The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Romania violated the freedom of expression of former judge Cristi Dănileț when it disciplined him over social media posts critical of government policies and comments citing the Romanian Constitution. The Grand Chamber’s decision, announced on Monday, is final and represents a significant precedent on how far judges in Council of Europe member states may go in speaking publicly about matters of public interest.
Dănileț, a former judge at the Cluj Tribunal and one of the most visible public voices in the Romanian judiciary, brought his case to Strasbourg after being sanctioned by the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) and losing his appeal before the High Court of Cassation and Justice. In 2019, the CSM’s Section for Judges in Disciplinary Matters fined him 5 percent of his gross monthly salary for two months, on the grounds that he had damaged the image and dignity of the judiciary and breached his duty of discretion.
The sanction was based on two Facebook posts. In the first, Dănileț shared an interview with Claudiu Sandu, then chief prosecutor at the Brașov Tribunal, who harshly criticised the ruling PSD government’s attempts to change justice laws and weaken anti-corruption efforts. Dănileț accompanied the interview with his own sharp commentary, praising Sandu for speaking openly about “dangerous criminals at large”, “bad ideas” behind the justice reforms and “lynchings” directed against magistrates.
In the second post, he reproduced a sentence from Article 118 of the Romanian Constitution, which states that the army is subordinated exclusively to the will of the people to guarantee constitutional democracy. The CSM interpreted this quotation as an implicit incitement to armed rebellion, arguing that, in the political context of the time, it could be read as encouraging military intervention in politics.
On the basis of a report by the Judicial Inspection, headed at the time by Judge Lucian Netejoru, the CSM concluded that Dănileț had violated Article 99(a) of the Law on the Status of Judges and Prosecutors. In May 2019 it imposed the salary cut by majority vote, under the presidency of Lia Savonea, who now leads the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The Supreme Court later rejected Dănileț’s appeal and upheld the sanction in 2020.
In Strasbourg, however, the ECHR found that the Romanian authorities had overstepped the limits compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression. The Court held that there were no “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the disciplinary measure. It emphasised that judges, while bound by duties of discretion and impartiality, retain the right to participate in public debate on issues affecting the functioning of justice and the rule of law.
In particular, the Court noted that Dănileț’s Facebook posts addressed matters of clear public interest: the integrity of the justice system, the impact of legislative changes on criminal prosecutions and the constitutional role of the army in safeguarding democracy. His comments, though sharp and critical, remained within the bounds of political speech and did not amount to a call for violence or insubordination. Treating a literal quotation from the Constitution as incitement to armed rebellion, the Court implied, was a disproportionate and legally unconvincing reading.
The decision comes after a long series of clashes between Dănileț and the CSM. He was expelled from the judiciary three times over the past years for public statements and for TikTok videos that touched on his private life, winning each case in court. Despite these legal victories, he ultimately left the system in January 2024, retiring at the age of 48. His case nevertheless became a symbol of the struggle over judicial independence and the boundaries of acceptable speech by magistrates in Romania.
In a public reaction to the ruling, Dănileț highlighted the importance of the Grand Chamber’s involvement, noting that as the highest judicial body within the Council of Europe, its judgment sets a strong standard for all 46 member states. He thanked his legal team for their work and announced that he would publish a personal reflection on the history and impact of the case.
The ECHR’s judgment also indirectly scrutinises the role of Romania’s judicial leadership at the time. The disciplinary decision against Dănileț was issued under CSM president Lia Savonea and based on a report from the Judicial Inspection she oversaw. By finding that the sanction lacked adequate justification, the Court is effectively signalling that disciplinary mechanisms for judges cannot be used to suppress legitimate criticism of government policy or internal judicial affairs, even when that criticism is uncomfortable for those in positions of power.
For the Romanian state, the ruling is more than an individual defeat. It underscores the need to recalibrate how judicial discipline interacts with freedom of expression, especially in politically polarised contexts. Mechanisms designed to protect the reputation and impartiality of courts cannot be allowed to become tools for silencing voices that warn of threats to the rule of law.
More broadly, the decision sends a message across Europe at a time when judicial independence is under pressure in multiple jurisdictions. Judges are expected to be neutral arbiters in the courtroom, but they are also citizens and, in some cases, important whistleblowers when the separation of powers is at risk. The Dănileț judgment confirms that when magistrates speak out on systemic issues affecting democracy and justice, they are entitled to robust protection under Article 10—even if their words are sharp, politically sensitive or unpopular with those in power.
