CSM to elect new leadership on Tuesday
The Supreme Council of Magistrates (CSM) on Tuesday will convene in a plenary sitting to elect its new leadership, the two candidates for the President position being judges Alexandru Serban and Marius Tudose, while prosecutor Bogdan Gabor runs for Vice President.
Other items on Tuesday’s agenda include the presentation of the institution’s 2014 activity report, with judge Adrian Bordea President of the body and prosecutor Gheorghe Muscalu Vice President.
President Klaus Iohannis will be the one to preside the meeting, as dictated by the Constitution of the country.
They are 19 members on the CSM: nine judges and five prosecutors elected by the magistrates at the general assemblies of the courts and prosecutor’s offices, and validated by the Senate, two representatives of the civil society, also elected by the Senate, and three de jure members — the Minister of Justice, the President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice / ICCJ/ and the General Prosecutor of Romania. The elected members will be sworn in for six years, without the possibility existing for a reinvestment.
The Council is led by a President, helped by a Vice President, who should belong to a different sections of the body than the President, both to stay in office for one year. The President and the Vice President of the CSM are elected from among the 14 elected members at the general assemblies of the courts and prosecutor’s offices.
The candidates for the highest position in CSM need to present a management project to comprise their vision in respect to the distribution of the competencies of the Council and the solving of such aspects that have to do with the human resources in the judiciary and the ongoing projects.
On December 30, the CSM published on its Website the candidacies of judges Alexandru Serban and Marius Tudose for the position of President and that of Bogdan Gabor, who is running for Vice President.
Both candidates to President of CSM are pleading, in their projects, for actions that should be taken against any kind of interference in the independence of the judiciary.