Romania's High Court of Cassation and Justice has suspended a controversial committee established by Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan to review judicial legislation, citing concerns over executive overreach and the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The Tuesday ruling halts the work of the Committee for Analysis and Review of Justice Legislation, a consultative body Bolojan created in December 2025 to examine the country's 2022 justice reforms. The court found "possible excess of power" in how the committee was constituted and operated.
The decision highlights the ongoing tension between Romania's executive and judicial branches—a familiar dynamic in a country that spent decades under the European Union's Cooperation and Verification Mechanism precisely because of rule-of-law concerns. The suspension raises fundamental questions about who controls judicial reform in a constitutional democracy.
A Committee Born in Controversy
The prime minister's committee was tasked with analyzing laws governing the judiciary, consulting with judicial associations and civil society organizations, and proposing measures to ensure impartiality and efficiency in the justice system. On paper, the mandate appeared straightforward: review the implementation effects of recent reforms and suggest improvements.
But the High Court found the reality more problematic. In its ruling, the court emphasized that the committee raised "serious questions regarding respect for legality and separation of powers." The judges stressed the need for "transparency, democratic procedures, and genuine consultation with relevant actors" in any judicial reform effort.
The lawsuit contesting the committee's establishment came from the Coalition for the Rule of Law, an NGO that has itself been a controversial player in Romanian politics. The same organization collaborated with pro-Russian presidential candidate Călin Georgescu to challenge the annulment of Romania's 2024 presidential election—a connection that adds layers of political complexity to this institutional dispute.

