulia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 391. Paul Ursa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 392. Kadar Albert, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 393. Galea Ana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 394. Gheorghiu Anca Loredana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Braşov 395. Moldovan Claudiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 396. Radu Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 397. Şerban Daniel Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 398. Voicu Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 399. Câţu Romana Maria Codruţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Braşov 400. Câţu Lilişor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 401. Gabriela Scutea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 402. Andreea Benedek, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 403. Nica Iulian-Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 404. Apetri Oana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 405. Marin Ana-Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 406. Sandu Claudiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 407. Ghidiu Liliana Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 408. Aldea Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 409. Răducu Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 410. Popescu Alina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 411. Dancă George Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov
41
412. Sulu Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 413. Bogdan Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 414. Teleky Lucreţia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 415. Ungureanu Elena Cerasela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braşov 416. Ştefănescu Cezar, judge, Curtea de Apel Bacău 417. Mihai Andreea Cecilia, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 418. Bochis Angela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 419. Tanase Alina Elena, judge, Tribunalul Braşov 420. Vlad Ţari, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 421. Cojocaru Cristian Mihai, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 422. Cruceru Cătălina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 423. Rizescu Florina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 424. Uncheşelu Alina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 425. Sîrbu Ioana-Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 426. Stoica Anca Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 427. Macarie Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 428. Barcău Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 429. Truică Irina-Veronica, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 430. Mihali-Viorescu Lucian, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 431. David Daniel Marius, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 432. Ciocan Radu Andrei, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 433. Popescu Mariana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 434. Ivan Mihaela Dorina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 435. Ioana Amariei, prosecutor, DNA 436. Carmen Voinescu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 437. Danusia Boicean, procuror sef serviciu, DNA Alba Iulia 438. Mihaela Beschiu, prosecutor, DNA Alba Iulia 439. Alina Rasovan, prosecutor, DNA Alba Iulia 440. Daniel Dumitru, prosecutor, DNA Alba Iulia 441. Dorel Soica, prosecutor, DNA Alba Iulia 442. Alexandrina Nan, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 443. Dumitru Bocsan, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 444. Carina Morie, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 445. Andreea Titerlea, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 446. Simina Staicu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 447. Camelia Badescu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 448. Carmen Budan, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 449. Dorin Olaru, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 450. Laura Sarcina, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 451. Anamaria Creteanu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 452. Andreea Bradu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 453. Melania Cristina Rusu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 454. Adrian Rusu, judge, Judecătoria Alexandria 455. Piroş Tanţa Florica, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 456. Lazăr Bianca, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 457. Chichişan Simona, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 458. Decă Iulia, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 459. Fălămaş Nicolae, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 460. Greissing Diana, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 461. Nicolau Marius, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 462. Lantaler Ana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 463. Lucuţa Adina, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 464. Păltineanu Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu
42
465. Radu Simona, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 466. Stroia Darian, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 467. Rohnean Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 468. Turcu Monica, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 469. Zăbavă Oana, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 470. Zereş Florin, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 471. Maga Mihaela Dorina, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 472. Lungu Lucian, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 473. Miron Constantin Ciprian, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 474. Ceică Liviu, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 475. Buha Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 476. Bîcu Ilie, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 477. Ungurean Anda Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 478. Dicu Maria, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 479. Bandol Ionuţ Daniel, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 480. Bandol Elena, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 481. Corduneanu Daniel, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 482. Cişmileanu Anabela Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 483. Ripiceanu Andreea Olivia, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 484. Neagu Radu Ionuţ, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 485. Miron Simona Elena, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 486. Cojocaru Adina Elena, judge, JS6 487. Isac Anamaria Iulia, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 488. Reftu Ramona Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 489. Bălăşanu Alexandru Cristian, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 490. Cojocaru Elena Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 492. Cristea Ramona, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 493. Burlacu Georgică, judge, Tribunalul Botoşani, delegat la Judecătorie Botoşani 494. Tincu Diana Elena, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 495. Ciomaga Matostat Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 496. Murariu Adrian Vasile, judge, Judecătoria Botoşani 497. Corduneanu Anamaria, judge, Tribunalul Botoşani 498. Ailioaie Andreea-Alexandra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Gurahonţ 499. Plic Romulus Răzvan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Chişineu-Criş 500. Sighete Brigitte, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Chişineu-Criş 501. Mihai Adrian, prim-procuror, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Chişineu-Criş 502. Nicolau Bogdan, judge, Tribunalul Braila 503. Teodorescu Cristian-Dragoş, judge, Tribunalul Braila 504. Teodorescu Anamaria, judge, Tribunalul Braila 505. Roman Cătălina, judge, Tribunalul Braila 506. Roş Vasilica, judge, Tribunalul Braila 507. Nicolau Alina, judge, Judecătoria Braila 508. Catalina Dan, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 509. Maria Liliana Gliga, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu 510. Pintilei Silvia, judge, Tribunalul Botoşani 511. Boancă Ivan Marlena, judge, Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureş; 512. Ivan Cătălin Marcel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Târgu-Mureş 513. Mircea Emil Ciprian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Târgu-Mureş 514. Mircea Galina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Mureş.
43
515. Moiceanu Nicolae Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Găeşti
516. Lumineanu Marius Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 517. Bălăceanu Dalia, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 518. Popa Cristiana Mirela, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 519. Drăgan Mitu, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 520. Liţă Marius, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 521. Floricioiu Smaranda, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 522. Fieroiu Alexandru Octavian, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 523. Stelescu Cristina Elena, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 524. Samoilă Octavian, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 525. Fulga Violeta, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 526. Chirvasiu Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 527. Ţuglui Corina, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 528. Dumitrescu Valentina Mirela, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 529. Constantinescu Alina, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 530. Vlad Valentin, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 531. Dinu Camelia, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 532. Cristin Antonio Chiscop, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 533. Irina Sandu, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 534. Ana Ion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 535. Roxana Stanciu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 536. Roxana Manescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 537. Anca Dobre, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 538. Daniela Teodorescu, judge, Judecătoria Braila 539. Lazarescu Madalina, judge, Tribunalul Buzău 540. Lefter Gabriel, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 541. Nastase Dan Iulian, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 542. Gheorma Carina, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 543. Andrus Andreea, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 544. Bacu Roxana, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 545. Bodean Claudia, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 546. Bondoc Irina, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 547. Coadă Ciprian, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 548. Ianca Andreea, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 549. Maris Beatrice, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 550. Moga Revi Paulica, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 551. Codrean Gheorghe, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 552. Petrocivi Daniela, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 553. Poppa Ramona, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 554. Rapeanu Claudiu, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 555. Stanciu Nicolae, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 556. Serban Mihaela, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 557. Zalman Jelena, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 558. Alina Hodoş, judge, Judecătoria Reghin 559. Camelia Greabu, judge, Judecătoria Reghin 560. Gabriela Badiu, judge, Judecătoria Reghin 561. Ancuta Pop, judge, Judecătoria Reghin 562. Dumitru Paşca-Tuşa, judge, Judecătoria Reghin 563. Adrian Morar, judge, Judecătoria Reghin 564. Dinu Cristian, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Sibiu 565. Sava Gh. Petru, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Sibiu 566. Enache Simona, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Sibiu
44
567. Sebesan Viorica, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Sibiu 568. Denis Gabriela Ghervase, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 569. Adela - Ileana Bărbuţi, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 570. Elvis Florea, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 571. Dragulescu Leontin, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 572. Deaconu Delia Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 573. Chiriac Florentina, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 574. Margarit Simona, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 575. Gradina Silviu, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 576. Gurita Manole Rodica, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 577. Uta Marcela, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 578. Ovidiu Danuţ Manciu, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 579. Paun Felicia Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 580. Sebastian Voinea, judge, Judecătoria Targu Mures. 581. Alina Topan, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 582. Marius Lupea, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 583. Sipetan Ionut, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 584. Sipetan Adela, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 585. Margan Marcela, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 586. Flore Danina, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 587. Stela Stoicescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 588. Mihnea Valentin Stoicescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 589. Roxana Mihaela Duma, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 590. Cristina Maria Fintoc, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 591. Dana-Ioana Rusu, judge, Judecătoria Gherla 592. Constantin Irina, prosecutor, DNA 593. Ana-Maria Ruţă, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 594. Alina Oprea, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 595. Luiza Mogosanu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 596. Capitan Corneliu, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 597. Ples Bianca, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 598. Baculescu Oana, judge, Judecătoria Satu Mare 599. Sirbu Florina, prosecutor, PSJ1 600. Enescu George, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ilfov 601. Daniel Ciobanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Caracal 602. Ionescu Dana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sânnicolau Mare 603. Nica Adrian, judge, Judecătoria Fetesti 604. Ionescu Traian, judge, Judecătoria Fetesti 605. Croitoru Radu, judge, Judecătoria Fetesti 606. Dan Adrian, judge, Judecătoria Fetesti 607. Diana Cristea, judge, Judecătoria Turda 608. Corina Corovei, judge, Judecătoria Turda 609. Constantina Bucea, judge, Judecătoria Turda 610. Ioana Ciobănescu, judge, Judecătoria Turda 611. Sabina Cotoară, judge, Judecătoria Turda 612. Maria Filip, judge, Judecătoria Turda 613. Laura Grigoraş, judge, Judecătoria Turda 614. Teluţa Pantelimon, judge, Judecătoria Turda 615. Cristina Pop, judge, Judecătoria Turda 616. Adriana Puşcaşu, judge, Judecătoria Turda 617. Constantin Axinte, judge, Judecătoria Turda 618. Vlad Loor, judge, Judecătoria Turda 619. Florin Unguraş, judge, Judecătoria Turda
45
620. Călin Cioban, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Turda 621. Radu Florea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Turda 622. Marian Trif, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Turda 623. Dragoş Şimon, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Turda 624. Stefan Irina, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 625. Gurita Manole Daniel, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 626. Cornelia Gorgăneanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 627. Mihaela Haprian, judge, Tribunalul Satu Mare 628. Circiumaru Lavinia, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 629. Radu Cristina, judge, Curtea de Apel Ploiesti 630. Voiculescu Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 631. Niculescu Maria, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 632. Lazăr Ana, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 633. Pletea Diana, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 634. Necula Cosmin, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 635. Dumitru Cristian, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 636. Crăiţoiu Genica, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 637. Ştefănescu Anca, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 638. Neghină Ionel, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 639. Măcsinoiu Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 640. Păduraru Ana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 641. Dunca Ramona, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 642. Delcea Sergiu, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 643. Cristian Alin, judge, Judecătoria Giurgiu 644. Cătălin Stanculescu, judge, Judecătoria Strehaia 645. Rus Lucian Claudiu, prosecutor, DNA Oradea 646. Minaev Iulian, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 647. Codreanu Roxana, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 648. Neacşu Gabriel, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 649. Grădinariu Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 650. Breşug Denisa, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 651. Mircioi Marilena, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 652. Vieru Monica, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 653. Sîrghe Anca, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 654. Vasile Adriana-Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 655. Banoti Mădălina, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 656. Deculescu Diana, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 657. Nastasia Marius, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 658. Văduva Victor, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 659. Crasovschi Alina, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 660. Ilie Constanţa, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 661. Preduţ Dorin, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 662. Rizea Monica, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 663. Pecheanu Laura-Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 664. Gherasim Delia, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 665. Butaru Ciprian-Gabriel, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 666. Crăciun Elena-Lavinia, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 667. Lefter Alina, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 668. Mesrobian Loredana, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 669. Stamate Daniela-Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 670. Timoaşcă Maria, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 671. Pârleţeanu Anca, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 672. Smarandi Costin, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa
46
673. Barac Iulia, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 674. Sorescu Oana-Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 675. Davidencu Răzvan-Vladimir, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 676. Ticea Valentin, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 677. Ardeleanu Bogdan, judge, Judecătoria Sannicolau Mare 678. Lăzău Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Sannicolau Mare 679. Moţa Adrian, judge, Judecătoria Sannicolau Mare 680. Nasz Csaba Bela, judge, Judecătoria Sannicolau Mare 681. Scărlătescu Ovidiu-Ştefan, judge, Judecătoria Sannicolau Mare 682. Tatiana Ionela Oprea Miha, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti, delegată 683. Săndel Boţoghină, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti 684. Valentin Mihai, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti 685. Anuta Anişoara, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braşov 686. Bădan Mihai Claudiu prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tulcea 687. Tudor Florian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Focşani 688. Ioan Fundătureanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 689. Adina Fundătureanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 690. Mirică Raluca, prosecutor, DNA 691. Bodu Ciprian, prosecutor, DNA 692. Muraru Georgiana, judge, Judecătoria Pucioasa 693. Coman Vasile, judge, Judecătoria Pucioasa 694. Vlaicu Lucreţia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Pucioasa 695. Scurtu Alexe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Pucioasa 696. Ciprian Tiţa, judge, Tribunalul Ilfov 697. Lucia Dobrin, judge, Curtea de Apel Timişoara 698. Rotundu Gabriela Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 699. Rotundu Simon, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 700. Codreanu Roxana Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 701. Obreja Irinciuc Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bârlad 702. Carmen Pavăl, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 703. Alexandra Vişan, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 704. I ulian Dîrzeanu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 705. Luminiţa Calciu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 706. Daniela Dudu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 707. Dana Alina Popescu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 708. Ioana Liliana Ramirez-Molina, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 709. Adrian Popescu, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 710. Adina Monica Burdan, judge, Curtea de Apel Timişoara 711. Ivescu Iulia Mădălina judge, Judecătoria Bacau 712. Bărbulescu Codruţ Marian, judge, Judecătoria Sfântu Gheorghe 713. Bartha Kinga Agota, judge, Judecătoria Sfântu Gheorghe 714. Dancă Oana Ecaterina, judge, Judecătoria Sfântu Gheorghe 715. Gîţă Ana-Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sfântu Gheorghe 716. Maroti Kovacs Ildiko, judge, Judecătoria Sfântu Gheorghe 717. Dimitriu Denis, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Mediaş 718. Gavrilă Alina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Mediaş 719. Gligor Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Mediaş 720. Iana Ovidiu, judge, Tribunalul Buzău 721. Vlad Elena Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Buzău 722. Mircea Stan, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 723. Stan Amalia Veronica, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 724. Muşuroiu Diana, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 725. Ciobăniţă Cristiana, judge, Judecătoria Găeşti
47
726. Venczel Ramona, judge, Judecătoria Tg.-Cărbuneţti 727. Popescu Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Tg.-Cărbuneţti 728. Cornescu Daniel judge, JudecătoriaTg.-Jiu 729. Durla Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tg.-Cărbuneşti 730. Bijnea Catalin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tg.-Cărbuneşti 731. Andrei Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tg.-Cărbuneşti 732. Bondoc Radu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tg.-Cărbuneşti 733. Baloi Cosmin- prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tg.-Cărbuneşti 734. Bordeianu Bianca Elena judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 735. Sebastian Olteanu, judge, Tribunalul Prahova 736. Vişinescu Ionuţ Gabriel, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 737. Tartea Anca-Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 738. Sauciuc Andrei, judge, Judecătoria Dorohoi 739. Cristea Virgil, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba Iulia 740. Puşcaş Mădălina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba Iulia 741. Volintiru Alexandru Nicolae judge, Judecătoria Bolintin Vale 742. Pop-Blaga Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Salonta 743. Cobiscan Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 744. Savu Ana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 745. Anton Carla, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 746. Gavrilă Bogdan, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 747. Oprea Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 748. Constantinescu Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 749. Liviu Urziceanu, judge, Judecătoria Arad 750. Barbura-Turcu George, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 751. Apostol Marina, judge, Tribunalul Vaslui 752. Mihaela Kolaritz-Petrescu, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 753. Asmarandei Andrei Iulian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buftea 754. Cotelnic Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buftea 755. Şoloiu Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 756. Istrate Manuela, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 757. Şotângeanu Lucia, judge, Judecătoria Târgovişte 758. Grecu Florina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rosiori de Vede 759. Burca Ion Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 760. Niţă Manuela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 761. Dicanu Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 762. Rogoveanu Emilia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Craiova 763. Daniela Bolovan, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 764. Antoaneta Lotica Tilvescu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 765. Antoniu Simon, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 766. Negrău Andrei Sergiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 767. Totora Vlad Cosmin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Horezu 768. T omescu Alexandra Sorina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Călăraşi 769. Ceobanu Alina Geta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Galaţi 770. Sprîncu Nicolae, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 771. Vasile Marc Emilian prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Videle 772. Tabacu Ioana Cătălina, judge, Judecătoria Vânju-Mare 773. Marin Liana-Georgiana, judge, Judecătoria Vălenii de Munte 774. Crişan April Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 775. Aldea Simona Tunde, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 776. Alexa Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 777. Cârstea Adrian Mihai, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş
48
778. Căilean Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 779. Ferenczi (Foltiş) Adina, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 780. Gabor Crina Bianca, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 781. Grama Măria Magdalena, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 782. Nagy Csilla Noemi, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 783. Nicolau Ioana Aura, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 784. Orza (Rusu) Ioana Raluca, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 785. Preda Stela, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 786. Prichindel Georgiana Simona, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 787. Alexandrescu Carmen Salomee, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 788. Schwartz Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 789. Siko Laszlo Csaba, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 790. Toma Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 791. Vârjan Iuliana, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 792. Udroiu Lucia Delia, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 793. Cojocariu Daniela Florina, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 794. Catrinoiu Dragoş, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 795. Dumitrescu Dumitru Paul, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 796. Pavel Ionuţ, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 797. Roşiu Simona, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 798. Sălăgean Dumitriţa, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Mureş 799. Roxana Stoenescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 800. Olteanu Simona, judge, Tribunalul Olt 801. Dumbrăveanu Andreea Maria, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 802. Dumbrăveanu Călin, prosecutor, DIICOT 803. Raluca Elena Isepciuc, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 804. Stefanescu Ioana Cristina, judge, Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 805. Stoenescu Oana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 806. Gherasim Ovidiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 807. Cristina German prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc 808. Tokos Lehel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc 809. Colceriu Sorin Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Harghita 810. Diana Dinca, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 811. Ionela Nanu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 812. Pop Ciprian Dumitru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Luduş 813. Ioana Păsculeţ, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 814. Ioan Gaga, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 815. Mihaela Beldie Canela, prosecutor, DNA 816. Iulia Bilciu, prosecutor, DNA 817. Ana-Maria Nedelcu, prosecutor, DNA 818. Cosmin Iordache, prosecutor, DNA 819. Raluca Anghel Gheorghe, prosecutor, DNA 820. Iulia Crişan, prosecutor, DNA 821. Cosmin Adomnitei, judge, Judecătoria Carei 822. Constantinescu Mihai Marius, prosecutor, DIICOT Structura centrală 823. Dobocan Doru, prosecutor, DIICOT Cluj 824. Andreea Cristina Vlăsceanu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 825. Alexandru Asmarandei, judge, Judecătoria Zărneşti 826. Simona Taus, judge, Judecătoria Zărneşti 827. Ionel Pădurariu, judge, Judecătoria Zărneşti 828. Cazac Anca, judge, Judecătoria Zărneşti 829. Lorena Dobrii, judge, Judecătoria Zărneşti
49
830. Mihaela Roibu, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 831. Beatrice Pitrop, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 832. Cîrjan Doru Vlad, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 833. Olteanu Dragos, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara 834. Alexandra Buzoianu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Călăraşi 835. Toduta Valentin Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Oradea 836. Baron Alina-Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 837. Iancu Ioana-Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 838. Iancu Traiam-Laurentiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Galaţi 839. Cosmina Chirila, judge, Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 840. Ioniţi Anita, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 841. Iordache Valeriu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploiesti 842. Balaban Costica, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 843. Madalinna Vârtopeanu, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 844. Ionaş Petru, judge, Judecătoria Lugoj 845. Chirita Oana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 846. Ilyeş Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Hunedoara 847. Satmarici Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Medgidia 848. Marian Virgil, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 849. Solomon Marian, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 850. Cosmin Sterea-Grossu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 851. Seesea Oana Georgiana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 852. Sava Alexandra Teona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Harlau 853. Tămăzlăcaru Crina, judge, Judecătoria Alba-Iulia 854. Mălina Niţica, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 855. Georgescu Marinela Aniela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 856. Ionescu Bogdan Petru Nicolae, judge, Judecătoria Videle 857. Andreea Simona Suciu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 858. Popa Irina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 859. Lazar George Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 860. Matei Andreea-Isabella, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buhuşi 861. Stanciulescu Bogdan, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 862. Raducu Liliana-Dorina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 863. Munge Mircea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 864. Alina Ghită, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Turda 865. Pau Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 866. Maria Mihuţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 867. Anca Puşcaşu, judge, Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 868. Peter Ruxandra, judge, Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 869. Carastoian Irina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 870. Rarinca Felicia Tincuta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului
2 Bucureşti 871. Viorel Serban, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 872. Bulat Sergiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bacău 873. Popescu Mirela Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 874. Pascaru Gema Celina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bacău 875. Razvan Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bacău 876. Cazacu Dan Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bacău 877. Bădulescu Mihaela Roxana Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
50
878. Cîrlănaru-China Raluca, judge, Judecătoria Gherla 879. Halip Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 880. Bătrânu Iuliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Focşani 881. Diana Siclitaru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 882. Ostafie Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Botoşani 883. Lica Mihaela Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 884. Guiu Georgiana Edwina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 885. Paraschiv Diana Nicoleta judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 886. Dospinescu Denisa-Minodora, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Moineşti 887. Bichiş Diana, judge, Judecătoria Dej 888. Vlas Delia Maria, judge, Judecătoria Dej 889. Carpinean Cristiana Camelia, judge, Judecătoria Dej 890. Carmen Camelia Baila, judge, Tribunalul Arad 891. Neagos Sorina, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 892. Adrian Păcurar, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 893. Berende Ruxandra Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Satu
Mare 894. Mic Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Satu Mare 895. Meszaros Ioana Adina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Satu Mare 896. Hohota Adrian Ionuţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Satu Mare 897. Lazăr Ancuţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Satu Mare 898. Bradea Vlad Dumitru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Satu Mare 899. Ilisie Teofil, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Carei 900. Baraila Roxana Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Argeş 901. Alexandra Ioana Antonache, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 902. Oana Livia Apetri, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Neamţ 903. Dana Belciug, prosecutor, DNA 904. Golban Adrian, prosecutor, DNA - ST Timişoara 905. Madalina Cioara, judge, Tribunalul Vaslui 906. Grecescu Cristian-Marius, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 907. Iustina Jora Boerosu, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 908. Emanuela Popescu, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 909. Ana Maria Candet, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 910. Alexandra Manole, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 911. Iulia Enache, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 912. Cătălin Silviu Enache, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 913. Radu Dorobantu, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 914. Cristian Constantinescu, judge, Judecătoria Campina 915. Mindru Luminita Mirela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 916. Paul Tudor Grip, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Vaslui 917. Adriana Apostol, judge, Judecătoria Roman 918. Diana Raluca Tarhon, judge, Judecătoria Oneşti 919. Diana Elena Olaru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara 920. Angelica Ulianov, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 921. Gabriel Ulianov, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 922. Adriana Tascan, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 923. Mirza Alina, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 924. Delia Boicu, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 925. Claudia Prilogan, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 926. Dan Manea, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 927. Căpătîna Maria Luiza, prosecutor, DNA – S. Centrala 928. Cojocaru George Daniel, prosecutor, DNA – S. Centrala
51
929. Valina Calarasu, prosecutor, DNA 930. Achim Ana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Ploiesti 931. Dinica Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Făurei 932. Stefana Carasel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1
Bucureşti 933. Sutrea Aurelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 934. Dobre Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 935. Zavoianu Catalin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Caracal 936. Popescu Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Caracal 937. Diaconu Antonia, prosecutor, DIICOT – S. Centrala 938. Cazacu Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Caracal 939. Corina Dinica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 940. Laura Dobrea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Braila 941. Bogdan Rocsin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 942. Beatrice Simion, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 943. Madalina Chircu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 944. Dietrich Magdalena, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 945. Marcu Ionut, prosecutor, DIICOT S. Centrala 946. Alexandru Soltan, prosecutor, DIICOT Ploiesti 947. Ana Maria Pricope, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1
Bucureşti 948. Stanta Doina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 949. Onea Dalidis Nicoleta Irina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Craiova 950. Alexandru Marian Statescu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 951. Daniela Mursoi, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Gorj 952. Ioana Maria Cimpean, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 953. Alexandru Serban, judge, Curtea de Apel Braşov 954. Constantin Florin Toloagra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Gherla 955. Ada Tetean Vinteler, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Gherla 956. Alexandru Oancea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Gherla 957. Puscasu Voicu, judge, Judecătoria Deva 958. Puscasu Florina, judge, Judecătoria Faget 959. Ioana Elena Cimpean, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 960. Adrian petrescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 961. Andreea Raluca Prepelita, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 962. Dan Manone, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 963. Mihai Mesaros, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 964. Gabriela Taras, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 965. Raluca Alexandra Munteanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 966. Irina Isar, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 967. Dobrin Irina Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti
52
968. Cristina Frincu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti
969. Remus Coman, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti
970. Mocanu Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti
971. Man Ciprian, prosecutor, DNA S. Centrala 972. Meszaros Robert Sebastian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Carei 973. Margina Catalin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bacau 974. Florin Beniamin Chichinesdi, judge, Judecătoria Beius 975. Alexandru Bejan, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 976. Teliceanu Viorel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 977. Andrei Camelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 978. Anca Iorgu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 979. Timis Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 980. Defta Lizeta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 981. Sitiavu Georgiana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 982. Apostol Georgiana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 983. Popescu Adela, judge, Tribunalul Valcea 984. Eugenia Stefania Vasile, judge, Judecătoria Motru 985. Gulin Catalina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 986. Cristea Ana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5
Bucureşti 987. Gheorghe Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 988. Nitescu Rodica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 989. Diamandescu Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 990. Mircea Nora, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 991. Lucian Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 992. Criste Remus, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 993. Georgiana Tudor, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 994. Emanuela Dulgheru, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 995. Camelia Panaitescu Alegria, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 996. Diana Froicu, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 997. Orzata Maria Manuela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 998. Mihai Monica Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 999. Ramona Maria Barbulescu, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 1000. Cristina Crăciun, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 1001. Cinca Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 1002. Ionela Tatiana Dimofte, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 1003. Puiulescu Constantin-Cosmin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Curtea de Argeş 1004. Ungureanu Cosmin, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 1005. Lucian Ciucur, judge, Curtea de Apel Timişoara 1006. Zaharia Lupu Florin Mircea, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 1007. Salaru Ilie Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1
Bucureşti 1008. Rus Lavinia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Faget. 1009. Oceanu Alina, judge, Judecătoria Găeşti 1010. Naghiu Dida Adina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 1011. Pericle Briceag, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 1012. Marilena Neacsu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti
53
1013. Aurora Burtescu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1014. Claudia Bargan, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1015. Cristina Dicu, judge, Tribunalul Galaţi 1016. Razvan Dicu, judge, Tribunalul Galaţi 1017. Corina Unguraş, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 1018. Daniel Mirauta, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 1019. Ioana Vernea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 1020. Violeta Nae, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 1021. Vasile Airinei, prosecutor, DIICOT -ST Iaşi 1022. Ana Mângăţă, judge, Tribunalul Neamţ 1023. Iftinca-Voicu Ana-Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti: 1024. Vasile Roxana Iuliana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1025. Petru Miruna, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1026. Perianu Raluca, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1027. Paiusi Carmen, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1028. Cătălin Serghei, judge, Tribunalul Neamţ 1029. Popovici Gheorghe, prosecutor, DNA 1030. Muntean Adrian Valentin, prosecutor, DNA 1031. Popovici Irina Felicia, prosecutor, DNA 1032. Ardelean Cristian Marius, prosecutor, DNA 1033. Pantea Cosmin, prosecutor, DNA 1034. Gabriela Alexandroiu, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 1035. Tudor Grigoraş, prosecutor, DNA 1036. Aurelia Enache, prosecutor, DNA 1037. Praţa Vasile, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 1038. Cristina Munteanu, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 1039. Ruxandra Dincă, judge, Judecătoria Turnu Măgurele 1040. Stefan Gheorghe Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bacau 1041. Dan Liviu Bubuiug, prosecutor, DIICOT Sălaj 1042. Dan Budusan, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Sălaj 1043. Dragota Cristian, prosecutor, DIICOT Maramureş 1044. Delia Adomnicai, prosecutor, DIICOT- Bt Maramureş 1045. Raul Radmacher, prosecutor, DIICOT -BT Bistriţa-Năsăud 1046. Dosantos Rodrigues Cristina, prosecutor, DIICOT -BT Bistriţa-Năsăud 1047. Lumperdean Ioan, prosecutor, DIICOT -BT Bistriţa-Năsăud 1048. Conortos Constantin, prosecutor, DNA - ST Constanţa 1049. Donţete Loredana Alina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Râmnicu Vâlcea 1050. Toader Daniela, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1051. Leontică Paul-Teodor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Neamt 1052. Laura Mihaela Pulbere, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 1053. Mihaela Pacuraru, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 1054. Otilia Popescu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 1055. Carmen Vatafu, judge, JudecătoriaTg-Jiu 1056. Marius Nanu, prosecutor, Diicot Gorj 1057. Ivancioiu Florentina, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1058. Sorin Constantinescu, prosecutor, DNA 1059. Cristina Constantinescu, judecător la Tribunalul Constanţa 1060. Gabriela Stanciu, prosecutor, DNA 1061. Vasile Abagiu, prosecutor, DNA 1062. Andrei Bodean, prosecutor, DNA
54
1063. Nadia Zlate, prosecutor, DNA 1064. Elena-Teodora Rotea, prosecutor, DNA 1065. Beteringhe Sorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 1066. Andreea Manuela Popovici, judge, Tribunalul Bacau 1067. Ştefănoaia Silvia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Târnăveni 1068. Costin Laura, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Târnăveni 1069. Mihai-Gabriel Duţă, judge, Judecătoria Roşiori de Vede 1070. Cristina Chiriac, prosecutor, DNA - Serviciul Teritorial Iaşi 1071. Andreea Oana Nica, prosecutor, DNA - Serviciul Teritorial Iaşi 1072. Florin Bogdan Munteanu, prosecutor, DNA - Serviciul Teritorial Iaşi 1073. Alina Moraru, prosecutor, DNA - Serviciul Teritorial Iaşi 1074. Gabriela Chiriac, prosecutor, DNA - Serviciul Teritorial Iaşi 1075. Daniel Alin Coca, prosecutor, DNA - Serviciul Teritorial Iaşi 1076. Diaconu Diana - Procuror DNA - Serviciul Teritorial Iaşi 1077. Carmen Layet, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 1078. Marcela Antofie, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 1079. Valentin Dragomir, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 1080. Ion Alexandra, judge, Tribunalul Prahova 1081. Ciprian Butnaru, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 1082. Virgil Şerban, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 1083. Ionica Cărbunaru, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 1084. Mihăiţă Constantin, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 1085. Diana Deniz, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 1086. Ecaterina Ivanov, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 1087. Laura Cristea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 1088. Anca Iliescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 1089. Mirela Ramona Zaharia, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 1090. Cristina Roşu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Giurgiu 1091. Cristina Ionescu Lupeanu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1092. Ligia Rotaru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1093. Ramona Oana Rogoz, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1094. Andreea Neţoiu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1095. Anca Mărgineanu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1096. Sabina Bolla, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1097. Marius Stancu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1098. Tomoiu Sorin Gabriel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Gorj 1099. Vladuleanu Carmen, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Gorj 1100. Bertha Ionela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Gorj 1101. Onescu Andrei Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Gorj 1102. Ana-Maria Nica, judge, Curtea de Apel Timişoara 1103. Dana Pitu, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1104. Mihaela Dumitraşcu, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 1105. Iuliana Lucanu, procuror DIICOT 1106. Demian Anca, judge, Judecătoria Haţeg 1107. Anton Elena, judge,Tribunalul Argeş 1108. Emanuela Moşneanu Comăneci, judge,Tribunalul Argeş 1109. Duţă Aneta, judge,Tribunalul Argeş 1110. Anton Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Piteşti 1111. Badescu Irina Raluca, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1112. Voina Victor Ionut, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1113. Nitu Luminita, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1114. Mihalcea Mihai, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1115. Ludusan Manuela, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti
55
1116. Simon Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 1117. Dana Popeti, judge, Curtea de Apel Timişoara 1118. Tifrea Cosmin, judge, Curtea de Apel Timişoara 1119. Tifrea Gabriela Maria, judge, Judecătoria Deva 1120. Zamfir Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 1121. Voicu Fănel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 1122. Maciuc Sorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 1123 Niţescu Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 1124. Login Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 1125. Ţîrlea Roxana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 1126. Oancea Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 1127. Popa Livia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 1128. Ivaşcu Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 1129. Serban Madalina, judge, Curtea de Apel Alba-Iulia 1130. David Diana Bianca, judge, Curtea de Apel Alba-Iulia 1131. Andreea Rozalia Balulescu, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1132. Ancuta Zvoristeanu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1133. Lucian Boieru, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1134. Andreia Ciurea, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1135. Livia Popescu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1136. Florina Mitrofan, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1137. Camelia Pirvu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1138. Anca Radulescu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1139. Gabriela Iordache, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1140. Ana Maria Crangus, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1141. Dragos Crangus, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1142. Mirela Niculescu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1143. Ana Maria Ciobanu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1144. Cristina Ion, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1145. Alis Gradinariu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1146. Ion Vaida, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1147. Ionut Tabacu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1148. Andra Cojocaru, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1149. Chivu Claudia-Irina, prosecutor, Parchetului de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1150. Buculea Raluca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1151. Hău Emanuel-Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1152. Lăpădat Coralia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1153. Pelmuş Ciprian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1154. Luca Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1155. Tinca Ionela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1156. Lazăr Aida, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1157. Macrea Loredana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1158. Povălniceanu Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Timişoara;
56
1159. Bogosov Gordana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1160. Izdrugă Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1161. Nor-Bosnea Raluca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1162. Gîtan Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1163. Jurca Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1164. Ceauşu Alexandru-Octavian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Timişoara; 1165. Todea Laurenţiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1166. Tabîţa Lorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1167. Abagiu Minela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1168. Stroescu Sorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1169. Sandu Mărioara, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara; 1170. Troacă Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Timişoara. 1171. Victorina Iacob, judge, Judecătoria Turnu Maurele 1172. Mirela-Camelia Florea, judge, Judecătoria Turnu Maurele 1173. Ilies Ana, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 1174. Dorina Stoenescu, judge, Judecătoria Calafat 1175. Oana Andreea Onofrei, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1176. Buşulescu Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1177. Focşa Lavinia, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1178. Pătraşcu Paula Vasilica, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1179. Ghica Alexandra Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti. 1180. Tănase Valentin, judge, Judecătoria Târnăveni 1181. Rus Alin Marinel, judge, Judecătoria Târnăveni 1182. Radu Harja, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 1183. Fit Carmen Corina, judge, Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia 1184. Fit Gheorghe, prosecutor, Inspecţia Judiciară 1185. Bugărin Gladiola Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Făget 1186. Papp Ricuţa Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Făget 1187. Olteanu Elena Cornelia, judge, Judecătoria Costeşti; 1188. Elena Diana Florescu, judge, Judecătoria Costeşti; 1189. Elena Cristina Grigore, judge, Judecătoria Costeşti; 1190. Dumitru Cristian Bogdan, judge, Judecătoria Costeşti; 1191. Robert Nicolae Filionescu, judge, Judecătoria Costeşti 1192. Camelia Caragea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu Jiu 1193. Ileana Enache, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu Jiu 1194. Cristina Fumureanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu Jiu 1195. Gheorghe Pestisanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu Jiu 1196. Cosmin Petrescu Eriţă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu
Jiu 1197. Daniel Marian Bojin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu Jiu 1198. Dorin Buţu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu Jiu 1199. Cristian Cîrstea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu Jiu 1200. Tudor Florin Bocai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu Jiu 1201. Ramona Elena Penciu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu Jiu 1202. Alexandru madalin Daianu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Targu Jiu 1203. Laurenţiu Grecu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Targu Jiu 1204. Georgiu Ioan, judge, Judecătoria Gherla 1205. Ionuţ Matei, judge, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1206. Robert Constantin Bumbu, judge, Tribunalul Neamţ 1207. Vieriu Tudor Ionuţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Roman 1208. Sârghi Dorina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Roman
57
1209. Grădinaru Martin Christian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Roman
1210. Tălmăcel Ciprian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Roman 1211. Pricope Laura, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Roman 1212. Ilie Ioana, judge, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1213. Cucoş Ana Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Roman 1214. Marian Dorina Elena, judge, Judecătoria Zalău 1215. Săvescu Gabriela Victoriţa, judge, Judecătoria Zalău 1216. Isacu Veronica Irina Antonia, judge, Judecătoria Zalău 1217. Lar Maria Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Zalău 1218. Moga Anamaria Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Zalău 1219. More Zsigmond Gabriella, judge, Judecătoria Zalău 1220. Merfu Aron Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Zalău 1221. Brădosu Adriana Bianca, judge, Judecătoria Blaj 1222. Dordea Alina Maria, judge, Judecătoria Blaj 1223. Farcaş Monica Felicia, judge, Judecătoria Blaj 1224. Oniga Diana, judge, Judecătoria Blaj 1225. Ana Maria Gogioiu, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 1226. Bologa Crin Nicu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sălaj 1227. Stana Pompilia Dana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sălaj 1228. Bogdan Rodica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sălaj 1229. Balas Angela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sălaj 1230. Olar Adrian Claudiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sălaj 1231. Flonta Sorin Emil, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sălaj 1232. Brindeanu Dan Eugen, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sălaj 1233. Craciun Florian Nicolae, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sălaj 1234. Dohan Oana Cerasela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sălaj 1235. Corda Liviu Tiberiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Zalău 1236. Oanes Corina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Zalău 1237. Munteanu Vladimir, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Zalău 1238. Dohan Catalin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Zalău 1239. Ghiran Alina Adreia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Simleu
Silvaniei 1240. Sabou Ioan Calin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Simleu
Silvaniei 1241. Matei Elena Ligia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Simleu
Silvaniei 1242. Bubuiug Liviu, prosecutor, DIICOT Sălaj 1243. Dan Budusan, prosecutor, DIICOT Sălaj 1244. Carmen Popa, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 1245. Liloiu Victor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Jibou 1246. Chiş Marta Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Jibou 1247. Bortes Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Jibou 1248. Alina Petruta Buculei, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1249. Holbocianu Claudiu Adrian, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 1250. Cosovat Andrei, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 1251. Şepelea Nicolae, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 1252. Morişcă Emanuela, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 1253. Sârghie Marius, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 1254. Asiminei Alexandru, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 1255. Puha Diana Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 1256. Florin Verciuc, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 1257. Laura Bosie, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti
58
1258. Daniela Toma, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1259. Cucu Alexandrina Mariana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1260. Ştefan Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1261. Andrei Georgeta, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1262. Axînti Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1263. Boroi Dana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1264. Bossenmayer Lavinia, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1265. Bourceanu Viviana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1266. Carp Dimitrie Gheorghe, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1267. Ciorsac Silviu Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1268. Costache Ivanov Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1269. Dinu Bogdan Justin, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1270. Drăghici Alis Cătălina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1271. Grigore Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1272. Mănescu Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1273. Meceanu Constantin Cristinel, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1274. Popescu Andreea Mădălina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1275. Sîrghi Ruxandra, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1276. Toma Elena Alina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1277. Vasilache Alina Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1278. Voicu Săndina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1279. Constantinescu Victor, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1280. Ene Laura Elena, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1281. Grozav Octavian, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1282. Dochiţa Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1283. Cristea Dragoş Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Alba Iulia 1284. Teodorescu Ana Felicia, judge, Judecătoria Alba Iulia 1285. Vasile Maria Luminiţa, judge, Judecătoria Alba Iulia 1286. Horvat Emilia Lavinia, judge, Judecătoria Alba Iulia 1287. Mara George Marius, judge, Judecătoria Alba Iulia 1288. Opriş Ioana Elisabeta, judge, Judecătoria Alba Iulia 1289. Pleşa Diana Elisabeth, judge, Judecătoria Alba Iulia 1290. Creţa Maria Ofelia, judge, Judecătoria Alba Iulia 1291. Pop Marinela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Satu Mare 1292. Pop Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Satu Mare 1293. Blahovici Marcel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Satu Mare 1294. Iancu Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Satu Mare 1295. Buzan Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Satu Mare 1296. Mărăşescu Anda Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Satu
Mare 1297. Balaj Chenderes Elena Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Satu
Mare 1298. Nicoleta Simona Păştin, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 1299. Teodora Gheorghe Sorescu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 1300. Elena Popescu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 1301. Ionuţ Scarlat Comănescu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 1302. Anghelescu Carla Alexandra, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1303. Luminiţa Dan, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 1304. Camelia Trifanov, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 1305. Iulia Casian, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 1306. Carmen Duţă, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 1307. Secota Iuliana Georgiana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1308. Linda Gadi, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti
59
1309. Oana Pogoran, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1310. Daniel Marian Drăghici, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1311. Mirela Danciu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1312. Monica Niculescu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1313. Raluca Radu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1314. Cătălin Oancea, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1315. Andreea Tănase, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1316. Cristi Ispas, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1317. Ana-Maria Mocanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1318. Raluca Cîrjan, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1319. Marian Moise, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1320. Homescu Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 1321. Ilie Eugenia Ramona, judge, Judecătoria Videle 1322. Dobre Mihai Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 1323. Roman Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 1324. Homescu Victor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 1325. Brodin Aurora, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 1326. Măcăşoiu Cosmin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 1327. Dan Gherghina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 1328. Geamâm Ramon, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 1329. Ungureanu Marius Cosmin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vâlcea 1330. Ungureanu Cerasela Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul
Vâlcea 1331. Mihai Iustin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vâlcea 1332. Marinescu Lucian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vâlcea 1333. Ghiţulete Iuliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vâlcea 1334. Guţu Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vâlcea 1335. Oprea Viorica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vâlcea 1336. Măndică Ramona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vâlcea 1337. Tudorache Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vâlcea 1338. Bidica Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vâlcea 1339. Alexandrina Deaconu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Bucureşti 1340. Claudiu Victor Neagoe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Bucureşti 1341. Codruţ Emanuel Popescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Reşiţa 1342. Stegaru Mitu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1343. Elena Roşu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1344. Oana Bidiuţă, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 1345. Cătălin Pavel, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 1346. Ana - Maria Nicolcescu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj; 1347. Sorin Pătrulescu, judge, Judecătoria Tg - Jiu; 1348. Loredana Carmen Mănescu, judge, Judecătoria Tg - Jiu; 1349. Gabriela Stegăroiu, judge, Judecătoria Tg - Jiu; 1350. Alexandra Stoian, judge, Judecătoria Tg - Jiu; 1351. Mihaela Tudorescu, judge, Judecătoria Tg – Jiu 1352. Goşa Cătălin, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1353. Putere Leontina, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1354. Drăgoi Corina Florentina, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1355. Biculescu Lotee Maria, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1356. Canache Lilea, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1357. Caramaliu Camelia, judge, Judecătoria Craiova
60
1358. Ciora Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1359. Ciucă Tatiana, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1360. Crînguş Dan, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1361. Ciobanu Melania Elena, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1362. Dinu Gigi, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1363. Guţescu Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1364. Groza Ana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1365. Grejdeanu Aurelia, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1366. Lilea Vlentin, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1367. Marin Cosmin, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1368. Măriuţă Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1369. Mecleneanu Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1370. Mitroi Reli Roxana, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1371. Moţârliche Luminiţa, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1372. Nedelcea Laura, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1373. Nicoliţă Daiana, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1374. Birău Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1375. Popescu Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1376. Puchiu Simona Elena, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1377. Sorbală Ruslana, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1378. Spiridonescu Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1379. Stroe Domnica, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1380. Secure Emilia, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1381. Tălpăşanu Lavinia, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1382. Troacă Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1383. Zorilă Elena, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1384. Lidia Bălan, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1385. Stoian Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1385. Moţa Simona, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1386. Bîscă Alina, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1387. Grecu Florin, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1388. Carmen Florea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1389. Daniela Maftei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1390. Oana Dorde, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1391. Cristina Lupescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1392. Cosmin Grancea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1393. Duţoiu Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buzău 1394. Roşu Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buzău 1395. Marcolea George, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buzău 1396. Oprea Veronica Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buzău 1397. Dumitru Cornelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buzău 1398. Arion Florin Lucian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Buzău 1399. Androne Larisa Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buzău 1401. Ungureanu Daniel Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buzău 1402. Roman Carmen Gina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buzău 1403. Ana Bogdan, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 1404. Ioana Ciurea, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1405. Manuel Bălan, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara
61
1406. Daniel Marcu, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1407. Nicoleta Burlacu, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1408. Adriana Roateş, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1409. Hantea Gianina, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1410. Hantea Dumitru, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1411. Borţun Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1412. Elena Crina Vinka, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1413. Laura Debelka, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1414. Roxana Tufiş, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1415. Burga Florin Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sfantu
Gheorghe 1416. Dumitru Cheagă, prosecutor, DIICOT, S. Centrală 1417. Eduard Smintina, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 1418. Grigore Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Harghita 1419. Gâlcescu Dan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Harghita 1420. Dobrică Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Harghita 1421. Fabian Orsolya, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Harghita 1422. Iosifescu Răzvan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Harghita 1423. Donţete Daniel, judge, Tribunalul Vâlcea. 1424. Cosmin Croitoriu, prosecutor, DNA, S.T. Craiova 1425. Mihaela Creţu, judge, Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureş 1426. Cristina Beatrix Bogdan, judge, Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureş 1427. Cristina Mihai, judge, Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureş 1428. Nicolae Ionaş, judge, Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureş 1429. Tanka Attila, judge, Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureş 1430. Robert Tunsu, judge, Tribunalul Mureş 1431. Cirstea Florina Izabela, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1432. Bogdan Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 1433. Varsescu Mariana Constanţa, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 1434. Cezar Ionut Tuliţă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1435. Marian Paţanghel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1436. Cristian Pătrană, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1437. Ionel Buşe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1438. Laurentiu Streza, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1439. Marius Hogaş, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1440. Adrian Crăciunescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1441. Elena Vlăducu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1442. Rozalia Negoiţă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1443. Nicolae Niculicea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1444. Nicolae Popescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1445. Amalia Voinea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Rm. Valcea 1446. Dorina Ivascu, prosecutor, DNA Galaţi 1447. Alexandra Coca, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 1448. Bic Iustin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia 1449. Stoica Ana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1450. Oprea Brindusa Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1451. Alexe Marian Cristian, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1452. Tirica Laura Stefania, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1453. Unghianu Mihaela Georgiana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1454. Draica Laura Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1455. Hubert Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1456. Moise Luiza Ecaterina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1457. Pop Monica, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
62
1458. Resteanu Eduardo, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1459. Ulmeanu Petruta, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1460. Stinga Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1461. Enache Roxana Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1462. Iordache Norica Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1463. Joita Marius Iulian, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1464. Tatu Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1465. Timofte Irina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1466. Modoran Laurentiu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1467. Matei Christian, judge, Judecătoria Câmpeni 1468. Ocneanu Ilona Silvia, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 1469. Vorniciasa Cristian, judge, Judecătoria Fălticeni 1470. Boceanu Claudia Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Arad 1471. Ţîra Livia-Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Bistriţa 1472. Graur Matei-Ciprian, judge, Judecătoria Ineu 1473. Pascu- Graur Ioana Roxana, judge, Judecătoria Ineu 1474. Pîrvu Ana-Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Slobozia 1475. Andrei Simona, judge, Judecătoria Reşiţa 1476. Holmanu Loredana Elena, judge, Judecătoria Oneşti 1477. Burcoman Ioana Cezara, judge, Judecătoria Hârşova 1478. Deac Bogdana, judge, Judecătoria Huedin 1479. Benţan Vlad-Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 1480. Costraş Ana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Fălticeni 1481. Carali Andreea-Leontina, judge, Judecătoria Tulcea 1482. Toma Bianca, judge, Judecătoria Călăraşi 1483. Brânzaru Ioana Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 1484. Ionescu Irina, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 1485. Creac Adrian Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alexandria 1486. Mărginean Ioan Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Alba Iulia 1487. Szoke Andrea, judge, Judecătoria Baia Mare 1488. Zene Flavius, judge, Judecătoria Zalău 1489. Ţiu Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 1490. Ciulei Raluca - Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 1491. Bîtu Florian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 1492. Munteanu Adriana-Natalia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Bistriţa 1493. Trif Bianca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Reşiţa 1493. Borta-Iacob Livia, judge, Judecătoria Sighetu Marmaţiei 1495. Dârlea Delia-Adina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 1496. Butaliu Tiberiu- Claudiu, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 1497. Codina Oana, judge, Tribunalul Vaslui 1498. Chereches Oana Adelina, judge, Tribunalul Vaslui 1499. Laura Toma Dauceanu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 1500. Oţel Simona Maria, judge, Judecătoria Filiaşi 1501. Gioroceanu Alina Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Filiaşi 1502. Mitru Daniel Teodor, judge, Judecătoria Filiaşi 1503. Apostol-Iordachioaia Ionut, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 1504. Puie Ciprian Horia, prosecutor, DIICOT - st oradea 1505. Bulzan Mihaela, prosecutor, DIICOT - st oradea 1506. Bogdan Ioan Gheorghe, prosecutor, DIICOT - st oradea 1507. Pantea Adrian, prosecutor, DIICOT - st oradea 1508. Morar - Herlea Radu, prosecutor, DIICOT - st Oradea 1509. Adrian Chiriac, judge, Curtea de Apel Iaşi
63
1510. Dan Cudalb, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti
1511. Angela Radu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti.
1512. Feldioreanu Mariana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 1513. Gabriela Mazilu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 1514. Teodorescu Vlad, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Covasna 1515. Raileanu Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Covasna 1516. Ştefaniu Bogdan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Covasna 1517. Doina Popa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 1518. Raluca Vilculescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 1519. Cosmin Cristescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 1520. Simona Florescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 1521. Barbuceanu Catalin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Piteşti 1522. Butaci Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 1523. Sas Florin George, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 1524. Sabău Delia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 1525. Luca Miahela Cornelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 1526. Filip Ramona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 1527. Suta Ciprian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 1528. Ciciula Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oradea 1529. Preda Bodagn, prosecutor, DIICOT Alba Iulia 1530. Florea Cristian, prosecutor, DIICOT Alba Iulia 1531. Florea Alexandru, prosecutor, DIICOT Alba Iulia 1532. Aron Ioan Marius, prosecutor, DIICOT Alba Iulia 1533. Florea Ionela, prosecutor, DIICOT Alba Iulia 1534. Alina Nica, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 1535. Roxana Dogaru, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 1536. Elena Banu, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 1537. Adrian Gogan, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 1538. Cornel Deca, prosecutor, DNA Braşov 1539. Monica Munteanu, prosecutor, DNA Braşov 1540. Felicia Vlad, prosecutor, DNA Braşov 1541. Dominte Cirpian, prosecutor, DNA Braşov 1542. Ghenu Andreea, prosecutor, DNA Braşov 1543. Delia Mihai, prosecutor, DNA Braşov 1544. Catalin Borcoman, prosecutor, DIICOT Braşov 1545. Negulescu Mihai, prosecutor, DIICOT Braşov 1546. Veştemeanu Raluca, prosecutor, DIICOT Braşov 1547. Anca Iovan, prosecutor, DIICOT Braşov 1548. Râmniceanu Maria, prosecutor, DIICOT Braşov 1549. Ichim Cristian, prosecutor, DIICOT Braşov 1550. Neagu Creola, prosecutor, DIICOT Braşov 1551. Oana Simon, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 1552. Constantina Coltuneac, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 1553. Gabriela Lascu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 1554. Adrian Roman, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 1555. Iuliana Cretu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 1556. Irina Geana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 1557. Violeta Hobincu-Acsinte, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Neamţ 1558. Liviu Nicolae Ionaşcu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Neamţ 1559. Virgil Cornea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Neamţ 1560. Sorin Constantin Sofronia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Neamţ
156115621563156415651566156715681569157015711572157315741575
1576157715781579158015711572157315741575157615771578157915801581158215831584158515861587158815891590159115921593159415951596159715981599160016011602
. Alina M
. Cristina
. Anca A
. Carmen
. Erica Pe
. Marius
. Georgia
. Lucian . Laura F. Vasile C. Cezar P. Madalin. Daniela. Ramona. Popesc
Drăgăşa. Corin Ig. Camelia. Laura C. Salonta. Valcea . Eugen A. Ana Ma. Oana C. Radu M. Crişan V. Dăescu. Deacon. Sandu M. Ţenea I. Ramona. Beatrice. Monica. Raveca. Gheorg. Dana C. Apostu. Alexand. Colin M. Curcă L. Dascălu. Grigore. Gurban. Luca Cr. Perju A. Shanna. Tarlion . Varvara. Zaharia. Cuzic M. Muntea. Nechifo. Ştefan G
Mihaela Fua Maria Lu
Apostol, prn Strugaruetronela CIanuş, pro
ana CiupicDieac, pro
Francisca Cătălin TePetronel Tna Scarlata Baloi, pra Jardiea
cu Corinaani gna, judgea Manzat, Catinean, jai Gabriel,Lucian, pAnton, pr
aria Edu, pCamelia TeMihai Pasc
Valentinau Adrian, jnu DascălMariana, jrina Mariaa Ristea, je Ivancu, Bădescu
a Loredanaghe Vlase,osareanu Adina, judrescu El
Mariana CoLorena Mau Crina Ele Corina, jn Tudor, juristian Nic
Andreea, juak AndreeMihaela G
a Veronicaa Irina, judMaricica Danu Iulia Lor Alina EGeorgiana
uioagă, prouca, proserosecutoru, prosecuCucoradăosecutor,c, prosecosecutor,Gaman, p
entiuc, proTalpău, prot, prosecurosecutor,nu, prosea Mihaela
e, Judecă judge, Jujudge, Ju, prosecut
prosecutorrosecutor,prosecutoeoc, proseca, proseca, judge, J
udge, Judu Diana Njudge, Juda, judge, Jjudge, Trijudge, Tr
u, judge, Ta Costant, judge, Ju
u, judge, Tudge, Judeena Loredorina, judgaria Ştefanlena, judgjudge, Jududge, Judcolae, jududge, Jud
ea TeodorGeta, judga Corina, jdge, JudecDaniela, juLavinia, julena, judga Livia, ju
osecutor,ecutor, Par, Parchetutor, Parc, prosecu Parchetuutor, Parc, Parchetuprocuror Docuror DIIocuror DI
utor, DNA , DNA
ecutor, DNa, prosec
toria Dej udecătoriadecătoriator, Parchr, Parchet, DNA or, Parcheecutor, Pacutor, Parcudecătoridecătoria
Nicoleta, judecătoria Judecătoribunalul Tribunalul TTribunalul tea, judgeudecătoria
Tribunalul ecătoria Iadana, judgge, Judecnia, judge
ge, Judecădecătoria
decătoria Idge, Judecdecătoria a, judge, J
ge, Judecăjudge, Jucătoria Iaş
udge, Judedge, Jude
ge, Judecăudge, Jude
64
Parchetuarchetul dul de pe lâ
chetul de putor, Parchul de pe lâchetul de ul de pe lâDIICOT, BICOT, BiroICOT, Biro
NA cutor, Pa
a Dej a Dej hetul de petul de pe l
etul de pe archetul dchetul de ia HorezuHorezu
udge, JudHorezu
ria HorezuTimiş Timiş Timiş
e, Judecăta HunedoBucureşt
aşi ge, Judeccătoria Iaşe, Judecătătoria IaşiIaşi
Iaşi cătoria IaşIaşi Judecătoătoria Iaşdecătoriaşi ecătoria Iaecătoria Iaătoria Iaşiecătoria Ia
ul de pe lâde pe lângângă Tribpe lângă Thetul de pângă Tribupe lângă T
ângă TribuBiroul Terioul Teritooul Terito
archetul d
e lângă Julângă Jud
lângă Cude pe lâng
pe lângă
decătoria H
u
toria Huneoara ti
cătoria Iaşşi toria Iaşi
şi
ria Iaşi i
a Iaşi
aşi aşi i aşi
ângă Tribugă Tribunaunalul NeTribunalu
pe lângă Tunalul NeaTribunaluunalul Neatorial Nearial Neam
orial Neam
de pe lâ
udecătoridecătoria M
rtea de Apgă Curtea
Curtea de
Horezu
edoara
şi
unalul Neaalul Neameamţ l Neamţ
Tribunalul amţ
ul Neamţ amţ amţ
mţ, mţ
ângă Jud
a Mediaş Mediaş
pel Cluj de Apel Ce Apel Clu
amţ ţ
Neamţ
decătoria
Cluj uj
65
1603. Tescu Iuliana, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 1604. Mihaela Mergeane, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa 1605. Mircea Iuliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa 1606. Luminita Radoi, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 1607. Mirela Claudia Simion, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 1608. Marinela Teciu, judge, Judecătoria Intorsura Buzăului 1609. Sorin Mihăilă, judge, Judecătoria Intorsura Buzăului 1610. Livia Bontea, judge, Judecătoria Intorsura Buzăului 1611. Lizabela Mariana Crăciun, judge, Judecătoria Intorsura Buzăului 1612. Raluca Creteanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1613. Cristina Grecu, judge, Tribunalul Ilfov 1614. Aldulescu Stefan, judge, Judecătoria Motru 1615. Maxim Sinziana, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1616. Dinu Mihaela, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1617. Chiribasa Luminita, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1618. Poputa Florica, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1619. Turcu Daniela, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1620. Popovici Madalina, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1621. Ungureanu Marina Daniela, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1622. Nae Sebastian, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 1623. Butnaru Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 1624. Butnaru Mitica, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 1625. Elena Alina Austrianu, judge, Judecătoria Câmpulung 1626. Adriana Caplan, judge, Judecătoria Câmpulung 1627. Sanda Diaconescu, judge, Judecătoria Câmpulung 1628. Violeta Nicolescu, judge, Judecătoria Câmpulung 1629. Iuliana Popescu, judge, Judecătoria Câmpulung 1630. Georgeta Roibu, judge, Judecătoria Câmpulung 1631. Otilia Vişoiu, judge, Judecătoria Câmpulung 1632. Elvira Zgreabăn, judge, Judecătoria Câmpulung 1633. David Adrian, judge, Judecătoria Deva 1634. Marcu Mariana, judge, Judecătoria Deva 1635. Mihail Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Deva 1636. Piess-Malimarcov Beatrix, judge, Judecătoria Deva 1637. Şortan Delia, judge, Judecătoria Deva 1638. Bacila Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Orastie. 1639. Farcas Hingan Giorgiana Rodica, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 1640. Boiciuc Ioana Nora, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 1641. Lucian Manoli, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 1642. Nedea Cristina, judecător de la Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1643. Mihail Stănescu Sas, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 1644. Cătălin Andrei Popescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de
Casaţie şi Justiţie 1645. Florentina Vasilăţeanu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1646. Iosefina Pîrvu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1647. Georgeta Coman, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 1648. Cristian Ştefan Vişan, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1649. Mihaela Stăncescu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1650. Morarescu Luminita, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 1651. Doicescu Elena-Roxana, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 1652. Corina Ţopa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1
Bucureşti
66
1653. Dana Păun, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
1654. Oana Peltechi, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1655. Diana Stancele, prosecutor, DNA 1656. Carmen Cadea, judge, Tribunalul Braşov 1657. Trastau Olimpia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1658. Sasu Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1659. Brindescu Laura, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1660. Grecu Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1661. Pelmus Atena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1662. Garbovean Loredana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1663. Mihaela Pop, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1664. Flucsa Viorica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1665. Mirea Alina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1666. Damian Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1667. Tent Olga, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1668. Zamfirescu Liliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1669. Marcu Daniela Dorina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Timiş 1670. Dinculescu Claudiu Mirel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1671. Nedelcu Valentin Dan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1672. Bădescu Magdalena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1673. Ilie Gianina Mădălina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1674. Ivănescu Petrişor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1675. Marinescu Cătălin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1676. Motrună Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1677. Nastasie Amalia Mădălina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1678. Nichita Carmen, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1679. Niculeanu Eugen, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1680. Popară Delia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1681. Răduică Carmen, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1682. Vieru Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1683. Rădulescu Camelia Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1684. Kelemen Robert, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1685. Nicolescu Roberta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1686. Rogoveanu Marin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dolj 1687. Rădulescu Cosmin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 1688. Ştefania Anton, judge, Curtea de apel Suceava 1689. Grădină Laurea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Tulcea 1690. Iga Monica Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 1691. Branzac Lucian Ionut, judge, Tribunalul Botoşani 1692. Todireanu Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Botoşani 1693. Ionel Iliescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 1694. Doina Savulescu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 1695. Simona Tataroiu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 1696. Maria Vatavu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 1697. Gheorghita Eftenoiu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 1698. Ramona Tufan, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 1699. Maria Adelina Constantinof, judge, Tribunalul Giurgiu 1700. Irina Kuglay, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1701. Georgina Bodoroncea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de
Casaţie şi Justiţie
67
1702. Eleonora Centea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1703. Ion Stoica, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 1704. Iboiu Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Roşiori de Vede 1705. Paraschiv Valentin Silviu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Roşiori de Vede 1706. Diremia Vlad, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Roşiori de Vede 1707. Constantinescu Dan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 1708. Zainea Cristinel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 1709. Alexandru Ciochină, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 1710. Târta Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 1711. Romaş Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 1712. Muntianu Bogdan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 1713. Bunea Cătălin, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1714. Colceriu Iuliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1715. Boţogan Marius Claudiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1716. Lazea Corina Adela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1717. Măciucă – Prodan Dorina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1718. Răşcanu Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1719. Renyi Erika, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1720. Leordean Rica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1721. Kelemen Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1722. Grădinariu Romana Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1723. Pavelescu Theodor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1724. Panţuru Valentin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 1725. Gherghina Alina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6
Bucureşti 1726. Trache Monica, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 1727. Selaru Diana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 1728. Ştefan Ionela Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 1729. Delia Marusciac, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 1730. David Maricel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Giurgiu 1731. Marin Tiberiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Giurgiu 1732. Adrian Nastase, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 1733. Ana-Maria Cucea, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 1734. Florin Niţă, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 1735. Brânzica Bogdana, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 1736. Iordache Antoanela, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 1737. Bîrjovanu Luminiţa, judge, Judecătoria Roman 1738. Bîrjovanu Cristian, judge, Judecătoria Roman 1739. Arseni Bogdan, judge, Judecătoria Roman 1740. Stefan Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 1741. Liliana Vladescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 1742. Maria Varzaru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 1743. Liviu Marcu, judge, Tribunalul Hundeoara 1744. Guluta Cristian Romica, judge, Judecătoria Sighetu Marmatiei 1745. Gianina Iftim, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1746. Sohorca Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Năsăud 1747. Sărmăşan- Radu Alina Rodica, judge, Judecătoria Tulcea 1748. Petrescu-Găletuşe Bianca Florina, judge, Judecătoria Drobeta Turnu Severin 1749. Ciopa Ani-Claudia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 1750. Andrei Drăgan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Petroşani 1751. Panainte Iulian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Hârlău
68
1752. Rujan Constantin Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 1753. Carmen-Simona Noja, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 1754. Strugariu Oana Elena, judge, Judecătoria Suceava 1755. Chiriac Oana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Giugiu 1756. Zar Georgiana, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 1757. Popa Marius Petrică, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului
2 Bucureşti 1758. Ionescu Radu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 1759. Ursu Alina Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Paşcani 1760. Voroneanu Denisia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Botoşani 1761. Mirea Dragoş Valentin, judge, Judecătoria Cornetu 1762. Matei Leontin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 1763. Carnariu Mihai Mădălin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piatra
Neamţ 1764. Carnariu Bianca Dana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piatra
Neamţ 1765. Armaşu Dan Marius, judge, Judecătoria Paşcani 1766. Tifachi Ionuţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Botoşani 1767. Arion Ana Olivia, judge, Judecătoria Suceava 1768. Luciani Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 1769. Ana Corina Marin, judge, Judecătoria Vălenii de Munte 1770. Claudia Iuliana Văcaru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 1771. Strat Beatrice, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1772. Alina Andriţoiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5
Bucureşti 1773. Florea Nicoleta Lăcrămioara, judge, Judecătoria Mizil 1774. Dinu Mădălina Georgeta, judge, Judecătoria Mizil 1775. Popescu Crina, judge, Judecătoria Mizil 1776. Tudor Nicu, judge, Judecătoria Mizil, 1777. Prajea Florentina Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Mizil. 1778. Marius Lazăr, judge, Judecătoria Mizil 1779. Dumitra Daniel Constantin, judge, Judecătoria Moreni 1780. Chivu Cosmin Constantin, judge, Judecătoria Moreni 1781. Mănescu Claudiu Cornel, judge, Judecătoria Moreni 1782. Turcu Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Moreni 1783. Buliga Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Moreni 1784. Conortos Camelia-Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul
Constanţa 1785. Maria Daniel-Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Vişeu de
Sus 1786. Harlambie Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Medgidia 1787. Stănilă Fănel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Medgidia 1788. Ciorobea Aurel Mihail, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Medgidia 1789. Stroiu Oana, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 1790. Rafaela Bujor-Neaga, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 1791. Vălean Mirela, prosecutor, DIICOT - Biroul Teritorial Satu Mare 1792. Mirela Aramă, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 1793. Mihaela Luca, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 1794. Felicia Marcu, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 1795. Aurora Coadă, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 1796. Iulian Iftodi, prosecutor, DIICOT - Iaşi
69
1797. Ungureanu Irina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sighişoara 1798. Marcu Virginia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sighişoara 1799. Necula Alma Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sighişoara 1800. Mihoc Emanuel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sighişoara 1801. Pîrlog Gigel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1802. Lazăr Raimonda, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1803. Stoica Emilia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1804. Mija Valerica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1805. Năstase Ioana Adina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie
şi Justiţie 1806. Gurzu Violeta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1807. Grigore Adrian Grigore, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de
Casaţie şi Justiţie 1808. Mihai Hondor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1809. Molcuţ Emilia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1810. Dumitru Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1811. Nistor Ovidiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1812. Piţu Cătălin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1813. Covei Stelea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1814. Ioniţă Vasile, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1815. Şchiopu Aura, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1816. Dobrescu Monica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1817. Olaru Lucia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1818. Gulii Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1819. Briţa Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1820. Sterschi Florena Esther, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de
Casaţie şi Justiţie 1821. Bulcu Ramona Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de
Casaţie şi Justiţie 1822. Neagu Sorinela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1823. Lupescu Octavian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 1824. Gheorghe Laura, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie
70
1825. Răileanu Mircea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1826. Iordache Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1827. Pop Monica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1828. Grosu Doina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1829. Stoica Viorica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1830. Dicu Brătescu Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1831. Moangă Simona Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1832. Zlata Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1833. Rusu Carmen, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1834. Jercan Rodica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1835. Murgoi Anda, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1836. Ilie Mihai Eduard, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1837. Tănăsoiu Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1838. Mitrănescu Dan Mihail, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1839. Vârtiş Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1840. Culea Claudiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1841. Mihalache Codruţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1842. Tudor Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1843. Lazăr Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1844. Joarza Janina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1845. Stârcu Pompilia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1846. Arsenie Mirela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1847. Spînu Nadina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1848. Costescu Monica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1849. Dragomir Oana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
1850. Coşniţă Marinela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Brăila 1851. Dedulescu Liviu Ionuţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Brăila 1852. Colţ Mihail, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Brăila
71
1853. Dinu Ionel Tiberiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Brăila 1854. Tudose Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Însurăţei 1855. Pungă Tudorel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Însurăţei 1856. Dorin Paracheva, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tulcea 1857. Miu Matei, judge, Judecătoria Caracal 1858. Iulia Slujitoru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 1859. Daniela Iuliana Marinescu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1860. Andreea Elisabeta Ungureanu, judge, Judecătoria Gherla 1861. Mihoc Emanuel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sighişoara 1862. Mocanu Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tulcea 1863. Vlaicu Joiţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Găeşti 1864. Began Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Găeşti 1865. Romas Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 1866. Muntianu Bogdan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Constanţa 1867. Gordan Sorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Brăila 1868. Marinescu Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Brăila 1869. Ciuciumiş Georgica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Brăila 1870. Ciutac Mircea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Brăila 1871. Otel Daniel, judge, Judecătoria Segarcea 1872. Botea Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Segarcea 1873. Iftim Corneliu, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Bucureşti 1874. Neagoe Vlad Mihai, judge, Tribunalul Harghita 1875. Varga Sanda Daria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Dej 1876. Dana Erdei, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1877. Andrei Antonela, judge, Judecătoria Tg Cărbuneşti 1878. Dari Constantin Ioan, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 1879. Leanca Cosmin, judge, Judecătoria Slobozia 1880. Ciocan Nicolae Mugurel, judge, Judecătoria Slobozia 1881. Purice Ciprian, judge, Judecătoria Slobozia 1882. Costin Marius Mirel, Juecatoria Slobozia 1883. Costea Isabela, judge, Judecătoria Slobozia 1884. Adela Dragoş, judge, Tribunalul Satu Mare 1885. Ionescu Camelia, judge, Tribunalul Bacău 1886. Grecu Simona Loredana, judge, Tribunalul Bacău 1887. Spiridon Cristina Camelia, judge, Tribunalul Bacău 1888. Pinzaru Oana Georgeta, judge, Tribunalul Bacău 1889. Berekmeri Erdely Beata, judge, Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc 1890. Csorya Ildiko Margit, judge, Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc 1891. Aura Madalina Tudor, judge, Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc 1892. Guţic Daniel, judge, Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc 1893. Fodor Peter, judge, Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc 1894. Peter Antal Levente, judge, Judecătoria Miercurea Ciuc 1895. Halil Adinan, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 1896. Anca Groza, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 1897. Maria Timofte Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1898. Cristian Felix Nica, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1899. Remus Marotineanu, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 1900. Popescu Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Valcea 1901. Eugen Tosu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Drăgăşani 1902. Paraschiv Andreea Irina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Brezoi 1903. Daniel Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Brezoi 1904. Răzvan Tudor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bălceşti 1905. Silviu Trasca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bălceşti
72
1906. Iordache Narcisa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bălceşti 1907. Pop Daniela, prosecutor, DIICOT Vâlcea 1908. Calinescu Dan Iulian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Horezu 1909. Comanescu Petre Catalin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Horezu 1910. Melania Isopescu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 1911. Gabriela Bratu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 1912. Ioana Bogdan, judge, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 1913. Baran Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 1914. Bratulea Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Râmnicu Sărat 1915. Dinulescu Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Râmnicu
Sărat 1916. Dana Bogatu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 1917. Lăzărescu Mircea Adrian, prosecutor, DNA 1918. Catalina Radulescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 1919. Banica Tudor Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 1920. Popa Alina Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 1921. Stan Sever, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Giurgiu 1922. Emil Lupulescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 1923. Larion Iuliana Madalina, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1924. Muncioiu Cristina, judge, judecătoria Craiova 1925. Cristina Boaje, judge, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 1926. Monica Trofin, judge, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 1927. Buzenschi Veronica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bicaz 1928. Paduraru Raluca Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 1929. Sendrescu Dan, judge, Tribunalul Valcea 1930. Apostol Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Iaşi 1931. Aioniţoaie Ana Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Iaşi 1932. Ciurca Roznovaţ Roxana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Iaşi 1933. Horodniceanu Diana Angelica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Iaşi 1934. Luca Ramona Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Iaşi 1935. Sas Anca Raluca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Aiud 1936. Cazaceanu Ciprian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1
Bucureşti 1937. Banica Tudor Adrian, judge, Judecătoria Zimnicea 1938. Manoliu Raluca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Galaţi 1939. Teodorescu Oana, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 1940. Ilie Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Galaţi 1941. Adriana Elena Flimon, judge, Judecătoria Aiud 1942. Viorica Mitrica, judge, Judecătoria aiud 1943. Roman Mihai, judge, Judecătoria Aiud 1944. Adrian Neagu, judge, Judecătoria Arad 1945. Ana Maria Neagu, judge, Judecătoria Arad 1946. Păiuş Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Giurgiu 1947. Onut Cojan, judge, Tribunalul vasului 1948. Mihai Stanciu, prosecutor, DIICOT Craiova 1949. Jemboiu Alice, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 1950. Laloianu Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 1951. Piturca Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 1952. Tena Tulitu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 1953. Vancea Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova
73
1954. Mota Emil, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 1955. Cristian Grigorie, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 1956. Marinela Grigorie, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 1957. Balan Liviu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 1958. Severnicu Vlad, judge, Judecătoria Targoviste 1959. Borcuti Dana Mirela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 1960. Gabor Bogdan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 1961. Brisc Ioan Vasile, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 1962. Băgeag Liliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 1963. Blăjan Codruţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 1964. Mariş Costantina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 1965. Mociran Adela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 1966. Petru Ramona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 1967. Pop Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 1968. Tomoioagă Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 1970. Ardelean Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sighetu
Marmaţiei 1971. Berinde Laurenţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sighetu
Marmaţiei 1972. Petre Loredana Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sighetu
Marmaţiei 1973. Muţ Aurelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Târgu Lăpuş 1974. Roman Larisa Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Târgu
Lăpuş 1975. uda Dorel Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 1976. Gălăţanu Maria Mirela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 1977. Varga Zoltan Istvan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 1978. Couţi Roxana Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia
Mare 1979. Buda Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 1980. Temeian Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 1981. Brânzei Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 1982. Ghiţ Mariana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 1983. Dunca Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 1984. Burnar Livia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Vişeu de Sus 1985. Trenca Ionela Violeta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Vişeu de
Sus 1986. Amarie Cătălin Leonard, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Dragomireşti 1987. Marchiş Cristian Ştefan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Dragomireşti 1988. Satarbasa Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Covasna 1989. Bokor Toth Orsolya, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Covasna 1990. Chiper Liliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Covasna 1991. Croitoriu Cătălina Genoa, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 1992. Tiugan Veronica, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 1993. Ileana Niţă Vali Ştefania, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 1994. Udrea Luminiţa, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 1995. Macamete Elena Camelia, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 1996. Lelia Maruşciac, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 1997. Cătălin Galcea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 1998. Candale Laura Camelia, judge, Judecătoria Bistriţa
74
1999. Vasile Botis, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 2000. Bugnar Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Bolintin Vale 2001. Lupaşcu Lucica, judge, Judecătoria Bolintin Vale 2002. Burureanu Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Bolintin Vale 2003. Traistaru Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Bolintin Vale 2004. Alin Văsonan, judge, Curtea de Apel Oradea 2005. Lavinia Mihaela Oproiu, judge, Judecătoria Târgu-Jiu 2006. Mane loredana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2007. Gheorghe Dragoş, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2008. Pantiru Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2009. Horsia Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2010. Fadei Pavel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2011. Nicoară Andra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2012. Pantea Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2013. Ududec Ionel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2014. Ududec Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2015. Horge Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2016. Pop George, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2017. Tătar Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2018. Tofan Florinela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2019. Sendronui Mircea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2020. Mihai Laura, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2021. Delia Sarca Georgiana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Cluj-Napoca 2022. Birtoc Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2023. Toader Mirel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2024. Dobrescu Flaviu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2025. Andreica Lucia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2026. Lazăr Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2027. Cozma Szende, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2028. Damaschin Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2029. Spuma Oana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2030. Mărginean Peczi Anamaria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Cluj-Napoca 2031. Ramona Zglimbea, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 2032. Isabelle Tocan, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2033. Adriana Bajan, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2034. Dumitru Mirancea, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2035. Bogdan Voinescu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2036. Mihai Cozma, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2037. Dusa Radu Rareş, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 2038. Denisa Murariu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2039. Veronica Sîrbu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2040. Viorel Terzea, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2041. Anca Andreea Terzea, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2042. Carmen Fota, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 2043. Dragomir Luisa Emanuela, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti, 2044. Dragomir Marian Ionut, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 2045. Vida Simiti Anamaria Gabriela, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 2046. Fitigau Oana Lavinia, judge, Judecătoria Gherla
75
2047. Iugan Andrei Viorel, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 2048. Arina Corsei Vultureanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Sectorului 3 2049. Cristureanu Ciprian Gabriel, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 2050. Adriana Vilcu, judge, Tribunalul Satu Mare 2051. Alexandra Magdas, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 2052. Ispas Angela Bianca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Saliste 2053. Mihaela Vasiescu, judge, Curtea de Apel Tg.-Mures 2054. Lăloianu Lucia Mariana, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 2055. Ruxandra-Maria Pavel, judge, Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2056. Stefan Carmen Elena, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 2057. Zidarescu Virginia, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 2058. Ivan-Enescu Anda-Irina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2059. Dragan Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Huedin 2060. Silvia Hanzu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 2061. Marie Jeanne-Nitulescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 2062. Necula Radu Mihai, judge, Tribunalul Prahova 2063. Necula Carmen Andreea, judge, Tribunalul Prahova 2064. Raluca Pricop, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Zărnesti 2065. Marcela Olimpia Filimon, judge, Curtea de Apel Oradea 2066. Şalar Felix Lucian, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2067. Lavinia Magdalena Bulgaru, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2068. Popovici Monica, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 2069. Popovici Ion-Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Oradea 2070. Ana Aldea, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 2071. Vasile Ramona, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 2072. Parfin Eugen, judge, Judecătoria Lugoj 2073. Mihai Simona, judge, Judecătoria Lugoj 2074. Cozilec Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Lugoj 2075. Cordos Carmela Rozalia, judge, Judecătoria Lugoj 2076. Sterfenitu Fulvia, judge, Judecătoria Lugoj 2077. Paşcu Valentin Marian, judge, Judecătoria Lugoj 2078. Simona Florica Nicolau, judge, Tribunalul Vrancea 2079. Cotea Carmen, judge, Tribunalul Vrancea 2080. Daniela Calin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tg Mureş 2081. Roxana Maria Stefan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tg Mureş 2082. Daniel Vale, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tg Mureş 2083. Mircea Radu Wechter, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tg Mureş 2084. Mariela Dibus, judge, Tribunaul Vrancea 2085. Dumitru Florin, judge, Tribunalul Braila 2086. Vasile Viorel, judge, Tribunalul Braila 2087. Ruginosu Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sibiu 2088. Florescu Mironescu Andra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sibiu 2089. Dancu Bogdan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sibiu 2090. Blinda Tudor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sibiu 2091. Florescu Vali, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Avrig 2092. Veres Roxana, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 2093. Boldeanu Andreea-Anca, judge, Tribunalul Braila 2094. Chiroi Anamaria, judge, Tribunalul Braila 2095. Stegeran Roxana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia Mare 2096. Alexandra Benegui, judge, Tribunalul Covasna 2097. Bogdan Benegui, judge, Tribunalul Braşov 2098. Maruşca Bogdana Maria, judge, Tribunalul Braşov
76
2099. Simion Mihaela, judge, Tribunalul Braşov 2100. Văleanu Ionela, judge, Tribunalul Braşov 2101. Izabella Dobrescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 2102. Marinela Mincă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 2103. Ana Dana, prosecutor, DNA 2104. Ancuta Pura, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 2105. Marius Pătraşcu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2106. Irina Popescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploiesti 2107. Pavel Marinel Corneliu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Slatina 2108. Şerban Irina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Slatina 2109. Bălaşa Ion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Slatina 2110. Alexandra Cristina Cojocaru, judge, Tribunalul Vaslui 2111. Niagu Virginia Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Tecuci 2112. Lungocia Viorica Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Tecuci 2113. Ciulei Valerica, judge, Judecătoria Tecuci 2114. Biro Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Tecuci 2115. Gheorghe Ana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Tecuci 2116. Dobrea Maria Mădălina, judge, Judecătoria Tecuci 2117. Sorin Bosnea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Timişoara 2118. Pripagu Gabriel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Timişoara 2119. Braşoveanu Ion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Timişoara 2120. Camelia Miculescu Ungur, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Timişoara 2121. Flavius Cristea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Timişoara 2122. Trion Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Timişoara 2123. Ghimiş Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Timişoara 2124. Mihaela Fackelmann, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Timişoara 2125. Dumitrescu Lavinia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Timişoara 2126. Simu Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Timişoara 2127. Ivaniuc Mariana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Timişoara 2128. Donici Viorel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Reghin 2129. Damian Dan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Reghin 2130. Borda Lucia Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Reghin 2131. Goia Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Reghin 2132. Gherasim Ciprian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Reghin 2133. Alexandra Gherghesanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Iaşi 2134. Verginica Buzoianu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ialomiţa 2135. Vlăsceanu Mihaela Olimpia, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa; 2136. Iulia Cezara Suciu, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 2137. Tiberiu Nicolae Onea, prosecutor, DNA Tg Mureş 2138. Claudia Doina Vinesar, prosecutor, DNA Tg Mureş 2139. Aurelian Ioan Ardelean, prosecutor, DNA Tg Mureş 2140. Radu Cristian Mihai, prosecutor, DNA Tg Mureş 2141. Valentin Cristian Ştefan, prosecutor, DNA Tg Mureş 2142. Ana Maria Răzlog, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 2143. Bordeianu Andrei, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 2144. Crihană Norina Viorica, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 2145. Cucoş Mara, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 2146. Dajbog Lavinia, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi
77
2147. Luminiţa Morărescu, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 2148. Vidican Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 2149. Cotrau Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 2150. Vulcan Bianca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 2151. Berce Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 2152. Oros Patricia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 2153. Muresan Ana, prosecutor, DNA 2154. Manoliu Liliana Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Galaţi 2155. Catalan Mihaela, prosecutor, PJ Piteşti 2156. Ivan Marian, judge, Judecătoria Caracal 2157. Ion Teodor Valentin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Galaţi 2158. Drăgulescu Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 2159. Horaţius Dumbravă, judge, Curtea de Apel Tg Mureş 2160. Irinel Axente Andrei, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 2161. Călin Tătar, judge, Judecătoria Huedin 2162. Simona Matei, judge, Judecătoria Huedin 2163. Murariu Ovidiu Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ludus 2164. Cosarca vasile, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ludus 2165. Cimpeanu Elisa Ana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Ploiesti 2166. Vasiliu Crenguţa Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Iaşi 2167. Andrei Hosu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Caraş Severin 2168. Laura Iancu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Caraş Severin 2169. Marcela Pirvu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Caraş Severin 2170. Cosmin Pasere, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Caraş Severin 2171. Teaca Ion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Caraş Severin 2172. Otilia Isac, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Caraş Severin 2173. Adrian Tarnovietchi, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Caraş
Severin 2174. Iulian-Petrică Bădoi, prosecutor, delegat la Biroul Teritorial DIICOT Teleorman 2175. Ştefan Gigi Valentin procuror general Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Constanţa 2176. Florea Adina procuror general adjunct Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Constanţa 2177. Petrescu Teodora prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa 2178. Ciocoiu Silviu prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa 2179. Subţirelu Laura procuror şef secţie judiciar Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de
Apel Constanţa 2180. Şişman Beatrice prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa 2181. Păun Violeta prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa 2182. Ianuş Dragomir prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa 2183. Constantinescu Ionuţ Daniel, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 2184. Cadea Marius, judge, Curtea de Apel Braşov 2185. Balanoiu Loredana Georgiana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Bârlad 2186. Brojban Mircea Wili, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bârlad 2187. Costescu Sorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bârlad 2188. Harnagea Petrişor Ştefan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bârlad 2189. Ilies Carlo Gabriel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bârlad 2190. Mocanu Simona Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bârlad 2191. Plopan Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bârlad 2192. Rotaru Cristina Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bârlad 2193. Tinica Alina Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bârlad
78
2194. Crina Popescu, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 2195. Veronica Tudor, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 2196. Felicia Ivan, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 2197. Oana Cristina Adam, judge, Curtea de Apel Iaşi 2198. Maricica Mititelu, judge, Curtea de Apel Iaşi 2199. Camelia Toderica, judge, Curtea de Apel Iaşi 2200. Andreea Nicolet Trifan, judge, Curtea de Apel Iaşi 2201. Ileana Daniela Waltner, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 2202. Gusa George Lucian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Pogoanele 2203. George Virgil Gavrilă, prosecutor, DIICOT, S. Centrală 2204. Duţă Cristina Ramona, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 2205. Ghernaja Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 2206. Jurubiţă Alina, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 2207. Păun Ionel Iulian, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 2208. Crăciun Cătălin Constantin, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 2209. Durac Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bacău 2210. Bors Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bacău 2211. Andrei Ciprian Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bacău 2212. Ciocanta Valentin Cristinel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bacău 2213. Zotta Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bacău 2214. Barjovanu Monica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bacău 2215. Herciu Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bacău 2216. Georgescu Ashemimry Violeta Elena, judge, Judecătoria Ploiesti 2217. Popescu Alina Loredana, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2218. Ecxarcu Harfas Andreea, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2219. Jeana Dumitrache, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2220. Sanda Ursu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2221. Corina Postelnicescu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2222. Laura Ionita, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2223. Corina Pincu Ifrim, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2224. Comanita Alina Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Covasna 2225. Mateescu Andreea, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2226. Risnoveanu Gabriela, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2227. Paun Sanda, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2228. Ciobotaru Sorina, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2229. Vacarus Stancu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2230. Placinta Maria Despina, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2231. Florea Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2232. Carla Buta, judge, Judecătoria Paşcani 2233. Picioruş Ilie, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 2234. Stanciu Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 2235. Şipoş Diana Luminiţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bistriţa
Năsăud 2236. Sîngeorzan Angela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bistriţa
Năsăud 2237. Briciu Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bistriţa Năsăud 2238. Pop Ionelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bistriţa Năsăud 2239. Coste otilia Dolores, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bistriţa
Năsăud 2240. Dohotar Mirela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bistriţa Năsăud
79
2241. Coman Felix Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bistriţa Năsăud
2242. Antal Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa 2243. Corlăţeanu Sorin Costel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa 2244. Ghita Bogdan Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buftea 2245. Bălineanu Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa 2246. Potop Romeo, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa 2247. Antohi Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa 2248. Burje Sorin Ovidiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Bistriţa 2249. Ţiganetea Angelica Mariana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Năsăud 2250. Sohorca Florin Vasile, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Năsăud 2251. Cepoi Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Năsăud 2252. Sîrb Vasile Ciprian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Beclean 2253. Aldea Mihail, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2254. Stoica Alin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2255. Coculescu Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2556. Marin Sorinel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2257. Andrieş Gabriel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Suceava 2258. Ştefan Marius Ionel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2259. Ţuca Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2260. Mădălina Pătru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2261. Elena Vlad, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2262. Olaru Carmen Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2263. Vişan Florin Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2264. Cioară Livia Hortensia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2265. Palaghia Laurenţiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2266. Prodănoiu Filofteia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2267. Brînduşi Carmina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2268. Răzvan-Alexandru Constandache, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă
Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2269. Arsene Cătălin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2270. Chirvasiu Eleonora, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş 2271. Nedelea isabela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 2272. Argeşanu Nicolae, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 2273. Ciofrîngeanu Alexandra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 2274. Mihai Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 2275. Nanu Vladimir, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 2276. Chiţu Florin Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 2277. Hubert Alina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 2278. Sâvu Nicolae Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 2279. Dumitrescu Marilena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piteşti 2280. Magraon Nicorina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Curtea de
Argeş 2281. Siea Victor Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Curtea de
Argeş 2282. Marica Ionuţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Curtea de Argeş 2283. Bănăţeanu Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Câmpulung 2284. Austrianu Mărgărit Răzvan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Câmpulung 2285. Lobodan Remus, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Câmpulung 2286. Gheorghe Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Câmpulung 2287. Cotovelea Ionel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Câmpulung
80
2288. Creţu Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Argeş, delegat la Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Costeşti
2289. Topliceanu Mariana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Costeşti 2290. Georgiana Nanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2291. Putintei Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2292. Popa Cornelia, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2293. Potcoava Florin Mihai, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2294. Dumitrescu Raluca, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2295. Mihaita Florin, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2296. Ulariu Constantin Claudiu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2297. Bernea Mihai, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2298. Giurchita Silviu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2299. Achim Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2300. Zidaru Lorena, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2301. Cristea Cristina Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2302. Ionescu Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2303. Diana Alexandru, prosecutor, DNA - Galaţi. 2304. Gabriela Popescu, prosecutor, DNA - Galaţi. 2305. Leu Mihaela, prosecutor, DNA - Galaţi. 2306. Navadaru Mădălin Ionut, prosecutor, DNA – Galaţi 2307. Raileanu Toma Catalin, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2308. Moga Eliza Doruţa, prosecutor, DNA- Timişoara 2309. Schiffbeck Tamas, prosecutor, DNA- Timişoara 2310. Dolcu Lucian Dumitru, prosecutor, DNA- Timişoara 2311. Chiş Bogdan, prosecutor, DNA- Timişoara 2312. Chirilă Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 2313. Minodora Popovici, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 2314. Briscan Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 2315. Roman Călin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bihor 2316. Catalin Strimbei, procuror militar DNA 2317. Cobzaru Raluca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bacău 2318. Ursulescu Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bacău 2319. Neculaes Alina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bacău 2320. Ana Maria Mateescu, judge, Tribunaul Bucureşti 2321. Magdalena Pirvu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2322. Zuleanu Mihaela Gabriela, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 2323. Bourceanu Leonard, judge, Tribunaul Constanţa 2324. Raluca Cristina Mihăilă, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 2325. Alexnadra Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 2326. Mihaela Mihai, prosecutor, DNA Suceava 2327. Luminita Ailoae, prosecutor, DNA Suceava 2328. Luminita Leonte, prosecutor, DNA Suceava 2329. Irinel Valeriu Crudu, prosecutor, DNA Suceava 2330. Ciprian Ioan Mihai, prosecutor, DNA Suceava 2331. Ciprian Mihai Morisca, prosecutor, DNA Suceava 2332. Andrei Marian Irimia, prosecutor, DNA Suceava 2333. Apostol narcisa Georgiana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Răcari 2334. Pena Laura Nadia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bacău 2335. Grigore Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bacău 2336. Roxana Sultana, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2337. Elena Olteanu, judge, Judecătoria Slobozia
81
2338. Andreea Arhip, judge, Tribunaul Galaţi 2339. Mihai Arhip, judge, Tribunaul Galaţi 2340. Giulio Nedelcu, judge, Tribunaul Galaţi 2341. Gălbează Daniel Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Moineşti 2342. Georgel Brăila, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Moineşti 2343. Răzvan Ghencea, judge, Judecătoria Adjud 2344. Cojan Denisia Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Adjud 2345. Cătălin Huci, judge, Judecătoria Adjud 2346. Cristina Scarlat, prosecutor, DNA Craiova 2347. Florentina Lungu, prosecutor, DNA Craiova 2348. Robert Adrian Nicolicescu, prosecutor, DNA Craiova 2349. Eugen Stănculescu, prosecutor, DNA Craiova 2350. Dorel Balaci, prosecutor, DNA Craiova 2351. Marian Eugen Moşteanu, prosecutor, DNA Craiova 2352. Dobrescu Sebastian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Cluj 2353. Maria Adriana Bratu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2354. Tiberiu Augustin Bratu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 2355. Mona Marcela Prisăcaru, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2356. Patraş Alexandra Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2357. Roman Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2358. Ţocu-Radu Cătălin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2359. Bordianu Dragoş, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2360. Bratu Marian Mirel, judge, Judecătoria Curtea de Argeş 2361. Ion Constantin Bogdan, judge, Judecătoria Curtea de Argeş 2362. Pavelescu Alina, judge, Judecătoria Curtea de Argeş 2364. Stana Corneliu Adrian, judge, Judecătoria Curtea de Argeş 2365. Stoica Ovidiu Marian, judge, Judecătoria Curtea de Argeş 2366. Constantin Niţă, judge, Tribunalul Prahova 2367. Denisa Vîlvoi, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2368. Marius Iacob, procuror şef adjunct DNA 2369. Arhip Alina Ramona, judge, Tribunalul Bacău, 2370. Mateiş Petronela Maria, judge, Tribunalul Bacău, 2371. Velescu Aurica, judge, Tribunalul Bacău, 2372. Dabija Mihaela, judge, Tribunalul Bacău 2373. Fesan paula Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Bacău 2374. Dogaru Oana Alina, judge, Tribunalul Bacău 2375. Antohi Greta, judge, Tribunalul Bacău 2376. Gianina Oreviceanu, prosecutor, DNA Tg. Mureş 2377. Alionte Viorica, judge, Tribunalul Brăila 2378. Duta Mirela, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 2379. Ene Alin, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 2380. Lungu Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 2381. Olaru Andrei, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 2382. Popescu Lorena, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 2383. Rapan Alexandra, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 2384. Teodorescu Popa Claudia Roxana, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 2385. Toma Diana, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 2386. Ovac Ioan-Octavian, judge, Judecătoria Vaslui 2387. Ovac Daniela-Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Vaslui 2388. Darie Cătălina, judge, Judecătoria Vaslui 2389. Căilean Ioan-Dănuţ, judge, Judecătoria Vaslui
82
2390. Lungu Iolanda, judge, Judecătoria Vaslui 2391. Manta Grapă Diana-Eugenia, judge, Judecătoria Vaslui 2392. Dănăilă Dan, judge, Judecătoria Vaslui 2393. Andries Carmen, judge, Tribunalul Vaslui. 2394. Alexandru Adina, judge, Tribunalul Vaslui 2395. Petroşanu Ion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Zimnicea 2396. Dumitrache Aurora, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Zimnicea 2397. Oancea Florin Claudiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Turnu
Măgurele 2398. Danciu Constanţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Turnu
Măgurele 2399. Apopi Ileana, judge, Judecătoria Falticeni 2400. Pascariu Maria, judge, Judecătoria Falticeni 2401. Marius, Andreescu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2402. Delia-Cristina Florea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 6 Bucureşti 2403. Bengescu Şerban, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 2404. Zaharia Lucia, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2405. Tudoriţa Chirilă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2406. Arhire Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2407. Cozmaciuc Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Bucureşti 2408. Bican Corina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2409. Ciobanu Ramona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2410. Rotaru Ionuţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2411. Blaj Luiza, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2412. Palici Florela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2413. Comşa Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2414. Fătu Lucia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2415. Ciucă Viviana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2416. Nicolici Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2417. Elena-Anca Anuţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Olt 2418. Daniela Aspra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Olt 2419. Marian Sergiu Niţu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Olt 2420. Gheorghe Constantinescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Olt 2421. Rozeta Ionică, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Olt 2422. Constantin Ştefan Noajă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Olt 2423. Constantin Negrilă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Olt 2424. Nicolae Mihai Marinel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Olt 2425. Honorius Zlatan Botezatu, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2426. Horea Şurtea, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2427. Ana Maria Vida, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2428. Mihaela Cioară, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2429. Diana Andreea Bachios, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2430. Doina Chila, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2431. Elena Bîscă, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2432. Cosmin Branc, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2433. Ramona Coşoveanu, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2434. Radu Arbonie, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2435. Lorant Varga, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2436. Cristiana Mirea, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2437. Adina Bogdana Vintieler, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2438. Cristian Guttmann, judge, Judecătoria Arad
83
2439. Liliana Vintilă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti
2440. Tănasie Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti
2441. Lionte Emilia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti
2442. Baleanu Anda Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Giurgiu 2443. Stanculescu Bogdan prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sibiu 2444. Popa Sorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Giurgiu 2445. Albu Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu 2446. Traian Croitoru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu 2447. Alexe Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu 2448. Filip Aurelian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu 2449. Apostu Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu 2450. Catalin Marcau, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu 2451. Marc Ionela Anca, judge, judge, Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 2452. Tiberiu Nitu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu 2453. Carmen Anton, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2454. Cărciunescu Leontina, prosecutor, DIICOT Cluj 2455. Mariana-Nuţi Dobrin, judge, Tribunalul Teleroman 2456. Ana Bucu, judge, Tribunalul Teleroman 2457. Irena Trifan, judge, Tribunalul Teleroman 2458. Mihaela-Narcisa Vîrdol, judge, Tribunalul Teleroman 2459. Colţan Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Caranşebeş 2460. Olariu Nicuşor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Caranşebeş 2461. Tudor Ionuţ Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Caranşebeş 2462. Secan Petru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Huedin 2463. Cojocaru Mihaela Magdalena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Huedin 2464. Drăgan Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Huedin 2465. Dică Mirela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alexandria 2466. Mohorca Monica Stefania, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Alexandria 2467. Neaţă Ion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alexandria 2468. Tironeac Remus Victor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Alexandria 2469. Nicolae Lizica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Teleorman 2470. Mitroi Victor Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Teleorman 2471. Bojă Mihaela Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Teleorman 2472. Petrică Cristiana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Teleorman 2473. Rădoi Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Teleorman 2474. Neacşu Marius Geani, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Teleorman 2475. Popescu Nicolae, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Teleorman 2476. Vasilescu Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Teleorman 2477. Cozma Alin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1
Bucureşti 2478. Diaconescu Melinda, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului
1 Bucureşti 2479. Mungiu Ramona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1
Bucureşti 2480. Petrescu Corina Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
84
2481. Gabura Sergiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
2482. Stan Doina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
2483. Muresan Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
2484. Nedela Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
2485. Rascota Ion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
2486. Spaiuc Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
2487. Ungureanu Manuela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
2489. Cret Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti
2490. Onea Lucian, prosecutor, DNA Ploieşti 2491. Răileanu Cerasela, prosecutor, DNA Ploieşti 2492. Deaconu Giluela, prosecutor, DNA Ploieşti 2493. Bucică Laura, prosecutor, DNA Ploieşti 2494. Savu Alfred, prosecutor, DNA Ploieşti 2495. Sultana Marius, prosecutor, DNA Ploieşti 2496. Lefter Cristina, prosecutor, DNA Ploieşti 2497. Iancu Mioara, judge, Tribunalul Ialomiţa 2498. Căpăţînă Alexandra Cristiana, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 2499. Joghiu Sorin, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 2500. Felicia Cocoş, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Gorj 2501. Florin Popescu, procuror militar, DNA 2502. Mihai Gheorghe, procuror militar, DNA 2503. Tiberiu Cozma, procuror militar, DNA 2504. Angela Elena Stroe, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Jiu 2505. Căciunescu Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 2506. Sfîriac Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Cluj 2507. Cristi Danileţ, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 2508. Joghiu Aurelia, judge, Tribunalul Brăila 2509. Arbureanu Liliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Suceava 2510. Cucoş Camelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Suceava 2511. Surdu Adrian Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Suceava 2512. Cusiac Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Suceava 2513. Antăloae Ionuţ Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Suceava 2514. Toma Ionel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Suceava 2515. Ioniţă Nicu Paul, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Suceava 2516. Iaşinovschi Sorin Eugen, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Suceava 2517. Juravlea Ana Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Suceava 2518. Stănescu Lucian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Suceava 2519. Cocîrlă Elisabeta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Suceava 2520. Fănaru Mirela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Suceava 2521. Beşa Lucian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Suceava 2522. Tănasă Doiniţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Suceava 2523. Puianu Andrei Sebastian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Suceava
85
2524. Nadina Drecea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 2525. Danuţ Cornel Ungur, judge, Tribunalul Arad 2526. Ricu Simona Carmen, prosecutor, DNA 2527. Popa Gabriela, prosecutor, DNA 2528. Danciu Monica Erika, prosecutor, DNA 2529. Paduraru Camelus, prosecutor, DNA 2530. Balasoiu Carmen Doinita, prosecutor, DNA 2531. Apostol Cristina, prosecutor, DNA 2532. Chiper Jenica, judge, Judecătoria Sf. Gheorghe 2533. Catalina Puianu, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 2534. Focsa Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 2535. Elena Mirtha Meleacă, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 2536. Corina Georgiana Nuţă, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2537. Mihaela Merisescu, judge, JudecătoriaTg.-Cărbuneşti 2538. Mihai Merisescu, judge, JudecătoriaTg.-Cărbuneşti 2539. Goloiu Ion, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti. 2540. Mihai Lucian, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti. 2541. Panciuc Anca Clara, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Radauti 2542. Mihai Cătălina Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Haţeg 2543. Burduja Andreea Elena, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 2544. Dogar Andreea Simona, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 2546. Enache Iulia Monica, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 2547. Lupaşcu Sergiu, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 2548. Palade Roxana, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 2549. Panfil Carmen Simona, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 2550. Popoveniuc Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 2551. Ţimiraş Ciprian Constantin, judge, Judecătoria Bacău 2552. Frentiu Gabriela Cristina judge, Tribunalul Bistriţa-Năsăud 2553. Berari Reghina-Ioana, judge, Tribunalul Bistriţa-Năsăud 2554. Blaga Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Faget. 2555. Jurj Laura Anisoara, judge, Judecătoria Faget 2556. Claudiu Eduard Corobană, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2557. Remus Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 2558. Anişoara Preda, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 2559. Iulian Crăciunescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 2560. Alin Poteraşu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 2561. Cristina Mastacan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 2
Bucureşti 2562. Georgescu Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2563. Buruiană Viţu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2564. Ţîrlea Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2565. Gherghe Răzvan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2566. Alexe Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2567. Staicu Bogdan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2568. Popovici Livia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2569. Niţă Ionuţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2570. Daj Andreia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2571. Neacşu Denisia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2572. Melnic Sorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti
86
2573. Anghel Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2574. Năstasie Ion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2575. Toader Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2576. Ionescu-Darian Claudiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2577. Papuc Ana Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2578. Alestar Violeta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2579. Răileanu Ruxandra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2580. Voiculescu Mădălina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2581. Gligan Ana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2582. Ghimici Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2583. Profira Cezar, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2584. Ureche Darius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2585. Sabău Amaryl, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2586. Mustaţă Olivera, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2587. Mocioacă Ileana Adina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2588. Dieac Ana Raluca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2589. Ionescu Ruxandra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2590. Florescu Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2591. Popoiu Codruţ Dumitru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2592. Anghel Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2593. Borjog Eduard, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2594. Paraschivescu Corina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2595. Berariu Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2596. Hondor Rodica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2597. Prescorniţă Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 2598. Galetan Lucia Augustina, judge, Judecătoria Caracal 2599. Grozavescu Ion, judge, Judecătoria Caracal 2600. Minodora Rusu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 2601. Monica Macovei, judge, judecătoria Braşov 2601. Michaela Loredana Teodorescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul
Gorj 2602. Conta Falvius Dacian, judge, Judecătoria Deva 2603. Conta Mihaela Aurelia, judge, Tribunalul Hunedoara 2604. Dumitrescu Adina, prosecutor, DIICOT Oradea 2605. Eugenia Amzu, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 2606. Scripcariu Lucia Roxana, judge, judecătoria Suceava 2607. Marius Menchiu, judge, Tribunalul Alba 2608. Raluca Focşa, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2609. Florin Bendea, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 2610. Raluca Szilagyi, judge, Judecătoria Beiuş 2611. Drîmbă Ionuţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vrancea 2612. Peicu Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vrancea 2613. Apostolescu Sandica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vrancea 2614. Dogaru Luminiţa Georgeta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul
Vrancea 2615. Dragovici Anca Dorina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Focşani 2616. Petrescu Ionut Auras, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Focşani 2617. Popescu Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Focşani 2618. Ungureanu Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2619. Constantin Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2620. Cioancă Ştefan Dan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2621. Banea Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2622. Bălţat Cetean Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba
87
2623. Dodoacă Nicolaie, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2624. Dragotă Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2625. Popescu Dan Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2626. Guş Octavia Raluca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2627. Gligor Lungan Cosmina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2628. Stroie Cosmin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2629. Cioca Stelian Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Alba 2630. Cherşa Ileana Florentina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba
Iulia 2631. Gavrilă Simona Claudia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba
Iulia 2632. Căbulea Adrian Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba Iulia 2633. Ene Dan Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba Iulia 2634. Roşiu Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba Iulia 2635. Puşcaş Mădălina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba Iulia 2636. Cristea Virgil, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Alba Iulia 2637. Chirilă Ionela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Aiud 2638. Oană Olivian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Aiud 2639. Crişan Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Aiud 2640. Gherman Valeria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Blaj 2641. Dordea Marcian Silviu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Blaj 2642. Simu Liliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Blaj 2643. Filip Răzvan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Cîmpeni 2644. Iancu Maria Angela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Blaj 2645. Suciu Ioan Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sebeş 2646. Samfir Sorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sebeş 2647. Andreias Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ilfov 2648. Dumitru Alexandru Florentin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ilfov 2649. Dunca Wilhelm Emanuel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ilfov 2650. Manea Teodor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2651. Derius Aurelia Laura, prosecutor, DNA 2652. Budaca Anca Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ilfov 2653. Adriana Anchidin, judge, Judecătoria Agnita 2654. Anca Cojocaru, judge, Judecătoria Agnita 2655. Marian Teodor Barbu, judge, Judecătoria Agnita 2656. George Crăciun, judge, Judecătoria Agnita 2657. Nicula Gabriela, judge, Tribunalul Buzău 2658. Ambrozie Silvia, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2659. Burlacu Robert, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2660. Fătu Luciana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2661. Garabet Loredana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2662. Iutiş Ana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2663. Păduraru Oana Petrina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2664. Tudose Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2665. Vasile Iustin Teodor, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2666. Sandu Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2667. Alecu Delia Roxana, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 2668. Cristina Pup, judge, Curtea de Apel Timişoara 2669. Daicu Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 2670. Silvana-Raluca Jianu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Câmpina 2671. Camelia Oancea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Câmpina 2672. Anca-Beatrice Resmeliţă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Câmpina
88
2673. Valentin Teodorescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Câmpina 2674. Monica Anghel, judge, Judecătoria Valenii de Munte 2675. Ramona Cordescu, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2676. Burcea Andreea Laura, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 2677. Radu Dan Alexandru, judge, Tribunalul Ilfov 2678. Ivan Daniela, judge, Tribunalul Ilfov 2679. Chionea Dana, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 2680. Ioana Onea, judge, Curtea de Apel Tg. Mureş 2681. Adriana Rodica Vidaeff, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 2682. Telescu Iuliana Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Vatra Dornei 2683. Iordachescu Elisabeta, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 2684. Padurariu Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 2685. Andra Arsănică, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2686. Banea Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sibiu 2687. Duca Maria Violeta, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2688. Mihaela Glodeanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2689. Romeo Glodeanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2690. Oana Scutelnicu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 2691. Baias Horaţiu, prosecutor, DNA 2692. Birceanu Titu, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 2693. Veselin Florin, judge, Judecătoria Bălceşti 2694. Robu Oana, judge, Judecătoria Bălceşti 2695. Deca Petre, judge, Judecătoria Bălceşti 2696. Căprărin Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Jiu 2697. Murgoci Luca Aurelian Marian, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 2698. Roxana Sterie, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 2699. Mazâlu Sebastian Ştefan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Ploiesti 2700. Popa Valerică, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Târgovişte 2701. Păduraru George Cristian, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 2702. Ulici Ioan, prosecutor, DNA -BT Baia Mare 2703. Păcurar Iulian, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Cluj 2704. Alina Camelia Olaru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2705. Joldes Liliana, judge, Tribunalul Bistriţa Nasaud 2706. Silviu Visan, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 2707. Moaca Mihaela Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buftea 2708. Panaitescu Alexandra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Buftea 2709. Babos Florin Eugen, judge, Judecătoria Jibou 2710. Laura Sporiş Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Jibou 2711. Petruşcă Gabriela Amalia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Buftea 2712. Acatrinei Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Gura Humorului 2713. Acatrinei Alexandra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Gura
Humorului 2714. Penteleev Victor, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 2715. Cozgarea Bogdan Ionuţ, judge, Tribunalul Mureş 2716. Zgripcea Mihai, prosecutor, DIICOT 2717. Petrisor Constantin Lupulescu, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 2718. Geanina Dogaru, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 2719. Roxana Romila, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 2720. Petru Fetescu, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 2721. Radu Hulea judge, Judecătoria Oradea
89
2722. Maria Verdes judge, Judecătoria Oradea 2723. Ovidiu Ciuma judge, Judecătoria Oradea 2724. Baniai Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2725. Bebeselea Adina Raluca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2726. Bechea Vlad, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2727. Dunareanu Monica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2728. Habean Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2729. Hutanu Ana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2730. Ianculescu Teodor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2731. Iordan Laurenţiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2732. Irimia Anca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2733. Rizea Emanuel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2734. Stratulat Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2735. Tegbo Cristiana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu 2736. Bodîrlău Aurica, judge, Judecătoria Olteniţa 2737. Alexandru Ionel, judge, Judecătoria Olteniţa 2738. Deloreanu Laurenţiu, judge, Judecătoria Olteniţa 2739. Grecu Ciprian – Octavian, judge, Judecătoria Olteniţa 2740. Antaloae Ovidiu, judge, Judecătoria Olteniţa 2741. Diana Solomon, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2742. Dorel Dicianu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2743. Cristian Bordeianu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2744. Manuela Stoicescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2745. Elena Chiţu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Măcin 2746. Magdalena Chirilă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 3
Bucureşti 2747. Gratiela Lăzureanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2748. Alina Vasilescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2749. Oana Blendea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2750. Corina Scaeteanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2751. Marius Chirilă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2752. Matei Dragomir, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2753. Zafer Sadac, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2754. Catalin Mihăilescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2755. Raluca Mihăilescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2756. Laura Belu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2757. Sfîca Irina Aglaia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2758. Stancioi Daniela-Ioana, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2759. Anca Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ilfov 2760. Ghihanis Alina, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 2761. Florian Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ilfov 2762. Ghihanis Neculai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Vrancea 2763. Marieta Marin, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 2764. Andreea Sandu judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 2765. Dan Stepanescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tulcea 2766. Marina Creţu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Tulcea 2767. Elena Simion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Tulcea 2768. Fănel Rusu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Tulcea 2769. Casian Mauna Ana-Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Tulcea 2770. Matei Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Orăştie 2771. Irina Calinescu, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 2772. Gil Grigore Iacobici, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2773. Mădălina Spita, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa
90
2774. Elena Neculaica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Constanţa 2775. Andrei Şelaru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 1
Bucureşti 2776. Izabela Ana-Maria Ion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului
3 Bucureşti 2777. Diana Gabriela Bosianu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Hirlău 2778. Stoica Monica, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 2779. Irina Mogoş, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Galaţi 2780. Liviu Alexandru Colceriu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Întorsura Buzăului 2781. Cosmina Mihaela Vieriu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Zărneşti 2782. Anghel Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Olteniţa 2783. Ţăran Daria Brăduţa, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 2784. Adrian Constantin Zaharia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Suceava 2785. Cristina Anei, judge, Tribunalul Vrancea 2786. Anica Ioan, judge, Curtea de Apel Galaţi 2787. Laura Gligor, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 2788. Vasile Sorinel, judge, Tribunalul Olt 2789. Rîmbu Mihaela Tereza, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2790. Albu Nadia Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2791. Barna Alina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2792. Braşoveanu Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2793. Gabriela Apostol, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 2794. Cojocaru Oana Irina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2795. Istrate Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2796. Marchiş Cătălin, judge, Tribunalul Mureş 2797. Mantu Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2798. Mitrică Lucian Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2799. Pamfil Laura Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2800. Pavel Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2801. Pavel Vlad, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2802. Pleşca Anişoara, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2803. Pricop Elena Madalina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2804. Isabela Zglimbea, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 2805. Ţapliuc Cristina Mariana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Iaşi 2806. Pusca Eugenia, judge, Tribunalul Buzău 2807. Petronela Negru, judecător la Judecătoria Braşov 2808. Viorel Voineag, judge, Tribunalul Vrancea 2809. Antonescu Marcel Romeo, judge, Tribunalul Harghita 2810. Delia Elena Holbocianu, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 2811. Iliescu Viorela, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2812. Gina Ignat, judge, Curtea de Apel Galaţi 2813. Anamaria Chichineşdi, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 2814. Camelia Iova, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 2815. Slate Aida Iolanda, judge, Judecătoria Medgidia 2816. Stănescu Isabela Alina, judge, Judecătoria Medgidia 2817. Marius-Andrei Moraru, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 2818. Cârstea Alina Viorica, judge, Judecătoria Luduş 2819. Rudareanu- Mihancea Laura, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 2820. Toma Adina, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 2821. Chiorean Mihai, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 2822. Talos Iulia, judge, Tribunalul Timiş
91
2823. Avramescu Oana, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 2824. Tatiana Marcu, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 2825. Luiza Olsen, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 2826. Leţ Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 2827. Iustina Magdalina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 2828. Ovidiu Tănasă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 2829. Anca Sandu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 2830. Oprescu Stefan- Radu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Racari 2831. Daniela Tiriteu, judge, Judecătoria Arad 2832. Vitoş Răzvan, judge, Tribunalul Tulcea 2833. Şurculescu Florin, judge, Tribunalul Tulcea 2834. Şurculescu Mădălina, judge, Tribunalul Tulcea 2835. Alina Mateescu, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 2836. Mihaela Ungureanu, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Argeş 2837. Mihaela Nistor, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 2838. Oana Elena Pelin, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 2839. Ghica Paula Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Suceava 2840. Ruxandra Suciu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 2841. Cîrjeu Cornelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Mehedinţi 2842. Rujoiu Cora Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Mehedinţi 2843. Bleoancă Ionel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Mehedinţi 2844. Dovlete Petre, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Mehedinţi 2845. Dogaru Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Mehedinţi 2846. Georgescu Sandra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Mehedinţi 2847. Ciocan Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Dr. Tr.
Severin 2848. Donea Silviu Nicolae, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Dr. Tr.
Severin 2849. Băilescu Florina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Dr. Tr. Severin 2850. Mustaţă Liviu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Dr. Tr. Severin 2851. Chiazna Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Dr. Tr. Severin 2852. Răduică Adi Lucian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Dr. Tr.
Severin 2853. Moleanu Livia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Dr. Tr. Severin 2854. Tomoescu Loredana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Vînju Mare 2855. Tatomir Doina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Vînju Mare 2856. Dima Camelia Antoanela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Baia
de Aramă 2857. Petcoiu Mihai Ion, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Vînju Mare 2858. Vela Ilie, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Orşova 2859. Berevoescu Carmen Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Mangalia 2860. Anton David Cristian, judge, Judecătoria Mangalia 2861. Toader Catalin Doru, judge, Judecătoria Mangalia 2862. Jalba Lucian, judge, Judecătoria Mangalia 2863. Iancu Steliana Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Mangalia 2864. Lazar Liliana Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Mangalia 2865. Popescu Luminita Teodora, judge, Judecătoria Mangalia 2866. Bădan Mihaela Florina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Balş 2867. Raicu Camelia Lidia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Balş 2868. Codrescu Ştefan Şerban, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Balş 2869. Pomană Florin, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 2870. Tertis Liliana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Bistriţa 2871. Călin Mihalaş, judge, Judecătoria Arad
92
2872. Gabriela Diaconu, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 2873. Adriana Dimitriu, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 2874. Miriţoiu Maria, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2875. Stoian Ionuţ-Alexandru, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2876. Duvalmă Simona, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2877. Munteanu Oana Octavia, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2878. Ducu Carmen, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2879. Danciu Monica, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2880. Dragomir-Galan Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2881. Eftene Florin, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2882. Ilie Elena, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2883. Chelcea Constantin, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2884. Soare Anastasia, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2885. Ştefan Florina Doina, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2886. Adrian Domniteanu, judge, Judecătoria Macin 2887. Monica Florentina Giol, judge, Judecătoria Macin 2888. Ciorba Adrian Ovidiu Simion, judge, Judecătoria Negreşti Oaş 2889. Mois Maria, judge, Judecătoria Negreşti Oaş 2890. Ene Solomciuc Florin Cristian, judge, Judecătoria Negreşti Oaş 2891. Maria Ristache, judge, Tribunalul Mureş 2892. Xenofonte Purcarea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Călăraşi 2893. Madalina Miu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Călăraşi 2894. Cornelia Manea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Călăraşi 2895. Monica Drumcea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Călăraşi 2896. Monica Nedelcu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Călăraşi 2897. Cristina Imireanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Călăraşi 2898. Daniel Ciuciur, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Călăraşi 2899. Angelica Petrache, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Călăraşi 2900. Dorel Cristian Albu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Călăraşi 2901. Nutu Doina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Călăraşi 2902. Cirneciu Liviu Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Braila 2903. Ionut Paunica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Călăraşi 2904. Luana Nicoletta Deloreanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Olteniţa 2905. Mioara Chiriacescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Olteniţa 2906. Mihai Laurentiu Vasilescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Oltenita 2907. Banescu Liliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Lehliu-Gara 2908. Adina Consuela Dumitrescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Lehliu-Gară 2909. Liviu Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Lehliu-Gara 2910. Daniela Delia Stoica, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 2911. Alina Roxana Timpea, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 2912. Muşat Viorica, judge, Tribunalul Ialomiţa 2913. Ivănică Mariana Raluca, judge, Tribunalul Ialomiţa 2914. Delia Cristina Grigore, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti 2915. Costasi Simona Minodora, judge, Judecătoria Carei 2916. Tenter Ioan Radu, judge, Judecătoria Carei 2917. Ciauşescu Florina Carmen, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 2918. Constantinescu Felicia, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 2919. Drăgan Diana, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 2920. Frunză Aurelia, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea 2921. Andrei Păun, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti
93
2922. Alina Mihaela Marinescu, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 2923. Cornelia Harega, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 2924. Elena Popescu, judge, Judecătoria Tg - Jiu 2925. Mihai Dogaru, judge, Judecătoria Tg - Jiu 2926. Stoian Emilia Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Tg – Jiu 2927. Mihaela Burca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 2928. Constantin Cerga, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Craiova 2929. Arabelea Gabriel Fănel, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2930. Buzatu Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2931. Cismaru Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2932. Chircuşi Catalin Nicolae, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2933. Constantin Luis, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2934. Dicu Mirela, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2935. Dumitrescu Paulică, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2936. Gheorghe Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2937. Iancu Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2938. Lixandru Ana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2939. Lixandru Dan, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2940. Nicolae Mariana, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2941. Oltean Camelia, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2942. Petcan Romeo Iulian, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2943. Stamatoiu Petronela, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2944. Vaduva Maria Valentina, judge, Judecătoria Slatina 2945. Cristea Grety, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2946. Gogescu Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2947. Erculescu Narcis, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2948. Ciocoiu Gheorghe, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2949. Zegheru Tamara, judge, Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 2950. Sandu Elena, judge, Tribunalul Vrancea 2951. Veronica Gavriş-Todinca, judge, Judecătoria Sighetu-Marmaţiei 2952. Tuinea Anca Valentina, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2953. Şalar Iulian, judge, Judecătoria Vatra Dornei 2954. Cătălin Chiochiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Suceava 2955. Ruxandra Andreea Georgescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Suceava 2956. Burduja Dana, prosecutor, DNA 2957. Loredana Cîrdei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Suceava 2958. Diana Călinescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Suceava 2959. Roxana Ciotu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Suceava 2960. Adriana Iacob, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Suceava 2961. Rusanda Cojocar, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Suceava 2962. Şerban Marian, judge, Judecătoria Băileşti 2963. Nazarie Mihaela, judge, Tribunalul Buzău 2964. Nicolae Adriana, judge, Tribunalul Buzău 2965. Cocor Nina Corina, judge, Tribunalul Buzău 2966. Şercaianu Maria, judge, Tribunalul Buzău 2967. Draghia Ana Elena, judge, Tribunalul Buzău 2968. Anca Mihaela Trofin, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 2969. Bratu Nicoleta – Monica, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2970. Stroe Eliza Magdalena, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 2971. Dana Puiu, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 2972. Costin Moldoveanu, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 2973. Rares Podar, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj
94
2974. Corina Siman, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 2975. Ioana Hodis, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 2976. Claudia Tomsa, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 2977. Stef Cristina, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 2978. Kende Monica, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 2979. Pop Adriana, judge, Tribunalul Sălaj 2980. Bezdadea Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 2981. Nicoleta Rotaru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 2982. Miroiu Floriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 2983. Ţurlui Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 2984. Robert Fleckhammer, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2985. Marius Crivăţ, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2986. Caimac Petrişor, judge, Judecătoria Băileşti 2987. Cristina Moraru, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2988. Cătălin Camburi, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2989. Florina Silvia Popa, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2990. Carp Marilena, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2991. Stoina Maria Camelia, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2992. Botezatu Vali Sonia, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2993. Kelemen Narcisa, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2994. Hălălău Cosmin, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2995. Albu Alina, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2996. Oprea Edi Ionuţ, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2997. Panaitatu Oana Ruxandra, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2998. Nicuţă Carmen Livia, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 2999. Cimpoeru Viviana Camelia, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3000. Delcea Marian, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3001. Sârbu Anne-Mary, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3002. Jagă Cristina Paula, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3003. Laura Rusu, judge, Tribunalul Alba 3004. Barzi Mihaela, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3005. Bartha Cristina, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3006. Cristea Dănuţ, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3007. Toma Carmen, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3008. Pâţu Oana, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3009. Alexandra Luminita Petrescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 3010. Cotoară Valentin, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3011. Niculescu Mihail, prosecutor, DIICOT Bacău 3012. Munteanu Mihaela, prosecutor, DIICOT Bacău 3013. Vartolomei Violanda Gabriela, prosecutor, DIICOT Bacău 3014. Majeri Adrian Ştefan, prosecutor, DIICOT Bacău 3015. Dogar Romică Arcadie, prosecutor, DIICOT Bacău 3016. Ciuche Lucian Marian, prosecutor, DIICOT Bacău 3017. Ionică Marius Petrişor, prosecutor, DIICOT Bacău 3018. Ursulescu Nicoleta, prosecutor, DIICOT Bacău 3019. Niţu Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Târgu-Jiu 3020. Stanciu Mihai Alexandru, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Constanţa 3021. Mihul Oana Larisa, judge, Judecătoria Paşcani 3022. Turcu Andrada Maria, judge, Judecătoria Bistriţa
95
3023. Neagu Nicoleta, prosecutor, DIICOT Călăraşi 3024. Burcea Mihaela, prosecutor, DIICOT Călăraşi 3025. Albu Constanţa Viorica, prosecutor, DIICOT Călăraşi 3026. Perjoiu Irina, prosecutor, DIICOT Vaslui 3027. Tunaru Dan Ciprian, prosecutor, DIICOT Vaslui 3028. Vasile Udroiu, prosecutor, DIICOT Gorj 3029. Prisăcaru Cătălin, prosecutor, DIICOT Iaşi 3030. Sirbu Aida Sorina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3031. Postica Viorel, prosecutor, DIICOT Iaşi 3032. Radu Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 3033. Dumitrescu Mihai, prosecutor, DIICOT Iaşi 3034. Popa Mihai, prosecutor, DIICOT Iaşi 3035. Zaharia Laura, prosecutor, DIICOT Iaşi 3036. Mangalagiu Alina, prosecutor, DIICOT Iaşi 3037. Laura Ceh, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3038. Enache Mihaela, prosecutor, DIICOT Bucureşti 3039. Dumitru Florin, judge, Tribunalul Braila 3040. Simona Constantinescu, prosecutor, DNA 3041. Roxana Dan, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3042. Sorin-Alexandru Vernea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 3043. Andreea Vernea, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 3044. Tamara Manea, prosecutor, Inspecţia Judiciară 3045. Diaconaru Ciprian, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3046. Diaconaru Iulia, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3047. Diaconescu Macarenco Speranţa, judge, Judecătoria Brăila 3048. Cecălăcean Manuela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Târgu-Mureş 3049. Gliga Rodica Maria, prosecutor, Parchetului de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Târgu-Mureş 3050. Mariş Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureş 3051. Dull Zoltan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureş 3052. Felicia Prodan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Corabia 3053. Lavinia Dorcu prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Corabia 3054. Căşuneanu Florin Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3055. Borş Mircea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3056. Chifan Vasile, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3057. Ispir Iulian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3058. Ispir Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3059. Pascaru Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3060. Alexandru Genoveva, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3061. Enculescu Veta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3062. Lazăr Diana Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3063. Călin Sorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3064. Zaharia Ştefania Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3065. Bocai Adina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3066. Carabulea Iulian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3067. Şandru Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Sibiu 3068. Sentes Ionel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bacău 3069. Gaisteanu Laura, judge, Judecătoria Targoviste 3070. Ordog Erika, judge, Judecătoria Sfântu Gheorghe 3071. Voinea Georgiana Cecilia, judge, Judecătoria Ploiesti 3072. Logigan Anca, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 3073. Oana Burnel, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti
96
3074. Sorin Vasilache, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3075. Mădălina Băncilă, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3076. Ramona Diaconu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3077. Andreea Corina Panaitescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Braşov 3078. Camelia Dumitrescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3079. Codruţa Chindea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3080. Ramona Muscalu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3081. Camelia Petrescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3082. Dragoş Darabană, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3083. Carmina Reit, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3084. Cristina Dobrescu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3085. Cosmin Andras, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Braşov 3086. Simona Cirnaru, judge, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 3087. Anca Alexandrescu, judge, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 3088. Sirbu George, judge, Judecătoria Cornetu 3089. Andronache Marius Constantin, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3090. Curuia Cristina Iuliana, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3091. David Gianina Viorica, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3092. Mihailescu Cerasela Violeta, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3093. Golgotiu Maria, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3094. Petroi Ionela Roxana, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3095. Grigore Elena Oana, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3096. Purdescu Luisa Mihaela, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3097. Ionescu Elena Georgiana, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3098. Itul Carmen Ribana, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3099. Ponyiczky Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Petroşani 3100. Pandrea Monica Garofiţa, judge, Judecătoria Făgăraş 3101. Marin Anca Cristina, judge, Judecătoria Făgăraş 3102. Timofte Mihaela Mariana, judge, Judecătoria Făgăraş 3103. Dejenariu Adinela, judge, Judecătoria Făgăraş 3104. Boeriu Mircea, judge, Judecătoria Făgăraş 3105. Boeriu Georgeta, judge, Judecătoria Făgăraş 3106. Boghiu Dumitru, judge, Judecătoria Făgăraş 3107. Debu Livia, judge, Judecătoria Făgăraş 3108. Iepure Camelia Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe langă Tribunalul Buzău 3109. Vâjiac Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe langă Tribunalul Buzău 3110. Macovei Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe langă Tribunalul Buzău 3111. Dumitrache Mariana Aurelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe langă Tribunalul
Buzău 3112. Tudorache Stroe Corina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe langă Tribunalul Buzău 3113. Mehedinţu Victoria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe langă Tribunalul Buzău 3114. Mocanu Iulian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe langă Tribunalul Buzău 3115. Bucur Mihaela Iuliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe langă Tribunalul Buzău 3116. Ion Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe langă Tribunalul Buzău 3117. Radu Florin Cătălin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe langă Tribunalul Buzău 3118. Damaschin Eniko, judge, Judecătoria Cornetu 3119. Carmen Bârsan, judge, Judecătoria Sibiu 3120. Patrasc Balan Mihai Cristinel, judge, Judecătoria Buhuşi 3121. Negrii Luminiţa Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Buhuşi 3122. Nastasoiu Nelu, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 3123. Georgeana Viorel, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3124. Ioana Popa, judge, Judecătoria Oradea
97
3125. Ielciu Viorica, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 3126. Pavel Maria, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 3127. Nicoleta Căpitănescu, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 3128. Andreea Diaconu, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 3129. Codruta Strîmb, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3130. Enciu Marcel Gabriel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3131. Luparu Virgil, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3132. Buzea Monica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3133. Chivu Cleopatra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3134. Gîlcă Ionel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3135. Racoviţă Silvia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3136. Codiţă Costel Maricel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3137. Enciu Daniela Iuliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3138. Predescu Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3139. Luparu Carmen, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3140. Couţi Crinel, procuror Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Maramureş 3141. Irina Damian, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3142. Liliana Marc, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3143. Monica Nicoară, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3144. Diana Roşu, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3145. Ramona Rus, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3146. Ioana Rusu, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3147. Petrica Gherghesanu, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3148. StefanTarlion, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3149. Oana Maria Zaharia-Lefter, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3150. Iulian Danila, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3151. Stefan Popa, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3152. Oana Ignat, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3153. Oana Damian, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3154. Lorena Tarlion, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3155. Chitic Ionela, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3156. Constantin Casuneanu, judge, Tribunalul Iaşi 3157. Vlad Ciofu, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 3158. Ladan Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oneşti 3159. Antohi Marian Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oneşti 3160. Axente Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oneşti 3161. Paris Lidia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oneşti 3162. Neagu Silviu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oneşti 3163. Valcu Marian Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Oneşti 3164. Mihai Elena Robertina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3165. Valentin Preoteasa, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti 3166. Maierean Ana, judge, Curtea de apel Suceava 3167. Liana Armbruster, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti 3168. Mihaiela Olaru, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti 3169. Daniela Pop, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti 3170. Mihai Valentin, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti 3171. Stefan Balaban, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti 3172. Mihai Oprea Ionela, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti 3173. Carmen Valimareanu, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Piteşti 3174. Florenta Alex, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Timişoara 3175. Andres Mircea Ioan, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Timişoara 3176. Martinov Carmen, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Timişoara 3177. Marti Denise Diana, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Timişoara
98
3178. Mocan Loredana Felicia, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Timişoara 3179. Petcu Angelica, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Timişoara 3180. Sandu Antonio, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Timişoara 3181. Sandor Mihai, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Timişoara 3182. Zaharia Marinela, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Timişoara 3183. Stamatin Adrian, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Caras Severin 3184. Vrinceanu Carmen, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Caras Severin 3185. Miron Codrin Horatiu, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Arad 3186. Hosu Calin George, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Arad 3187. Diaconescu Bogdan, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Arad 3188. Neatu Viorica Ştefania, judge, Judecătoria Strehaia 3189. Grecu Dorin Lucian, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 3190. Stoiculescu Natalia, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 3191. Rotaru Doriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Gorj 3192. Filip Virgiliu Cezar, judge, Tribunalul Ilfov 3193. Bâldea Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Iaşi 3194. Ioana Ţărmure, judge, Curtea de Apel Braşov 3195. Oana Maria Boureanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Braşov 3196. Cristinel Ghigheci, judge, Curtea de Apel Braşov 3197. Enache Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Bârlad 3198. Ion Rebeca, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 3199. Cocor Magdalena, judge, Tribunalul Arad 3200. Cristiana Dana Enache, judge, Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 3201. Chirita Dorian, judge, Judecătoria Calafat 3202. Ovidiu Pralea, judge, Curtea de Apel Bacău 3203. Craciun Crenguta, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 3204. Monika Kegyes, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 3205. Ticofschi Liviu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Tulcea 3206. Drăgan Ionelia, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3207. Negoescu-Gândac Mihai, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3208. Grozescu Aurelia Mihaela, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3209. Manea Iulia Lăcrămioara, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3210. Rădulescu Mădălina Gabriela, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3211. Popa Elena Aneta, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3212. Stegaru Georgeta, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3213. Trămîndan Crina Bianca, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3214. Păun Eugen, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 3215. Bobin Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 3216. Vraciu Aurelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 3217. Căruţaşu Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 3218. Dumitrache Adrian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 3219. Muşuroi Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 3220. Dobre Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 3221. Amarandi Paula, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 4
Bucureşti 3222. Vasi Ana-Maria, judge, Tribunalul Buzău
99
3223. Raluca Lupu, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 3224. Răzvan-Ionuţ Pricop, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 3225. Liliana Dutu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3226. George Vioreanu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3227. Nermin Apzait, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 3228. Ivanciuc Sorin, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 3229. Matei Oana Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 3230. Anca Gabriela Marincean, prosecutor, DNA St Cluj 3231. Cireap Anemaria Ruxandra, prosecutor, DNA St Cluj 3232. Ciumarnean Isaia Daniel, prosecutor, DNA St Cluj 3233. Ionut Vasile, prosecutor, DNA St Cluj 3234. Boca Luminita, prosecutor, DNA St Cluj 3235. Titu Meda Adriana, prosecutor, DNA St Cluj 3236. Iancu Gabriela, prosecutor, DNA St Cluj 3237. Carmen Ciolpan, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3238. Diana Cibotaru, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3239. Tanasoiu Oana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3240. Strat Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3241. Corina Popa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3242. George Livadariu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3243. Mihaela Mirt, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 3244. Ticau Daniel, prosecutor, DIICOT - Structura Centrală 3245. Porime Mihaela, prosecutor, DIICOT - Structura Centrală 3246. Cornea Geanina, prosecutor, DIICOT - Structura Centrală 3247. Bunduc Marian Catalin, prosecutor, DIICOT - Structura Centrală 3248. Dinescu Adrian, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 3249. Andone Alina Madalina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 1 Bucureşti 3250. Bortnaru Ionuţ, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 3251. Gârbea Gheorghe, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 3252. Costache Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 3253. Ilioiu Maria Florentina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Ploieşti 3254. Curte Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 3255. Lefter Cătălin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 3256. Armăşelu Roxana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 3257. Iordache Mona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 3258. Pipoi Ionescu Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Ploieşti 3259. Andrei Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 3260. Mina Andreea Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Ploieşti 3261. Ghiţă Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sinaia 3262. Condei Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sinaia 3263. Cismaşu Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sinaia 3264. Dincă Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 3265. Tudose Maria Cătălina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 3266. Stanciu Claudiu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 3267. Matei Camelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 3268. Radu Cosmin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dâmboviţa
100
3269. Tudose Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 3270. Szabo Violeta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 3271. Mincă Laura, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Dâmboviţa 3272. Oprea Viorel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Târgovişte 3273. Mirică Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Târgovişte 3274. Grigore Alina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Târgovişte 3275. Bosanciuc Paul, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Târgovişte 3276. Filip Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Pătârlagele 3277. Matei Stelica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Pătârlagele 3278. Bodoc Georgel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Pogoanele 3279. Ionici Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Pogoanele 3280. Alexandru Oana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Prahova 3281. Dobre Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Prahova 3282. Trandafir Florina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Prahova 3283. Răducan Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Prahova 3284. Iosifescu Otilia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Prahova 3285. Marinciu Irina Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Prahova 3286. Enăşescu Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Prahova 3287. Dascălu Cristiana Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul
Prahova 3288. Hărăboiu Florian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Prahova 3289. Vasile Ancuţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Prahova 3290. Paraschiv Dragoş Alecsandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul
Prahova 3291. Stanca Valerian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Mizil 3292. Burlacu Mircea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Mizil 3293. Prajea Paul, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Vălenii de Munte 3294. Drăgan Mioara Raluca, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Vălenii
de Munte 3295. Bănică Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3296. Oprescu Alexandra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3297. Bunea Cătălin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3298. Iosifescu Magdalena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3299. Niţă Manole Simona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3300. Niţă Cosmin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3301. Sigmud Nicoleta, judge, JS2 3302. Topală Bogdan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3303. Iorga Mihai Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3304. Mihoc Iuliana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3305. Apostu Ioan Bogdan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3306. Chivu Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3307. Chiţu Georgiana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3308. Vijloi Diana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3309. Soltan Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3310. Buliga Andrei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3311. Comardici Irina Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Ploieşti 3312. Dima Marian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ialomiţa 3313. Coman Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ialomiţa 3314. Jigă Toma Leonard, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ialomiţa 3315. Istrate Cristina Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ialomiţa 3316. Drăgan Adriana Ligia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Ialomiţa 3317. Dinu Viorica Cleopatra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Slobozia 3318. Tănase Florian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Slobozia
101
3319. Bányai Enikő, judge, Tribunalul Harghita 3320. Ene Mariana, judge, Tribunalul Ilfov 3321. Cornea Adina, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3322. Ioana Bradateanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Iaşi 3323. Ana-Maria Manole, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3324. Corina Haş, judge, Tribunalul Arad 3325. Brindusa Niminet, judge, Tribunalul Bacau 3326. Laura Vizitiu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3327. Curtman Nicoleta, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3328. Nicolae-Alexandru Ceslea, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3330. Maria Nicola, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 3331. Stănilă Dan Verginica, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 3332. Dumitrescu Florin, prosecutor, DNA 3333. Flavia Florenţa, judge, Curtea de Apel Timişoara 3334. Florentina Stana, judge, Tribunalul Olt 3335. Văcaru Gabi, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu 3336. Florela Nistor, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3337. Angelica Paraschivescu, prosecutor, DNA - Serviciul Teritorial Piteşti 3338. Grozav Adriana Maria, judge, Tribunalul Alba 3339. Diana Neagoe, judge, Judecătoria Bacau 3340. Ioniţa Irina, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3341. Băisan Iuliana, judge, Tribunalul Bacău 3342. Marius Peter, judge, Judecătoria Năsăud 3344. Velicovici Alis, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 3345. Dudu Florica, judge, Judecătoria Craiova 3346. Flucus Anamaria Georgiana, judge, Judecătoria sectorului 2 Bucureşti 3347. Dumitrache Costela, judge, Judecătoria Lieşti 3348. Barbu Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Mureş 3349. Mihaela Iuliana Savu, judge, Tribunalul Olt 3350. Ileana Popa, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3351. Beraru Gina, judge, Judecătoria Bârlad 3352. Mariana Făgărăşan, judge, Tribunalul Mureş 3353. Marius Galan, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 3354. Serban Rareş, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 3355. Barbu Angela, prosecutor, DIICOT Tg Mureş 3356. Mihaela Gabriela Moşteanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Reşiţa 3357. Preda Raluca Elena, judge, Judecătoria Târgu Jiu 3358. Adina Oana, judge, Judecătoria Arad 3359. Ana Axenti, judge, Judecătoria Caransebeş 3360. Şandu Ioan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă ICCJ 3361. Oana Hîncu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Galaţi 3362. Rareş Flaviu Mărieş, judge, Judecătoria Reşiţa 3363. Ramona Ioana Poenaru, judge, Judecătoria Brad 3364. Nedelcu Liviu-Petronel, judge, Judecătoria Călăraşi 3365. Mortu Ionut Alexandru, prosecutor, DNA 3366. Laslea Petruta Diana, judge, Judecătoria Bistriţa 3367. Nicolae George Octavian, judge, Judecătoria Cornetu 3368. Adina Dumitrache, judge, Curtea de Apel Braşov 3369. Nicoleta Bulieris, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3370. Călina Crişan, judge, Judecătoria Cluj Napoca 3371. Lucretia Albertina Postelnicu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3372. Florin Dima, judge, Curtea de Apel Tg. Mureş
102
3373. Balogh Teodora Carmen, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 3374. Dobrescu Olivia Dariana, judge, Judecătoria sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3375. Şogor Lenuta, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 3376. Costea Monica, judge, Curtea de Apel Constanţa 3377. Constantina Ionescu, judge, Judecătoria Piatra Neamţ 3378. Stanciu Mădălin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Băileşti 3379. Antonie Valentin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Băileşti 3380. Baltag Andreea-Georgiana, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 3381. Sicu-Badea Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 3382. Bojin Ionela-Claudia, judge, Judecătoria Constanţa 3383. Vlad Cristian Mircea, judge, Judecătoria sectorului 2 Bucureşti 3384. Nicolae Liposchi, judge, Judecătoria Brad 3385. Miu Lavinia, judge, Judecătoria Câmpina 3386. Şerbănescu Alina Marilena, judge, Judecătoria Câmpina 3387. Mihăiescu Jaclz, judge, Judecătoria Câmpina 3388. Stănescu Elena, judge, Judecătoria Câmpina 3389. Cristina Radu, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 3390. Chichisan Augusta Maria, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 3391. Saracut Mihaela, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 3392. Soare Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Balş 3393. Laura Smarandi, judecător Tribunalul Constanţa 3394. Cristina Belecciu, judecător Tribunalul Constanţa 3395. Nicoleta Mirică, judecător Tribunalul Constanţa 3396. Marius Efrim, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Filiaşi 3397. Delia Călin, judge, Judecătoria Cornetu 3398. Oprea Cantemir Ştefănel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Novac 3399. Dragă Laurenţiu Costinel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Motru. 3400. Costescu Stica Constantin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Motru. 3401. Lădaru Emil-Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Motru. 3402. Constantinescu Laurenţiu George, prosecutor, P.J. Motru 3403. Călin Adrian Cristian, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3404. Gheorghe Bîrdău, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 3405. Topalea Kalinca, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 3406. Denisa Bic, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 3407. Alexandru Bogdandi, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 3408. Vlad Marian, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 3409. Dan Chis, judge, Judecătoria Zalău 3410. Mocanu Mihai, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 3411. Stuparu Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 3412. Reincke Carmen Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul
Bucureşti 3413. Tănase Mirela Daniela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 3415. Ţurlea Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 3416. Voicu Florin Cezar, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 3417. Georgescu Cerasela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului
5 Bucureşti 3418. Balaci Aurelia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5
Bucureşti 3419. Oancea Nicoleta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5
Bucureşti 3420. Puntaru Dan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5
Bucureşti
103
3421. Dumitrescu Augustin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti
3422. Pencu Radu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti
3423. Ţilimpea Irina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti
3424. Cojoacă Florin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti
3425. Ceauş Andreea, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti
3426. Bălănescu Corina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti
3427. Pulbere Valentin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti
3428. Arghir Alexandru, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 3429. Răducanu Andreea, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3430. Chiriac Daniel, judge, Judecătoria Hârlău 3431. Pristavu Codrin Mirel, judge, Judecătoria Hârlău 3432. Rusu Oana, judge, Judecătoria Hârlău 3433. Solomon Camelia Maria, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3434. Diana Anca, judge, Judecătoria Alesd 3435. Semida Popa, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3436. Radu Costel Popa, prosecutor, PJ Filiasi 3437. Gigi Nistor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Filiaşi 3438. Elena Haţegan, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Filiaşi 3439. Bianca Dinu, judge, Judecătoria Valenii de Munte 3440. Ruxandra Maria Ionescu, judge, Tribunalulul Specializat Argeş 3441. Budulan Roxana Tasica, judge, Curtea de Apel Timişoara. 3442. Dan seniciu, prosecutor, DIICOT Tg. Mureş 3443. Cristina radu, prosecutor, DIICOT Tg. Mureş 3444. Braic Florin, prosecutor, DIICOT Harghita 3445. Boariu Mirela, prosecutor, DIICOT Harghita 3446. Cîmpian Liliana Carmen, prosecutor, DIICOT Tg. Mureş 3447. Cozmei Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Iaşi 3448. Dragomir Alexandru, prosecutor, DIICOT Olt 3449. Fodor Ioana, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 3450. Jica Antonela, judge, Judecătoria Valenii de Munte 3451. Trache Nicolae Petre, judge, Tribunalul Prahova 3452. Leas Alin, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 3453. Chivu Anca Teodora, judge, Judecătoria Medgidia 3454. Patricia Pop, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 3455. Secară Mariana, judge, Judecătoria Oradea 3456. Hariton Daniela Loredana, judge, Judecătoria Gura Humorului 3457. Ungureanu Cristian, judge, Judecătoria Gura Humorului 3458. Dordea Alexandra, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 5
Bucureşti 3459. Popa Monica, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3460. Giorgescu Ovidiu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3461. Mirabela Magda Diaconeasa, judge, Judecătoria Horezu 3462. Zaharia George - Cristinel, judge, Judecătoria Dr. Tr. Severin 3463. Belu Amalia, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 3464. Berculescu Luminia, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 3465. Cîrstescu Damian, judge, Tribunalul Gorj
104
3466. Fărcăşanu Cristin, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 3467. Semenescu Octavian, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 3468. Stănulescu Ion, judge, Tribunalul Gorj 3469. Delia Theohari, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3470. Andrea A. Chis, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj, membru CSM 3471. Silvia Georgiana Ignat, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3472. Todoran Adrian Petre, prosecutor, DIICOT S. centrala 3473. Ignat Marian, judge, Judecătoria Balş 3474. Leonte Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Balş 3475. Bălan Aurora Loredana, judge, Judecătoria Balş 3476. Păun Livi Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Balş 3477. Redai Zoltan, judge, Judecătoria Odorheiu Secuiesc 3478. Ilyes Ibolya, judge, Judecătoria Odorheiu Secuiesc 3479. Mălăieşiu Gabriela Ramona, judge, Judecătoria Odorheiu Secuiesc 3480. Slavulete Anda Ramona, judge, Judecătoria Strehaia 3481. Diana Elena Gavrila, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 3482. Deaconu Dascalu Diana Nicoleta, judge, Judecătoria Horezu 3483. Tenea Irina Maria, judge, Judecătoria Horezu 3484. Doseanu Loredana Steliana, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 3485. Mociran Florina Carmen, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 3486. Bulz Lucretia Julieta, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 3487. Lascu Alexandru Liviu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Militar Cluj 3488. Betea Florin Dorin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Negreşti-Oaş 3489. Dogeanu Cristi Marius, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Negreşti-Oaş 3490. Birta Gabriela Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Beiuş 3491. Bodin Alina Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Beius 3492. Popescu Clara Maria, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 3493. Lecca Florica Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 4 Bucureşti 3494. Mihaela Avram, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 3495. Ana Maria Dumbrava, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 3496. Corina Gabriela Iancu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 3497. George Marian Tomescu, judge, Judecătoria Piteşti 3498. Claudiu Zbona, judge, Tribunalul Satu Mare 3499. Stance Maria, judge, Tribunalul Bihor 3500. Popescu Mădălin, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 3501. Ionescu Ramona, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 3502. Galu Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 3503. Diana Cotoi, judge, Tribunalul Olt 3504. Otilia Chiriţă, judge, Tribunalul Olt 3505. Dănuţ Volintiru, prosecutor, DNA 3506. Ionica Ninu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3507. Hotca Crina-Corina, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 3508. Crina Letea, judge, Tribunalul Prahova 3509. Mitroi Alina, judge, Tribunalul Prahova 3510. Vasile Alexandru, judge, Tribunalul Prahova 3511. Stefuc Liliana, judge, Tribunalul Prahova 3512. Moisescu Constanţa, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3513. Cristina Chelaru, judge, Judecătoria Ploieşti 3514. Oprea Marin, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 3515. Anghel Cristian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3516. Dinescu Florina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3517. Staicu Marilena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti
105
3518. Bucur Liana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3519. Duros Delia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sectorului 6 3520. Nan Florica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 3521. Dogaru Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Teleorman 3522. Curea Laura, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Bucureşti 3523. Daranga Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Tribunalul Giurgiu 3524. Lari Maricica, judge, Judecătoria Bistriţa 3525. Păncescu Iulian, prosecutor, DNA 3526. Grapini Carmen, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 3527. Nastasi Dorina, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 3528. Eşanu Lilica, judge, Judecătoria Mizil 3529. Postelnicu Ion, judge, Judecătoria Mizil 3530. Lazăr Elena Simona, judge, Curtea de Apel Ploieşti 3531. Raluca Elena Simonescu Diaconu, judge, Curtea de Apel Piteşti 3532. Ionut Ciprian Spiridon, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Craiova 3533. Vasilescu Liviu, prosecutor, DIICOT ST Craiova 3534. Petrosel Nicolae, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Buzău 3535. Dragomir Laura Elena, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Buzău 3536. Radulescu Dorin Paul, prosecutor, DIICOT BT Buzău 3537. Soare Daniela, judge, Judecătoria Caracal 3538. Buzatu Victoria, judge, Judecătoria Caracal 3539. Gavra Codrin, prosecutor, DNA ST Timişoara 3540. Ana Covrig, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 3541. Defta Doina, judge, Judecătoria Caracal 3542. Gabriela Vintanu, judge, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti 3543. Dumitru Daniel Argeşeanu, judge, Tribunalul Argeş 3544. Valentin Chitidean, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 3545. Monica Sortan, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 3546. Staiculescu Costinel, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Argeş 3547. Al Hajjar Simona Mihaela, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 3548. Mirela Agota Budiu, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 3549. Adriana Magda Andonie, judge, Curtea de Apel Târgu Mureş 3550. Grapini Florina Flavia, judge, Tribunalul Suceava 3551. Simona Neniţă, judge, Inalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 3552. Cristina Nicoleta Iachim, judge, Judecătoria sectorului 1 Bucureşti 3553. Adriana Lepădatu, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 3554. Camelia Ciucă, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 3555. Monica Tănase, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 3556. Luminita Firicel, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 3557. Emanuela Dieac, judge, Judecătoria Suceava 3558. Anca Alioara Zăgan, judge, Judecătoria Suceava 3559. Anca Ciolac, judge, Judecătoria Suceava 3560. Andreea Iuliana Litean, judge, Judecătoria Suceava 3561. Iuliana Garabet, judge, Judecătoria Suceava 3562. Rodica Turcu, judge, Judecătoria Suceava 3563. Dumitrescu Augustin-Victor, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
sector 5 Bucureşti 3564. Popescu Cătălina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sector 5
Bucureşti 3565. Catuna Daniela, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 3566. Nicolae Stamate Tămăşan, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 3567. Alexandra Constantinescu, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3568. Diaconescu Monica, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj
106
3569. Apetroae Bogdan, prosecutor, DIICOT, Serviciul Teritorial Suceava 3570. Cojocaru Carmen Aurora, prosecutor, DIICOT, Serviciul Teritorial Suceava 3571. Cimpanu Georgel Lucian, prosecutor, DIICOT, Serviciul Teritorial Suceava 3572. Leontica Paul Teodor, prosecutor, DIICOT, Serviciul Teritorial Suceava 3573. Stavarache Oana, prosecutor, DIICOT, Serviciul Teritorial Suceava 3574. Holoca Lacrimioara, prosecutor, DIICOT, Biroul Teritorial Botoşani 3575. Porumb Vasile Viorel, prosecutor, DIICOT, Biroul Teritorial Botoşani 3576. Anamaria Hambetiu, judge, Judecătoria Luduş 3577. Alina Carstea, judge, Judecătoria Luduş 3578. Florin Mangu, judge, Judecătoria Luduş 3579. Hau Andreea, judge, Judecătoria Timişoara 3580. Madalina Birlog, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3581. Marian Lilea, judge, Judecătoria Răcari 3582. Raluca Simion, judge, Judecătoria Răcari 3583. Raluca Radulescu, judge, Judecătoria Răcari 3584. Andreea Alina Danciu, judge, Judecătoria Drobeta-Turnu Severin 3585. Stelian Ioan Vidu, judge, Tribunalul Timiş 3586. Curelea Stela-Lavinia, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 3587. Mitroi Mihaela-Lorena, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 3588. Munteanu Ofelia, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 3589. Nistor Cătălina-Georgeta, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 3590. Pena Lelioara, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 3591. Stamatescu Elena-Adriana, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 3592. Popovici Mădălina, magistrat asistent, Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie 3593. Daniela Matei, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi
Justiţie 3594. Lucian Mihai Zanfir, judge, Curtea de Apel Craiova 3595. Socol Silviu-Daniel, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 3596. Marinela Vlad, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 3597. Marilena Mihai, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 3598. Daniela Grigorascu, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 3599. Şapcă Ionela Gabriela, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 3600. Diana Cristina Beldianu, judge, Inspecţia Judiciară - Direcţia de Inspecţie
pentru Judecători 3601. Florian Ciorgoda, judge, Judecătoria Sectorului 2 Bucureşti 3602. Arabela Dregan, judge, Judecătoria Jibou 3603. Ulici Loredana Gabriela, judge, Judecătoria Sighetu Marmaţiei 3604. Ardelean Mihaela Liana, judge, Judecătoria Sighetu Marmaţiei 3605. Raluca Nechifor, judge, Tribunalul Galaţi 3606. Luminiţa Ştefania Buzatu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
Orşova 3607. Buzatu Remus, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Drobeta Tr.
Severin 3608. Diana Rusu, judge, Tribunalul Braşov 3609. Simona Negulescu, judge, Tribunalul Braşov 3610. Mihaela Dumitru, judge, Tribunalul Braşov 3611. Codruţa Mitrofan, judge, Judecătoria Sebeş 3612. Simona Răzăilă, judge, Judecătoria Sebeş 3613. Coşovanu Mihai, judge, Judecătoria Rădăuţi 3614. Daniel Turtureanu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Răducăneni 3615. Ancuta Pavelescu, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Cluj 3616. Nicoleta Kosa, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Cluj 3617. Claudiu Gligan, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Cluj
107
3618. Flavius Iancu Motu, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Cluj 3619. Rares Razvan Costea, judge, Tribunalul Specializat Cluj 3620. Paula Victorita Pacurar, judge, Tribunalul Cluj 3621. Maceseanu Constantin Cristinel, judge, Judecătoria Caracal 3622. Maier Ioana Marinela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Târgu-Mureş 3623. Curcă Elena, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureş 3624. Ghiţu Gabriela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureş 3625. Niculae Rita Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel
Târgu-Mureş 3626. Mihaela Andreea Chiruta, judge, Tribunalul Neamt 3627. Roxana Cojocaru, judge, Judecătoria Paşcani 3628. Cătălina Sîntion, prim prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului
3 Bucureşti 3629. Tomescu Remus Emilian, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3630. Ene Silviu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3631. Scorneică Iuliana Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3632. Sache Adriana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3633. Macovei Valentin, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3634. Spirea Gabriela Antigona, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3635. Nătăvală Corneliu Iuliu, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3636. Diaconu Corina Mihaela, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3637. Arvinte Ramona Danusia, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria
sectorului 3 Bucureşti 3638. Dulce Alexandru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3639. Popescu Daniel, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3640. Grosaru Cristina, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3641. Pătulea Ioana, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3642. Mustăreaţă Petruţa, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3643. Irimia Elisabeta, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3644. Munteanu Maria, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3645. Caliţescu Verginica, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3646. Dobre Dumitru, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria sectorului 3
Bucureşti 3647. Ioniţă Veronica, judge, Judecătoria Tulcea 3648. Stoian Izabela, judge, Judecătoria Tulcea 3649. Stan Camelia, judge, Judecătoria Tulcea
108
3650. Iconaru Corina-Gabriela, judge, Tribunalul Brăila 3651. Moldovan Nicoleta Laura, judge, Judecătoria Bistriţa 3652. Ecaterina Florea, judecator, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3653. Sandu Marcel, procuror DNA 3654. Bogdan Dobritoiu, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 3655. Sergiu Cosoreanu, judge, Judecătoria Braşov 3656. Ioan Daniel Chis, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 3657. Gurlui Claudiu Marius, judge, Judecătoria Beclean 3658. Vlad Mihaela Luminiţa, judge, Judecătoria Beclean 3659. Cupşa Kiseleff Lelia, judge, Judecătoria Beclean 3660. Dragota Cristina Mariana, judge, Judecătoria Baia Mare 3661. Georgescu Paula, prosecutor, PJS 6 3662. Cristea Alexandra, prosecutor, PJS 5 3663. Gociu Marian, judge, judecătoria Cornetu 3664. Irina Victoria Serbanut, judge, Judecătoria Focşani 3665. Cristian Tomoiu, prosecutor, DIICOT Hunedoara 3666. Szatmari Ilona, judge, Curtea de Apel Tg-Mureş 3667. Florea Radu Mihai, judge, Judecătoria Segarcea 3668. Maria Georgeta Ruba, judge, Tribunalul Satu Mare 3669. Alina Pătru, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 3670. Popa Viorica, judge, Tribunalul Dolj 3671. Alexandru Bleoancă, judge, Curtea de Apel Galaţi 3672. Bogdan Mateescu, judge, Judecătoria Rm. Vâlcea, membru CSM 3673. Matei Cătălin, judge, Judecătoria Tulcea 3674. Găvan Liliana, judge, Judecătoria Tulcea 3675. Bolbos Ibolya Szende, judge, Tribunalul Bistriţa Năsăud 3676. Simona Visoiu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3677. Calin Silviana Camelia, judge, Judecătoria Călăraşi 3678. Pavel Vrabete, prosecutor, Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sânnicolau Mare 3679. Mihaila Adriana, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 3680. Popescu Laura, judge, Judecătoria Buzău 3681. Ionescu Ana, judge, Curtea de Apel Cluj 3682. Filimon Florin, judge, Curtea de Apel Oradea 3683. Daniela Sandu, judge, Tribunalul Neamţ 3684. Barbu Daniela, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 3685. Czika Daniela, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 3686. Hancăş Mirela, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 3687. Dejugan Maria, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 3688. Olariu Liliana, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 3689. Şomandră Dumitru, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 3690. Trifan Radu, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 3691. Verza Ilie, judge, Tribunalul Sibiu 3692. Mustafa Reyhan, prosecutor, PICCJ 3693. Laura Pleşa, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3694. Stamate-Tamasan Alina-Ana, judge, Tribunalul Maramureş 3695. Elena Popa, judge, Judecătoria Galaţi 3696. Morcov Cristiana, judge, Judecătoria Buftea 3697. Mitrea Daniela, judge, Curtea de Apel Suceava 3698. Damian Oana, judge, Tribunalul Constanţa 3699. Alexandru Popescu, judge, Tribunalul Bucureşti 3700. Veronica Făget, judge, Judecătoria sectorului 4 Bucureşti 3701. Ionela Bălan, prosecutor, DNA - Structura centrală
109
LIST OF JUSTICE TRAINEES (NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MAGISTRACY) THAT SUPPORT THE MEMORANDUM
1. Neagoe Ana Petruţa 2. Mariş Mădălina Maria 3. Ciornei Dan-Constantin 4. Jakab Timea 5. Tremura Mirel-Cristian 6. Pop Florina Maria 7. Boteanu Teona Gabriela 8. Ursuţ Cristian 9. Iordache Alina-Oana 10. Iacob Laura-Mădălina 11. Grajdeanu Constantin 12. Manolache Ana-Maria 13. Constantin Alina-Nicoleta 14. Pop Paula-Crina 15. Farcas Carmen - Mihaela 16. Răchită Ioana-Ruxandr 17. Dediu Călin 18. Avrămescu Otilia-Marinela 19. Enea Alina-Daniela 20. Ţigler Larisa-Ioana 21. Stamatescu Alexandru-Andrei 22. Dănilă Sanda-Cristina 23. Ciocoiu Georgiana-Mihaela 24. Tarnovschi Alexandra-Karina 25. Moroşan Maria-Magdalena 26. Costea Diana 27. Racoviţa Ecaterina 28. Bodor-Ionescu Tiberiu 29. Pascu Diana Roxana 30. Bene Ioan 31. Mihalcescu Elena Claudia 32. Dinu Mihai - Adrian 33. Avram Anda-Elena 34. Motea Flavius-Catalin 35. Grosu Ana-Maria 36. Vrabete Adrian 37. Albulescu Camelia 38. Florin-Traian Lazăr 39. Ana-Maria Cârlănaru 40. Silvia-Denisa Cristea 41. Mărculescu Roxana 42. Florescu Gabriela 43. Lăsconi Andra-Monica 44. Nicodin Teodor 45. Băra Bianca-Codruţa 46. Negulescu Ioana-Luiza 47. Simion Daniel-Ştefan 48. Oancea Laura Elisabeta 49. Anton Andreea Alexandra 50. Rosca Sergiu
110
51. Statache Claudiu-Dorian 52. Fraiu Flaviu 53. Elena-Ecaterina Băeşu 54. Oprea Carmen-Diana 55. Dinu Eugenia Viviana 56. Soare Andrei 57. Prinose Elena-Georgiana 58. Povaliceanu Claudia Cristina 59. Florea Ana Maria 60. Bardas Gelu Daniel 61. Rebrişoreanu Ilinca 62. Costache Bogdan Florin 63. Ghinea Alexandru-Cosmin 64. Pirlea Claudiu-Alexandru 65. Busu Lorelei 66. Gherasim Ioana 67. Lup Andreea 68. Vasile Tudor-Iulian 69. Bonda Alexandru Vasile 70. Apostol Andreea 71. Pop Laura 72. Corogeanu Cristian-Andrei 73. Pripasu Octavia 74. Uriţescu Valentin 75. Vitejanu Emilia Daniela 76. Soponoş Cristina 77. Gheorghe Valentina-Mihaela 78. Saulea Ştefania Zoie 79. Chodan Andrada 80. Teslovan Roxana Beatrice 81. Ginghină Gorga Mirela 82. Trif Alexandra Alina 83. Narla Liviu Alexandru 84. Hurducaciu Tudor Mădălin 85. Popa Daniela-Marcela 86. Filip Tudor-Petruţ 87. Doroftei Georgiana 88. Petrea Alin 89. Nastac Radu 90. Drulă Carim 91. Meleanca Innana 92. Geană Corll-Cătălina 93. Giorgian Daniel Robert 94. Nicoara Alexandra-Ioana 95. Filip Radu-Daniel 96. Lungu Carina-Gabriela 97. Buţu Jeanin Marian 98. Moscu Alexandru 99. Vasiu Tudor-Antoniu 100. Florian Bogdan Lucian 101. Galatan Anisoara - Voichita 102. Alan Alisa 103. Naş Bogdan-Emil
111
104. Prunea Bianca 105. Ion Mihaela 106. Cojocaru Andreea Cristina 107. Lazăr Adelina-Maria 108. Casap Iulia Cristina 109. Macovei Madalina Maria 110. Naidin Cristiana 111. Butariu Adina - Cristiana 112. Cîrstoiu Matei 113. Nechifor Simona-Elena 114. Moroşan Andrada-Sabina 115. Enache Eliza Ionica 116. Manole Narcis-Nicolae 117. Sarca Alina Larisa 118. Toma Andreea 119. Constantinescu Ov.-Florin 120. Motohoi Monica Elena 121. Flavius Ionut David 122. Cătănoaie Alexandra-Laura 123. Purcărescu Cristina 124. Caranda Loredana 125. Simion Oana 126. Mehedin Crina 127. Căşuneanu Clara Alexandra 128. Vlăduţu Natalia Mariana 129. Lazea Larisa-Andreea 130. Popa Ioana 131. Petculescu Elena-Adelina 132. Cotoi Petruţa-Maria 133. Grosu Crina Elena 134. Pînzaru Bogdan Ştefan 135. Ţacu Lavinia-Constantina 136. Gliga Ramona Maria 137. Stoica Roxana 138. Varvara Maria Cristiana 139. Uţă Eduard-Laurenţiu 140. Bondar Elena-Teodora 141. Panoiu Bogdan 142. Bîrsescu Vlad-Horatiu 143. Pasc Daniela-Corina 144. Moiş Corina 145. Marin Marian-Alexandru 146. Levai Eduard-Gabriel 147. Belu Cristina-Alexandra 148. Petcoiu Oana-Catalina 149. Popa Oana-Andreea 150. Aron Denisa Florentina 151. Calai Patricia-Carmen 152. Dragota Larisa Petruta 153. Manea Alexandru-Florin 154. Rizoiu Cristina Georgiana 155. Călina Dumitru Constantin 156. Bucur Ioana
112
157. Costache Aurelia 158. Moldovan Bianca Laura 159. Adam Amina Roxana 160. Geambaşu Daria-Alexandra 161. Mânzălică Elena-Alexandra 162. Anton Anamaria 163. Tipa Larisa-Andreea 164. Rădulescu Ana-Maria 165. Tanasă Cătălina-Elena 166. Carauş Nicolae 167. Bulbuc Andreea 168 Z ănoagă Tatiana 169. Cristea Ştefan-Georgian 170. Anton Mona 171. Jere Amalia 172. George Micu 173. Dorcu Mihai Teodor
113
A SMALL “REFERENDUM” OF MAGISTRATES: MORE THAN HALF
OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS IN ROMANIA ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW THE DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE
“LAWS OF JUSTICE”
The initiators of the Memorandum inform that until Tuesday, October 23 2017
at 16.00, a number of 3685 Romanian judges and prosecutors (out of a total of 6979 in the Romanian courts and prosecutor's offices, respectively 52,80%), 8 assistant magistrates and 173 justice trainees adhered to the Memorandum for the withdrawal of the draft of the "Laws of Justice", addressed to the Government of Romania, as a result of the refusal of the latter to take into account the negative opinion on the entire project issued by the Superior Council of Magistracy, in a meeting on September 28th, 2017, in accordance with the votes cast in numerous general assemblies of judges and prosecutors in courts and prosecutor's offices, in which all the main changes of the draft law were overwhelmingly rejected.
The signatories of the Memorandum consider these changes promoted by the Minister of Justice (in particular, the reorganization of the Judicial Inspection, as a legal entity within the Ministry of Justice; the appointments at the top of the judiciary - the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice - HCCJ, first deputy and his deputy, the chief prosecutor of the National Anti-Corruption Department - DNA, his deputies, the chief prosecutors of the Prosecutor's Office attached to HCCJ and the DNA, as well as the chief prosecutor of DIICOT and their deputies; - the proposed amendments regarding the magistrates' liability regime, susceptible of violating the independence of the judiciary; the change of the magistracy recruiting system: the age limit of 30 years for admission to the National Institute of Magistracy and the requirement of seniority in another legal profession for at least 5 years; the change of the promotion system to a higher court / higher prosecutor’s Office; the maintenance of the actual status quo regarding the budget of the courts of justice which is administrated by the Ministry of Justice; the establishment within the Prosecutor's Office attached to HCCJ, of a specialized directorate with exclusive jurisdiction to carry out criminal prosecution for the acts committed by judges and prosecutors, regardless of their nature and gravity - jurisdiction per personam, aiming to a professional category instead of illegal deeds, without regard of their severity) flagrantly violates the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism, its consistent reports and the foundations of the magistracy in a democratic state.
At the same time, the magistrates who have signed the Memorandum show that although the opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy is not, according to the law, mandatory, according to the law, it also cannot be ignored, as the recent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Romania develops and emphasizes in particular a new dimension of the provisions of Article 1 para. 5) of the Constitution ("In Romania, observance of the Constitution, of its supremacy and of the laws is
114
mandatory"), in the sense of attaching its normative content to the principle of loyal cooperation between state’s institutions and authorities. Therefore, the legislative norms which ask for the opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy must be interpreted in the spirit of loyalty to the Fundamental Law and in the spirit of an obligation for the public authorities to apply the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism and to follow the recommendations established in this framework.
Contrary to the data circulated by the press, the total number of judges and prosecutors in office in Romania is 6979 and not 9000. It results from the lists with current existing magistrates in offices and vacancies at 04.10.2017, for prosecutors, respectively on 01.09.2017, for judges, displayed on the web site of the Superior Council of Magistracy.
At the mentioned data, there were: - 4944 positions of judge on the scheme, excluding the High Court of
Cassation and Justice (125 judges), of which 4362 currently performing in office, excluding the High Court of Cassation and Justice (119 judges).
- 2969 provided prosecutor positions + 49 positions provided from the reserve fund, out of which 2514 positions of prosecutors and 30 posts from the reserve fund are currently occupied;
Consequently, according to the situation published by the Human Resources Division of the Superior Council of Magistracy, the total number of positions occupied in the Romanian magistracy on October 1st, 2017 was 7025 (judges and prosecutors, including the High Court of Cassation and Justice). 46 magistrates (25 judges and 21 prosecutors) out of these numbers were subsequently retired, according to the decrees published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 782 / 03.10.2017, respectively in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 798 / 09.10.2017, the number of currently occupied positions being 6979, within the courts and prosecutors' offices in Romania.
In the light of the above mentioned considerations, the unwavering will of the majority of magistrates, which, according to the signatories of the Memorandum, the Government of Romania (to which the Minister of Justice is part of) cannot be disregard in a Member State of the European Union, converges in the sense of removing any doubts about a possible deviation of these important legislative drafts to the detriment of the magistracy, the Ministry of Justice failing to develop an effective dialogue with the magistrates, the Superior Council of Magistracy, the professional associations of judges and prosecutors, in order to improve the legislative framework, after carrying out the necessary impact studies and after presenting serious and credible motives regarding the proposed amendments, in order to modernize justice, in accordance with the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.
The initiators of the memo also point out that further adhesions to the Memorandum are still being received.
115
116
117
11.10.2017: Civil society representatives stage thank-you flashmob for
magistrates opposing judicial overhaul laws
Civil society representatives gathered on Wednesday in front of the Bucharest Tribunal to thank the 3,500 magistrates who signed the memorandum to Premier Mihai Tudose and Justice Minister Tudorel Toader, asking them to withdraw the bill on the amendment of the Justice package.
Several delegates lined on the steps in front of the Bucharest Tribunal, each carrying a letter or a sign to display the message "THANK YOU 3,500+". Former Health Minister Vlad Voiculescu was among the participants.
The action is supported by 32 civic organizations and is staged in front of the Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca, Iasi, Galati, Timisoara, Craiova, Constanta, Brasov, Sibiu and Oradea tribunals.
"We consider that the move by the Romanian Judges Forum, which has the support of over 3,500 magistrates, is a public alarm signal on the danger of political subordination of justice and halting the fight against corruption and organized crime. We appreciate your attachment to the idea of free justice, without political intrusion and the promotion of the European values of freedom and rule of law. We appreciate your efforts to form common front against political attacks on independent justice. We appreciate your courage to candidly put the finger on the sore spot and express the point of view of those who matter most in the justice enforcement process: the practitioners. We appreciate the consciousness you prove as an integral part of the Romanian society. So thank you for rejecting these legislative proposals with hard to anticipate consequences for democracy and which will foreseeably produce serious imbalances for the judiciary and the separation of powers. Thank you for highlighting the risk of a flagrant violation of Romania's commitments under the European Commission's Co-operation and Verification Mechanism," reads a release from the civic organizations. Approximately 3,500 magistrates signed the memorandum to Prime Minister Mihai Tudose and Justice Minister Tudorel Toader, demanding the withdrawal of the bill amending the laws of Justice.
The memorandum argues that Justice Minister Toader put the bill forward without impact studies and without holding prior consultations on essential legislative aspects to ensure decisional transparency for the magistrates and the civil society. AGERPRES (RO — author: Eusebi Manolache, editor: Mihai Simionescu; EN — author: Simona Klodnischi, editor: Adina Panaitescu) See: https://www.agerpres.ro/english/2017/10/11/civil-society-representatives-stage-thank-you-flashmob-for-magistrates-opposing-judicial-overhaul-laws-13-36-09 Photos: http://inquamphotos.com/photo/58152/BUCURESTI—TMB—SUSTINERE—MAGISTRATI—MEMORANDUM.html#.Wd4cilFx3IU
118
Arad:
Bucureşti:
119
120
Constanţa:
121
Craiova:
Galaţi:
122
Oradea:
Timişoara:
123
Iaşi:
Baia Mare
124
VeDem Just : 100 civic organizations ask the Romanian Government to abandon the bill initiated by the Ministry of Justice
to amend the laws on justice Press release: Update, 26th oct, 09:18 PM: Another 4 organisations signed the letter. Now, the final number is 100. Today, October 17, 2017, 65 civic organizations ask the Romanian Government to abandon the bill initiated by the Ministry of Justice to amend the laws on justice. Signatories are non-governmental organizations, civic groups, student associations in Romania and abroad. Amoung them, Initiativa Romania, Institutul pentru Politici Publice, Grupul pentru Dialog Social, Asociatia ProDemocratia, Freedom House, Funky Citizens, VeDem Just, Societatea Timisoara si Platforma Romania 100. Given that the Superior Council of Magistracy has reacted negatively to this bill, and almost 4,000 magistrates, nominally, have asked for the project to be withdrawn, we believe that it is necessary to listen to the opinion of the specialists and to organize genuine debates on aspects should be promoted. Any changes are intended, they must lead to a strengthening of the independence of the judiciary and the further fight against corruption on the coordinates of the reform that started in 2004-2005. To the Government of Romania Prime Minister Mihai Tudose, To the Minister of Justice, Professor Tudorel Toader, PhD,
Dear Prime Minister, Dear Minister of Justice, We noted the intention of the Ministry of Justice, expressed on August 23, 2017, to propose to the Romanian Government a draft law amending the law package on justice - Law no. 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors, Law no. 304/2004 on judicial organization and Law no. 317/2004 on the Superior Council of Magistracy. We also took note of the amendments proposed by the Ministry of Justice in the draft currently under consideration. In view of its content, this request, made pursuant to the Government Ordinance no. 27/2002 on the regulation of the petitions settlement activity, the signatory organizations from Romania and the Diaspora strongly urge you to withdraw the draft law and to resume the debates on ways to make the judicial system more efficient. The Romanian justice system was reformed in the years 2004-2005, as a condition for Romania's accession to the European Union. This is when the independence of the judiciary was strengthened and the administrative and functional separation of
125
the Ministry of Justice from the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) was enacted. Since then, the SCM has taken over the management of the magistrates' career, including the powers of control over their activity and the management of the courts and prosecutor's offices, and at that time the National Anticorruption Directorate was established. Due to these essential changes, leading to magistrates having a secure career, free from political interference, cases have been solved involving persons with important positions in Romania, thus revealing the systemic corruption within the public institutions and authorities.
Subsequently, the confidence of Romanian citizens in the justice system has steadily increased over the last 10 years. Soon, Romania has become a regional and European model for fighting corruption at the level of judicial institutions. In fact, this positive track record has been highlighted by the European Commission in the reports of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, especially over the last three years. As a result, we are aware that there is now no need for a new judicial reform, but for an incremental improvement of the organization of the justice system in order to make it more efficient. However, such adjustments must be discussed in substantive terms with magistrates and civil society. Romanian society is the ultimate recipient of the act of justice. In relation to the project posted on the website of the Ministry of Justice, the signatory organizations can not agree with provisions allowing the magistrates to be controlled by bodies placed under political authority, strengthening the Minister's position in the political decision on the career of top prosecutors at the Public Ministry, the National Anti-corruption Directorate and the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism, leading to the creation of distinct structures for the prosecution of magistrates only, or precluding the young people from starting a career in the judiciary. Romania needs institutional stability of its judicial system. However, we believe that the proposed changes actually express the intentions of the Ministry of Justice to re-create levers of control over the judiciary, which brings about major vulnerabilities to the whole project. Given that the Superior Council of Magistracy has reacted negatively to this draft law and nearly 4,000 magistrates have nominally called for the project to be withdrawn, we believe that it is imperative that the Government listen to the expert opinions and that substantive debates be held on the issues to be promoted.
Moreover, considering the high interest shown by the civil society in the functioning of the judiciary, we believe that, prior of any structural change, extensive discussions are needed in particular with organizations active in the areas of judicial reform and human rights. Any intended changes must lead to strengthening the independence of the judiciary and to a continuation of the fight against corruption, on the lines of the reform started in 2004-2005. See: https://www.vedemjust.ro/index.php?p=societatea-civila-impotriva-modificarii-legilor-justiiei
126
Signatory Civic Associations and Groups:
1. Aradul Civic, membră a reţelei civice Contract România 2. Asociaţia ACCEPT 3. Activ Civic 4. Ariergarda Timişoara 5. ARAS – filiala Timişoara 6. Asociaţia pentru Dezvoltare GHEPart, Curtea de Argeş 7. Asociaţia BAFI ("Bucuria de a fi"), Rădăuţi 8. Asociaţia ARAS 9. Asociaţia Culturală Diogene 10. Asociatia Civica si Umanitara Mana Ajutatoare 11. Asociaţia PRODEMOCRAŢIA 12. Asociaţia SPICC 13. Asociaţia Studenţilor la Drept, Iaşi 14. Asociaţia Studenţilor de la Facultatea de Ştiinţe Politice, Filosofie şi Ştiinţe ale
Comunicării 15. Asociaţia Ţine de noi 16. Canada Save Roşia 17. Centrul de Actiune pentru Egalitate si Drepturile Omului (ACTEDO) 18. Centrul Român pentru Politici Europene 19. CIVICA Iaşi, membră a reţelei civice Contract România 20. Comunitatea Declic 21. Consiliul Tineretului din România 22. Corupţia ucide 23. #Cuzavreadreptate Iaşi 24. Dăruieşte Viaţa 25. ELSA Timişoara 26. Evoluţie în Instituţie, membră a reţelei civice Contract România 27. Freedom House 28. Frontline Club Bucharest 29. Funky Citizens 30. Geeks 4 Democracy 31. Grupul de Dialog Social 32. Grupul Ştafeta Steagului Uniunii Europene 33. Iniţiativa Craiova, membră a reţelei civice Contract România 34. Iniţiativa România, membră a reţelei civice Contract România 35. Iniţiativa Timişoara, membră a reţelei civice Contract România 36. LiderJust 37. Liga Studenţilor IAŞI 38. Mureşul Civic 39. Oradea Civică, membră a reţelei civice Contract România 40. Organizaţia Studenţilor din Universitatea de Vest Timişoara 41. Institutul pentru Politici Publice, membră a reţelei civice Contract România 42. Platforma România 100 43. Pieces of Heaven 44. Protestari PRODEMOCRAŢIE Londra 45. Rădăuţiul civic
127
46. #REZISTENŢA, Bucureşti 47. #Rezist Birmingham WMW 48. #Rezist Bruxelles 49. #Rezist Lyon 50. #Rezist Milano, membră a reţelei civice Contract România 51. #Rezist Munchen 52. #Rezist Paris 53. #Rezist Torino 54. #Resist Toronto 55. #Rezist Zurich 56. Romania As We Want It, Milano 57. RomBel, Comunitatea Românilor din Belgia 58. Societatea Europeană pentru Justiţie 59. Societatea Timişoara 60. SPICC 61. Trei Compas 62. Umbrela Anticorupţie Cluj 63. Valea Jiului Society, membră a reţelei civice Contract România 64. Centrul European pentru Educatie si Cercetare (ECLER) 65. Go 4 Education 66. Global Romanian Society for Young Proffesionals in Brussels 67. #Rezist Galaţi 68. Grupul civic #Rezist 69. Bacăul civic 70. Centrul de Asistenta pentru Organizatii Neguvernamentale 71. Asociaţia Studenţilor din Universitatea Oradea 72. Asociaţia pentru echitate „Prisma” 73. Asociaţia civică Banat 74. Rezist.TV 75. #Rezist Norvegia 76. Asociaţia de analize feministe AnA 77. INFFSOLUTION 78. ELSA Galaţi 79. Rezistenţa Constanţa 80. ASUR - Asociaţia Secular Umanistă din România 81. RiseOUT Iaşi 82. ELSA Oradea 83. Grupul civic Diaspora Română Unită de Pretutindeni 84. EUROPULS 85. Comunitatea POLITEIA 86. Grupul Civic Vocea Străzii 87. CEDD - Centrul de Excelenta pentru Dezvoltare Durabila 88. Asociaţia ArtOUT 89. Consiliul Naţional al Elevilor 90. Asociaţia Partener pentru Tine 91. Asociaţia EU Reflect e.V., Stuttgart 92. Asociaţia Studenţilor în Drept, Facultatea de Drept a Universităţii Bucureşti 93. Acţiunea pentru Renaşterea Craiovei 94. Floreasca Civică
128
95. Asociaţia PROVITA Piteşti 96. Asociaţia Cealaltă Românie, Curtea de Argeş 97. Asociaţia Culturală de Tineret „Vatra”, Piteşti 98. Voci pentru Democraţie şi Justiţie (VeDemJust), membră a reţelei civice Contract
România
129
R O M A N I A
SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF MAGISTRACY
PLENUM
DECISION no. 974 Of 28 September 2017
Analysing the draft Law on amending and supplementing Law no.303/2004 on
the statute of judges and prosecutors, Law no.304/2004 on judicial organization and Law no.317/2004 on Superior Council of Magistracy, sent for review by the Ministry of Justice with letter no. 88.929 of 30.08.2017;
Pursuant to the provisions of article 38 paragraph (3) of Law no. 317/2004 on Superior Council of Magistracy, as republished and supplemented;
PLENUM OF SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF MAGISTRACY
DECIDES:
Art. 1. – Adopts a negative opinion on the draft Law on amending and
supplementing Law no.303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, Law no.304/2004 on judicial organization and Law no.317/2004 on Superior Council of Magistracy, for the reasons mentioned in the Appendix which is an integral part of this decision.
Art. 2. – The decision shall be sent to the Ministry of Justice, according to the
provisions of law.
Passed in Bucharest, 28.09.2017
PRESIDENT, Judge Mariana Ghena
„Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii este garantul independenţei justiţiei˝
(art. 133 alin. 1 din Constituţie, republicată)
130
Annex to plenum decision no.974 of 28 september 2017 of superior council of magistracy
OPINION
On the draft Law for amending and supplementing the Law no.303/2004 on
the statute of judges and prosecutors, of Law 304/2004 on judicial organisation and of Law 317/2004 on Superior Council of Magistracy
Upon examination of the draft Law on amending and supplementing the Law
no.303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, of Law 304/2004 on judicial organisation and of Law 317/2004 on Superior Council of Magistracy, sent for opinion by the Ministry of Justice by note no. 88.929 of 30.08.2017;
SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF MAGISTRACY
Pursuant to provisions of art.38 paragraph (3) of Law 317/2004 on Superior
Council of Magistracy, republished, as further amended; On the grounds of Decision 974 of 28 September 2017 of the Plenum of
Superior Council of Magistracy; Adopts a negative opinion on the draft Law on amending and supplementing
the Law no.303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, of Law 304/2004 on judicial organisation and of Law 317/2004 on Superior Council of Magistracy, for the following reasons:
I. The draft law sent for endorsement disregards, on essential aspects, the
guarantees fundamental for the functioning of the judiciary, in a manner that is infringing the constitutional provisions.
• Relevant to this end are the regulations comprised within the draft law that
provide for the reorganisation of Judicial Inspection, by taking this institution and inserting it within the Ministry of Justice.
Considering the fundamental principle of separations of powers, but also the constitutional guarantees of independence acknowledged for the judicial authority, it results that the activity carried out by courts, within the constitutional role of delivering
„Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii este garantul independenţei justiţiei˝
(art. 133 alin. 1 din Constituţie, republicată)
131
justice, cannot be subject of any forms of verification and control by structures which belong to the executive authority.
Pursuant to the principles set at a constitutional level, it is necessary to regulate by the special law certain proper mechanisms for verification and control of the activity carried out by judicial authority.
Because those mechanisms of verification and control are set within the powers of the Judicial Inspection, it is necessary for that institution to have sufficient guarantees of independence, both on a functional level, but also on an organizational level, in order to exclude any implication of political influence.
As it is also mentioned in the Report of 25th January 2017 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress in Romanian under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism, a major reform that took place in 2012 reinforced the Judicial Inspection as an independent and professional institution. That reform allowed the Judicial Inspection to become more effective and to have an increased authority, a situation that was further confirmed by the results reported in 2016.
The Plenum considered that Judicial Inspection should carry on as a structure with legal personality within Superior Council of Magistracy Superior (the constitutional guarantor of the independence of justice), thus the proposal lodged by the Ministry of Justice violates the constitutional provisions on the independence of justice and separations of powers within a state.
The reorganisation of Judicial Inspection as a structure within the Ministry of Justice will set the impression of a political subordination, a situation which involves the infringement of the constitutional principle on the separation of powers.
There is no sustainable reasoning which could substantiate the idea that Judicial Inspection does not fulfil its duties because it is organized and functions within Superior Council of Magistracy. On the contrary, the annual reports of activity prove that fulfilment of duties by Judicial Inspection was not mitigated or annihilated as a consequence of this kind of organisation.
Finally, the opinion that in some European states the Judicial Inspection is organized within the Ministry of Justice cannot be used, mutatis mutandis, as a reasoning to be used for this end, without taking into account the specificity of the Romanian judiciary or the grounds that initially determined the organization of the Judicial Inspection as a structure within Superior Council of Magistracy.
For this analysis are also relevant the aspects mentioned in the Opinion no.18 (2015) "The position of the judiciary and its relation with the other powers of state in a modern democracy" - issued by Consultative Council of European Judges, which mentions that Problems on the interaction between the executive and the judiciary can occur in those states in which the Ministry of Justice or other ministries or agencies, e.g. those having a power of audit and/or financial control, have the power to order inspections at courts. The right of other powers of the state to be informed of or to investigate the system of justice should in all cases be exercised having regard to the limits imposed by judicial independence.
Also, pursuant to the constant case law of the European Court of Human Rights, in order to guarantee a full independence of the judiciary, as a corollary of the guaranteed right to a fair trial, from the outlook of article 6 of the Convention, it is necessary to have a judiciary which is independent to the Executive, but also to the Parliament. From this perspective, the independence of judiciary may be affected by
132
the pressure carried out by the executive power (ECHR judgment of 25.07.2002, in Sovtransavto v. Ukraine).
Disciplinary liability of magistrates is a part of the activity of Judicial Inspection, an institution which, through the role provided for in the mechanism of the institutions that are parts of the judiciary, must be absolutely independent from the political factor.
Only this type of statute, that allows a clear delimitation from any interference of the political factor, can provide the guarantees for observing the independence of the magistrate and of the judiciary as a whole, during the activity carried out by Judicial Inspection.
In any contrary situation, the subordination of Judicial Inspection to a political body, such as the Ministry of Justice, will create the reasonable doubt that the activity of checking and evaluating the magistrate may be influenced at any given moment by the political power, in order to alter the impartiality and independence of the magistrate in the process of adopting a decision.
• The proposal to repeal article 136 of Law 304/2004 on judicial
organization, which will result in preserving the management of the budget of courts by the Ministry of Justice, is contrary to the constitutional principle on the independence of justice.
Thus, financial independence is an essential part of the concept of constitutional independence of justice, which cannot be granted to the benevolence of a separate power, namely the executive power.
In its Decision 262/2016, the Constitutional Court mentioned that independence of justice – both the institutional component and the independence of a judge – the individual component, implies the existence of numerous aspects, such as (among others) the lack of interference from other state powers in the judicial process and the existence of sufficient financial funds for carrying out and administering the delivery of justice. It was proved beyond any doubt that the principle of the independence of justice implies a series of guarantees, such as (among others) financial guarantees, administrative independence of magistrates, but also the independence of judicial power from the other state powers.
According to one of the fundamental principles on the independence of justice adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders „it is the duty of each Member State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to perform its functions properly.”
Also, the Consultative Council of European Judges mentions, within Opinion no.2 (2001) on the funding and management of courts with reference to the efficiency of the judiciary and to article 6 of the European Convention, that „although the funding of courts is part of the State budget presented to Parliament by the Ministry of Finances, such funding should not be subject to political fluctuations. Although the level of funding a country can afford for its courts is a political decision, care must always be taken, in a system based on the separation of powers, to ensure that neither the executive nor the legislative authorities are able to exert any pressure on the judiciary when setting its budget. Decisions on the allocation of funds to the courts must be taken with the strictest respect for judicial independence...”
Furthermore, in the light of the same opinion, the Consultative Council of European Judges mentions that „States should reconsider existing arrangements for
133
the funding and management of courts in the light of this opinion. The CCJE in particular further draws attention to the need to allocate sufficient resources to courts to enable them to function in accordance with the standards laid down in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights”
According to those conditions, the transfer of the management of courts` budget from the Ministry of Justice to the High Court of Cassation and Justice – as stated by article 136 of Law 304/2004, which is due to be repealed by the new provisions of the analysed draft law – represents a measure for ensuring the observance of the constitutional principle on the independence of justice – an essential component of the rule of law.
• The provisions of the draft law on the financial liability of magistrates for
judicial errors are also contrary to the provisions of the fundamental law. Thus, the draft law proposes, among other issues, the amendment of the
provisions of paragraph (7) article 96 of Law 303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors that currently provides for the possibility of state to act with a motion for damages against the judge or prosecutor who with bad faith or gross negligence committed the judicial error that caused prejudices.
According to the draft put forward by the Ministry of Justice, the legal provisions would state in an imperative manner that, after covering the damages, the state shall act with a motion for damages against the judge or prosecutor who caused the judicial error that resulted in prejudices.
But, article 52 of the republished Romanian Constitution regulates the „Right of a person aggrieved by a public authority”, as follows, at article (3): „The State shall bear patrimony liability for any prejudice caused as a result of judicial errors. The State liability shall be assessed according to the law and shall not eliminate the liability of the magistrates having exercised their mandate with bad faith or gross negligence.”
Pursuant to the constitutional regulation in force, the state has only the possibility to lodge an action for recovery, thus the solution adopted by the draft law - which by ignoring the constitutional norm, imposes on the state the obligation to lodge an action for recovery against the magistrate – arises problems of constitutionality.
Relevant to this end are the aspects taken into account by the Constitutional Court in Decision 80 of 16 February 2014 on the draft law for revising the Constitution of Romania (paragraphs par. 174-176), when the Court analysed the amendment proposed for article 52 paragraph (3) of the Constitution, that provided for inserting a new sentence in this text, namely „the state shall use its right of recourse, pursuant to law”:
„Even though the term proposed to be inserted seems to aim at defining the bearer of the right for recourse in case of damages caused by any judicial error that was the result of exerting the function with bad faith or gross negligence, actually, due to its wording, it forces the state to use its right to recourse. The imperative nature of the term proposed to be inserted in the body of article 52 paragraph (3) of the Constitution may lead to unacceptable situations, when the state shall use automatically the action for recovery in any situation in which the state covers the damage caused by a judicial error, without being able to hold the right to appraise if the magistrate acted with bad faith or gross negligence,
134
thus requesting the intervention of the court in an automated manner. For those reasons, the content of the proposed norm could take into account the possibility of the state to use its right of recourse, pursuant to law.
Thus, the constitutional text cannot compel the state to lodge, in all cases, actions for recovery, but must allow the state to decide on using this recourse, with the final consequence of having a court judging on such an action for recovery, if the motion was put forward”.
For those reasons, with unanimity, the Court recommended to reformulate the amendment proposed for paragraph (3) of article 52 of the Constitution.
Based on these considerations of the Constitutional Court, it is highlighted that in the current Romanian constitutional system it is enshrined only the possibility of the state to act with a recourse against the magistrate and not an obligation to this end. Furthermore, if the Constitutional Court mentioned that it would not be justified to amend the Fundamental Law itself to the end envisaged by the Ministry of Justice, it is obvious that it would not be possible to amend the infra-constitutional legislation.
Similar draft laws were previously analysed by Superior Council of Magistracy and those proposals also received negative opinions.
To this end, it is useful to mention Decisions adopted by the Plenum of Superior Council of Magistracy - no.243/2010, no.891/2016 and no.1381/2016 expressing negative opinions on the legislative proposals for amending and supplementing Law 303/2004 on statute of judges and prosecutors, that provided for amending paragraph (7) of article 96 of Law 303/2004, in order to insert an obligation for the state to act with recourse against a judge or a prosecutor.
Also, by Decision no. 330 of 7 April 2015, the Plenum of Superior Council of Magistracy issued a negative opinion on another legislative proposal for amending article 96 of Law 303/2004 on statute of judges and prosecutor, which comprised similar provisions.
Within the opinion that is an annex to the abovementioned decision it was stated that the financial liability of magistrates – in the situation when the state is liable for the damages caused by judicial errors – was previously analysed by the Council during the examination of the amendments issued within the debates of the sessions held by the Joint Commission of the Chamber of Deputies and Senate for elaboration of a legislative proposal on revising the Romanian Constitution.
With this occasion, Superior Council of Magistracy stated the current provisions of article 52 paragraph 3 of the Constitution should not be amended, taking into account the following:
Currently, abovementioned constitutional provisions set an objective liability of the Romanian state for the prejudices caused through judicial errors. As results from the wording of those constitutional provisions, the state has only the possibility and not the obligation to lodge an action for recovery for the prejudices caused by judicial errors.
Superior Council of Magistracy considered that using the right to use the action for recovery should still be the option of the holder of the right to action – the state and not to become an obligation, thus being the general rule of law as regards the use of rights by their holders.
Thus, as regards the state, the system of objective liability is a proper one, the state – as an administrator of the activity of the judiciary, at the legislative, operational and financial level – being responsible for covering the damages caused
135
by a judicial error done through bad faith or gross negligence by a prosecutor or a judge.
Instead, any liability of a person (criminal or civil), including a magistrate, must originate in a guilt, in this case being the guilt in fulfilling the professional duties by the magistrate.
More precisely, the financial liability of a judge or a prosecutor cannot be enforced in an objective manner (similar to the way the state is liable), but only in a subjective manner, namely for the situation when the magistrate perpetrates a severe personal fact, committed with the intention to make a damage, or for the situation when the magistrate, with gross negligence has done a judicial error determinant for the appearance of a damage.
The judicial errors involves, beyond the situations expressly mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code (the situation when a definitively convicted person is subsequently acquitted or when the freedom of a person was unlawfully restrained) and in other situations that are not precisely defined by the doctrine or case law.
The judicial error refers, mainly, to a solution on the substance of the case that does not correspond to a legal reality subsequently determined. This error is not due solely, and sometimes not in part, to the activity of the judge or of the prosecutor.
Some of the recently noticed judicial errors happened because, at the time of the trial and conviction for a certain, a series of evidences were not available (e.g. DNA expertise) or because in the case were considered statements that were not true or new facts and circumstances were uncovered, those being unknown to the court at the moment of delivering the final judgment.
Besides, the nature of using extraordinary appeals, able to quash a final judgement, is given by the situation of the court which judged the first trial and did not know of new evidence or facts, including those which are crime related and pertinent to the cause, so that the initial solution was according to the factual situation determined on the grounds of a series of evidence known at that given moment.
In some cases of judicial error, taking into account the possible and used evidence, the error is not due only to the magistrate, but it would be a joint one, until new facts are uncovered. Beyond the limits of the investigation techniques at a certain date, as new scientific discoveries may invalidate previous conclusions, it should not be neglected the human factor that has an important percentage in the entire set of evidence, both in criminal and civil cases.
Superior Council of Magistracy also considered one of the fundamental principles, established by the Consultative Council of European Judges in the document Magna Carta of Judges (Fundamental Principles), according to which: „The remedy for judicial errors should lie in an appropriate system of appeals. Any remedy for other failings in the administration of justice lies only against the state.”
Also to this end, it was considered that in Opinion nr.3 of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality, it is mentioned:
„As a general principle, judges personally should enjoy absolute freedom from liability in respect of claims made directly against them relating to their exercise in good faith of their functions. Judicial errors, whether in respect of jurisdiction or procedure, in ascertaining or applying the law or in evaluating evidence, should be dealt with by an appeal; other judicial failings which cannot be rectified in this way
136
(including e.g. excessive delay) should, at most, lead to a claim by the dissatisfied litigant against the State.”
The CCJE’s conclusion is „that it is not appropriate for a judge to be exposed, in respect of the purported exercise of judicial functions, to any personal liability, even by way of reimbursement of the state, except in a case of wilful default”.
II. The draft law proposes improper solutions for aspects that are also
essential for the judiciary, having a profound impact on its normal functioning. • One of the solution proposed by the Ministry of Justice through the draft
normative act envisages the conditions for access to magistracy. Thus, the draft law proposes the supplementation of the provisions of article 14
paragraph (2) of Law 303/2004 on statute of judges and prosecutors, that regulates the conditions for admittance into National Institute of Magistracy, with two new letters f) and g) that set a minimum age of 30 years old and a minimum seniority of 5 years into one of the legal professions regulated by law.
This proposal is supplemented with that on annulment of paragraphs (1) - (4) and (11) - (14) of articles, that currently regulates the competition for admission into National Institute of Magistracy, thus making the admittance into the National Institute of Magistracy the sole method for becoming judge or prosecutor.
The amendments proposed by the draft law will reduce, without doubt, the pool for selecting the candidates, with the subsequent consequence of decreasing, on medium term, the professional quality of magistrates.
The current system allows the access into magistracy of those law graduates who are best trained. The proposed system will force those to ask for admittance into other legal professions, especially in liberal professions. It is hard to believe that those people, after the age of 30 and after a professional experience of a minimum 5 years, if they become adapted to that profession and gained good results and an encouraging income will quit a developing career, with real premisses of growth, in order to start another career in magistracy.
Any shortcoming arising from the young age and from the lack of experience of the magistrates which are at the beginning of the profession could be corrected by adopting other measures, such as increasing the term of the probationary period, increasing the term of professional training within the National Institute of Magistracy, setting up collegial panels comprising probationary judges and definitive judges or organising the system of prosecutors` offices in order to ensure the guidance of probationary prosecutors.
On the other hand, invoking the lack of experience of those who are currently admitted to the National Institute of Magistracy, without an age limitation, is even more unjustified, because according to article 37 of the Constitution, the citizens who are at least 23 years old in the day of the elections have the right to be elected for the Chamber of Deputies or for the bodies of the local public administration.
Not least, the reference to „legal professions regulated by law” does not observe the predictability requirements, as the law does not mention those professions.
• Also, the improper solutions proposed by the draft law for the promotion of
judges and prosecutors into regular positions are arguable.
137
a) Even if the proposals of Superior Council of Magistracy pertaining to the conditions of seniority for promotion were taken into account, the competition procedure proposed by the Ministry of Justice is not sustainable in practice, because it will involve the evaluation of papers drafted by all candidates who passed the written exam and that aspect will be difficult to be enforced.
To this end it must be mentioned that at the exam for promotion into judge at High Court of Cassation and Justice, organized during 3 January – 31 May 2017, the evaluation of the documents drafted by candidates took place during 8 February – 9 May 2017, for a number of 53 candidates.
By comparison, at the contest for promotion into regular position of judges and prosecutors, organized in 2016, applied 1360 judges and 791 prosecutors (representing a number of candidates of 40 times higher), a figure that gives a real image on the enormous period of time necessary to organize the competition according to the conditions proposed by the Ministry of Justice, that will also involve human and logistical resources which are impossible to be provided by Superior Council of Magistracy.
In contrast, the system proposed by the Council the exam for obtaining the professional level consists of only one written test and the other test for evaluating the activity and conduct of candidates will be carried out only by those considerable fewer candidates, who have gained the professional level and would like to effectively promote.
b) As regards the seniority required for promotion and taking into account the
temporal application of the envisaged provisions, the proposals of the Ministry of Justice do not comprise according transitory provisions, that would prevent the violation of the constitutional principle of non-retroactivity of law, because it is obvious that the new law cannot alter the fulfilled terms of seniority that are acknowledged by the law in force.
The absence of transitional provisions would cause absurd situations when judges or prosecutors who already gained the professional level of tribunal, according to the legal provisions in force, would lack not only the required seniority for promotion to the court of appeal, but also the required seniority for tribunal.
According to the same reasoning, a judge or a prosecutor who previously participated at a competition for promotion to court of appeal, without passing the exam, would be in a situation when, according to the new law, he or she would not fulfil the conditions for participating at the competition, a circumstance that does not observe the natural logic of the regulation and it is also arguable from the perspective of the non-retroactivity of law principle.
c) The solution envisaged by the draft law on remuneration of judges and
prosecutors who promote by gaining a higher professional rank but without functioning effectively in higher court or prosecutor`s office, violates the principle of equality before the law, because it applies a different treatment, with no objective and reasonable grounds, to the category of magistrates, as compared to other professional categories for which the promotion into positions, steps and levels also brings a corresponding increase of the salary.
This kind of measure represents a discriminatory solution, because for the entire budgetary system it is provided the system of promotion by levels and ranks or by function and rank, that has an impact on the remuneration; in all those cases,
138
reaching a superior rank does not compel the person involved to change the workplace and does not condition the payment of the sum corresponding to the rank to such a change. Also, in the military system, the gaining of a superior rank does not imply the military will carry out other tasks or that will be moved to another position, but it only contributes to the reinforcement of the possibility to be promoted into the military hierarchy. Also, in the situation of the occupational class „Diplomacy”, the diplomatic rank is paid irrespective of function.
This measure represents an interference in the statute of magistrate, thus being unconstitutional, because the incomes of the magistrate are included in the notion of the statute of magistrate that was specifically devised to guarantee the independence. Furthermore, no reasoning was provided for such measure, but even if a reasoning it would be found, the measure does not observe a level of constitutional or conventional proportionality.
Not least, the Plenum of Superior Council of Magistracy highlights that currently, according to the legal provisions on remuneration that were recently passed (Framework-Law no. 153/2017 on remuneration of personnel paid from public funds), the remuneration of judges and prosecutors is done according to the gained professional rank and not according to the court or prosecutor`s office where the magistrate functions.
Also, the remuneration of judges and prosecutors is not part of the scope of Law 303/2004 on statute of judges and prosecutors.
• The draft law is arguable also from the perspective of the conception it
promotes on the enforcement of the authority of the Minister of Justice on prosecutors, this situation leading to a possible interference of political power into the activity of prosecutor`s offices.
a) procedure for appointment into leadership positions for Prosecutor`s
Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, National Anti-Corruption Directorate and Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism
As it was mentioned in the Report of 25th January 2017 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on progress in Romanian under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism, as regards the appointment procedure into the highest leadership positions from the hierarchy of the Public Ministry it is necessary to ensure the proper guarantees of transparency, control and balance, even for cases when the final decision is adopted at a political level. But the proposal put forward by the draft law is only creating an imbalance within the procedure of appointment.
Thus, if a proposal is made by the Minister of Justice, Superior Council of Magistracy does not have a real liberty to choose and also, it can decline only once the proposal made by the minister for appointment of a person into one of these leadership positions. Thus, the proposed procedure is in fact granting a decisive power to the Minister of Justice, consequently to the executive power and the role of Superior Council of Magistracy is only formal.
The current procedure of appointment/revocation in and from leadership positions of the Public Ministry it was the one that generated the premisses for a real criminal justice in Romania, due to a tripartite mechanism that provides checks and
139
balances: the Minister of Justice (a representative of executive power), the President of Romania (directly elected by citizens), Superior Council of Magistracy, comprising representatives of magistrates and civil society. Improving the current procedure cannot be done by increasing the decisive role of the Minister of Justice and by excluding the President of Romania from this procedure, but on the contrary, as it was proposed by Superior Council of Magistracy in 2017, by limiting the role of the Minister of Justice in this procedure and granting a determinant role to Superior Council of Magistracy, as the guarantor of the independence of justice.
The procedure for appointment into leadership position of the Public Ministry must be transparent and independent in relation to the political factor and it would be desirable to grant a determinant influence to the opinion of the professional body, namely to have proposals that are put forward by Superior Council of Magistracy.
The regulation in force, but also the proposal made by the Council, are also grounded on the provisions of article 94 of the republished Romanian Constitution, according to which the President of Romania appoints into public positions, pursuant to law, thus the proposal is also made taking into account this constitutional power.
At the same time, it should be highlighted that the draft law unjustly extends the involvement of the Minister of Justice for the other leadership positions of Prosecutors` Office attached to High Court of Cassation and Justice, National Anti-Corruption Directorate and Directorate for Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism that are provided for by article 55 of Law 303/2004. In other words, according to the vision of the draft law, the influence of the Minister of Justice is decisive for all the leadership positions of Prosecutor`s Office attached to High Court of Cassation and Justice and of the specialized prosecutor`s offices, including the territorial structure of those, namely for all situations the proposals for appointment shall be made by the Minister of Justice.
The proposal has no objective reasoning and for comparison, de lege lata, the appointment into these positions is done by Superior Council of Magistracy, at the proposal of the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor`s Office attached to High Court of Cassation and Justice, or as the case may be, of the Chief Prosecutor of the specialized structure.
b) Strengthening this kind of a dominant position held by the Minister of Justice
by the mechanism proposed for appointment of chief prosecutors also makes unacceptable the proposal to quash, by the superior hierarchical prosecutor, the ungrounded solutions, because, jointly these proposals devise the premisses of an appearance of political control on prosecutor`s offices and create the possibility for an interference of the Minister of Justice into criminal investigation, the minister functioning in a political government.
• Splitting the decision on the career of judges and prosecutors between
the two Sections of the Council, even though is the expression of a desire firmly voiced by the Section for judges, is done in an unsystematised manner, comprising incomplete solutions, that may generate difficulties of interpretation.
From this perspective are relevant the provisions of the draft law which stipulate that secondment and transfer are done according to the opinion expressed by the Section for Judges, respectively for prosecutors, but without mentioning if the
140
adoption of these measures are done by the Sections or by the Plenum of the Council.
Likewise, according to the draft, within the procedure for promotion to High Court of Cassation and Justice, during the test interview to be carried out with the Section for Judges it is mentioned the possibility for a psychologist to attend, the latter specialist being appointed by the Plenum and not by the Section for judges.
In an inconsistent approach to the idea of splitting careers, the draft law provides for the power of the Plenum, and not for that of the corresponding Sections, to decide on: approving the training curricula for the auditors of justice, defending independence, impartiality or professional reputation of a judge or prosecutor, approving the measures for supplementing or reducing the number of positions for courts and prosecutor`s offices, organizing the capacity exam, of the competition for appointment of judges and prosecutors into leadership positions and of the competition for promotion of judges and prosecutors into regular positions.
At the same time, in an unjustified manner, the draft law maintains the authority of the Superior Council of Magistracy Plenum to solve the appeals lodge by judges and prosecutors against the decisions passed by the Sections of the Council, excepting those on disciplinary matters, that leads to annihilation of splitting the decision on career at the level of Sections. In the same context, it is also arguable the preservation of the provision on the possibility to appeal at the High Court of Cassation and Justice only of the decisions passed by the Plenum on career of magistrates.
Also, even though it takes from the authority of the Plenum the competence for approving the Regulation of internal order of courts, the draft law neglects to provide that power to the Section for judges.
III. Among other proposed solutions, the draft law proves a tendency of
obvious regress, both related to the regulations in force, but also to the previous form of the draft law for amending and supplementing the „laws of justice”, that put forward by the Ministry of Justice, at the end of 2016
• The draft law proposes to repeal the provisions of paragraph (3) article 83
of Law 303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, namely to eliminate the possibility of a magistrate to be reinstated into position after retirement, because, as it arises from the reasoning, it is intended to prevent cumulating the pension with the salary for the activity of magistrate.
Pursuant to the constant case law of the Superior Council of Magistracy Plenum, the procedure of reinstatement arises as an exceptional method for filling vacant position of the system, that can be used only for the courts or prosecutor`s offices that have no real possibilities to fill in vacant positions through use of other means.
But, in the abovementioned context, the Plenum appraises that this proposal eliminates the possibility to fill in certain positions, in special situations. Furthermore, the other proposals to amend the conditions for admittance to National Institute of Magistracy and the abolition of the competition for admittance into magistracy are problematic in the perspective of ensuring the necessary human resources.
141
If the only reason for such a proposal is of financial nature, in order to prevent the cumulation of the pension with the remuneration of magistrate, we consider that other legal solution could be found, but not the abrogation of the mentioned text.
A solution could be one that was previously proposed by Superior Council of Magistracy and forwarded to the Ministry of Justice in 2017, namely a provision that „during reinstatement, the amount of pension shall be reduced with 85%.”
Besides, the number of persons reinstated as magistrates does not sustain such a proposal, because in 2015 and 2016 only one person was reinstated as judge and none as a prosecutor. Also, in 2014, only 3 persons were reinstated as judges and none as a prosecutor.
• The analysed draft law also eliminates a series of provisions on the career of
magistrates, without any reasoning and without providing, at least, statistical data that could be taken into account for the appraisal of proposals.
The Plenum mentions, to this end, the proposals to repeal paragraph (11) of article 62 of Law 303/2004 on statute of judges and prosecutors, that provides that, by exception, a judge or a prosecutor is not suspended from the office at the moment of arraignment, for an offence which was not intentionally committed and it is evaluated the deed is not prejudicing the dignity of the profession, having also the possibility to apply a provisional interdiction for the magistrate to exert certain attributions until a final judgement is adopted in the case.
Also, it is proposed to repeal paragraph (11) article 65 of Law 303/2004 on statute of judges and prosecutors, pursuant to which, by exception, judges and prosecutors may remain in office if the conviction or the adjournment of the enforcement of penalty was adopted for the crime provided for by article 196 paragraphs (2) - (4) of Criminal Code, the continued employment being decided by Superior Council of Magistracy if it considers the crime does not affects the dignity of profession.
As a first remark, it should be noticed that none of these proposals are accompanied by reasons that would substantiate their existence, in spite of the compelling rules set by the norms of legislative technique.
Thus, according to article 6 of Law 24/2000, the solutions inserted in a normative act must be solidly reasoned, so that in grounding a new regulation it is necessary to start from current and future social goals, but also from the shortcomings of the legislation in force.
A reasoning for those proposals would have been even more necessary as the legal provisions that are proposed to be repealed entered into force recently, more precisely by Law 255/2013 for enforcement of Law 135/2010 on Code of criminal procedure and on amending and supplementing certain normative acts that comprise criminal procedural provisions, so that the author of the draft law should have mentioned the grounds for a new legislative amendment that would generate a return to the previous situation.
Neither courts and prosecutor`s offices nor the professional association sustained these proposals, arguing that elimination of the possibility of continued employment for magistrates is absolutely ungrounded, if the conviction or the adjournment of the enforcement of penalty was passed for the offence of causing bodily harm by negligence and if the action of the magistrate was committed by fault, without any relation with the office or with any other element that would cast any doubt on his or her reputation, thus existing the possibility to be just the result of an accident.
142
Because this proposal represents an infringement of the statute of magistrate, the objective of the measure should be analysed. It is not clear why a magistrate must be expelled from the system for an offence which was not intentionally committed, in all situations, even when the fact has no relation with the profession and does not affect the ethics of the perpetrator. Even if it would be identified a legitimate purpose for this kind of measure, it would not be the sole to allow the achievement of the result, taking into account that even in the current system such an outcome could be achieved. The filter of analysis carried out by Superior Council of Magistracy (which may suspend the magistrate from office or not, or it can adopt the solution of dismissal) is set in order to avoid situations of this kind. Consequently, such a measure is not proportional with its intended goal, because the regime established for the magistrate is extremely severe.
Furthermore, this treatment is profoundly unfair compared to that applicable to other state powers, no such regulations being in force for the members of the Government or the members of the Parliament.
• The draft law sent for an opinion is a regress even compared to a previous
form, because it does not comprises certain provisions pertaining to incompatibilities and the possibility of judges and prosecutors to be admitted into other legal professions without an exam.
In this regard, Plenum considers that one of the imperatives imposed on the legislator during the legislative process is to ensure a proper correlation of the legal norm with the concrete reality of social relations that are to be regulated.
Thus, the previous form of the draft law expressly recognized the possibility of judges and prosecutors to carry out a series of activities that, without constituting the elements of another public or private function, are required in order to optimize the collaboration with other institutions of foreign judiciaries, to carry out in a proper manner the activities of the projects with domestic or foreign financing, to the interest of the judiciary and also for a better internal functioning of the activities devised by the institutions for professional training of other legal professions.
Likewise, the previous form of the draft law allowed that judges and prosecutors with a seniority of at least 18 years in these professions and which were released from office for non-imputable reasons to be admitted into profession of lawyer, mediator, notary public or bailiffs, without exam.
Without any justification, these provisions were eliminated from the draft law, this situation also representing a regress compared to the previous project. The regress is even more unnatural, as it is generated by the Ministry of Justice, which should act for the improvement of the statute of judges and prosecutors, including from the perspective of acknowledging, as a result of a long and honest career, the possibility to have an unconditioned access to other legal professions.
IV. The draft law comprises a series of new regulations or that are entirely
different from those included in the previous text and that were not subject of the consultation with the judiciary.
Among other proposals that were mentioned before, on the organization and
functioning of Judicial Inspection, management of courts` budget, financial liability of judges and prosecutors and appointment into leadership positions at prosecutor`s offices, the draft law also contains absolutely new legislative solutions that were not
143
debated at the level of courts and prosecutor`s offices and that were put forward without observing the decisional transparency.
To this end it must be mentioned the proposal to regulate, by law, within 6 months since the entering into force of the envisaged law, the organization and functioning, within the Prosecutor`s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, of a specialized directorate for the prosecution of crimes committed by judges and prosecutors.
In the same category fall the legislative solutions setting the conditions for admittance to the National Institute of Magistracy or those on the abrogation of the provisions of article 62 paragraph (11) and of article 65 paragraph (11), that are inserted for the first time in the current draft law.
V. In brief, it is noticed that in some essential aspects the author of the
project did not take into account, or it considered in an insignificant or contrary manner, many of the solutions proposed by Superior Council of Magistracy and that arise from the consultation of the judiciary.
Thus, regarding the issue on the incompatibilities of magistrates, the Ministry of
Justice did not adopt the proposals envisaging the extension of the area of activities that can be carried out by magistrates.
As regards the procedure for admittance into magistracy through the National Institute of Magistracy, even though an important of the proposals made by Superior Council of Magistracy were adopted, two new conditions are inserted (a minimum age of 30 years old and at least 5 years of activity in legal professions); correlatively, it is proposed to abrogate the direct access procedure into the profession.
The proposals to reduce the duration of courses at National Institute of Magistracy to 1 year and 6 months, to increase the term of the probation to 1 year and 6 months and the proposal to rethink the content of the probation term were not adopted.
The proposals on enshrining the right of judges and prosecutors with a seniority of at least 18 years to become lawyers, mediators, public notaries or bailiffs without exam were not adopted. Also the proposal to appoint without exam former judges and prosecutors who acted in this capacity at least 10 years was not adopted.
As regards the procedure for promotion of judges and prosecutors into regular position, the proposals of the Ministry of Justice are fundamentally different from those of Superior Council of Magistracy, on all aspects.
As regards the procedure of appointment into leadership positions of judges and prosecutor, the proposals related to the appointment into the position of Vice-President of court, of Deputy General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor`s Office attached to Court of Appel and of First-Deputy Prosecutor were not adopted. Also, the proposals related to the appointment into the leadership positions of important prosecutor`s offices, according to a procedure which stated that appointments shall be done by Superior Council of Magistracy, upon proposal of the Ministry of Justice, were not adopted.
The proposal on the possibility to allocate the positions of probationary judges and prosecutors, supplementary to those provided for in the scheme of personnel of the court or prosecutor`s office, was not adopted.
The proposals of Superior Council of Magistracy pertaining to the periodical psychological testing of the magistrates were adopted in an arguable form, because the proposed amendment mentions the mark „unapt” instead of „not recommended”
144
as it was proposed by Superior Council of Magistracy. The reference to the mark „unapt” is totally improper, because it could induce the idea that such an evaluation should enforce the article 65 paragraph (1) letter i) of Law 303/2004, according to which the magistrate is released from office if no longer satisfies the condition to be apt from a psychological view in order to exert the profession. But, in any circumstances, this is not the scope of the procedure put forward by Superior Council of Magistracy, which supports the psychological evaluation of magistrates.
Also, it was eliminated the possibility to reinstate retired magistrates and were issued proposals on the financial liability of judges and prosecutors, which do not observe the fundamental law.
The proposal to amend the composition of the panel that judges the appeals in criminal matter was not adopted.
The proposals on abolition of military courts and reorganization of military prosecutor`s offices were not adopted.
It was proposed to abrogate the norm that set the transfer of management of courts budget to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
The concept pertaining to Judicial Inspection was completely rethought and it was proposed to reorganize it as a structure having legal personality, within the Ministry of Justice.
At the same time, the proposal aimed to ensure a general framework for cooperation of Superior Council of Magistracy with other institutions of foreign judiciaries was not adopted.
The proposal to eliminate the Minister of Justice, the Prosecutor General of Prosecutor`s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and of the President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice from the category of the holders of disciplinary action was not adopted.
Pursuant to the abovementioned reasons, the Plenum considered that it must adopt a negative opinion on the draft law, due to its severe faults of the normative project.
Even though the project includes, in an irrelevant manner for the whole draft regulation, some of the previous proposals of the Council that were intended to improve the functioning of certain institutions (e.g. proposals on suspension from office of judges and prosecutors, procedure on revocation of the members of Superior Council of Magistracy), the noticed faults of unconstitutionality and the shortcomings in the functioning and organization of the judiciary that could be generated by many of the provisions of the draft law do not allow for a positive opinion, with observations. Such a solution would have been possible if, for the essential points, the draft law submitted for an opinion could improve the activity of the judiciary, but not in the situation when the project represents a regress, compared to the regulations that would be replaced, from the perspective of the constitutional norms, of the independence of justice and of the statute of magistrate.
The negative opinion adopted by the Plenum of the Council does not prevent another action for amending and supplementing the three normative acts, including by considering the solution of separate and swifter regulation of certain aspects arising from decisions of the Constitutional Court (e.g. the procedure on revocation of the elected members of the Council).
PRESIDENT,
Judge Mariana Ghena
145
CONTENTS
SHORT INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 5 ROMANIAN JUDGES' FORUM REGARDING THE MAIN 10 AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE ON THE LAWS REGARDING THE JUDICIARY ................................................................................................... 8
I. On the reorganization of the Judicial Inspection, as a legal personality structure within the Ministry of Justice ........................... 8
II. Regarding the material liability of the magistrates ............................ 9 III. On the setting up within the SCCP of a specialized directorate with
the exclusive competence to carry out criminal prosecution for the acts committed by judges and prosecutors ...................................... 17
IV. On the abrogation of the legal provisions related to the taking over the budget of the other Courts by The High Court of Cassation and Justice .............................................................................................. 17
V. Regarding the naming procedure of chief magistrates .................... 20 VI. On modifying the recruitment system of magistrates ....................... 21
VII. On the changes attempted to be made to the conditions of promoting within magistracy ............................................................. 24
VIII. Regarding the reinstatement to magistracy, without examination, of judges or prosecutors with at least 10 years of relevant experience ....................................................................................... 26
IX. Romanian Judges' Forum regarding the salary rights of magistrates according to their current positions, regardless of their professional status ........................................................................... 27
X. Regarding the strict delimitation between the judges’ careers and the prosecutors’ careers .................................................................. 29
3700 ROMANIAN MAGISTRATES: MEMORANDUM FOR THE REJECTION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE "LAWS OF JUSTICE" (LAW 303/2004, LAW 304/2004 AND LAW 317 / 2004) ................................................................. 31 LIST OF MAGISTRATES THAT SUPPORT THE MEMORANDUM .................... 33 LIST OF JUSTICE TRAINEES (NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MAGISTRACY) THAT SUPPORT THE MEMORANDUM .............................................................. 109 A SMALL “REFERENDUM” OF MAGISTRATES: MORE THAN HALF OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS IN ROMANIA ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW THE DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE “LAWS OF JUSTICE” ......... 113 SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF MAGISTRACY PLENUM, DECISION no. 974, Of 28 September 2017 ................................................................................................... 129
