Romania is experiencing one of its most serious public reckonings with the justice system in years, triggered not by a political scandal or a court ruling, but by a documentary.

On December 9, investigative journalism outlet Recorder released “Justiție capturată” (“Captured Justice”), a nearly two-hour investigation into how major corruption cases are handled in Romania. Within days, the documentary set off a chain reaction that included street protests, open conflict inside the judiciary, formal institutional reviews, and a response from the president himself.

What began as a media investigation has quickly become a national institutional crisis… one that has resonated strongly in cities like Cluj-Napoca, where protests and public discussions have continued for several evenings.

What the Recorder Investigation Claims

Recorder’s investigation does not accuse a single judge or prosecutor of taking bribes. Instead, it argues that structural weaknesses and internal power dynamics within Romania’s justice system allow influential defendants to avoid accountability.

According to the documentary, this happens through a combination of factors:

• Extremely long trials, particularly in high-value corruption cases, which sometimes end with cases being closed due to prescription (statute of limitations).
• Changes to judicial panels or case assignments at sensitive moments, raising questions about whether the legal principle of random allocation is always respected.
• Strong administrative hierarchies inside courts, where leadership positions hold significant influence over careers and working conditions.
• A broader decline in the effectiveness of anti-corruption enforcement, especially in cases involving political or economic elites.

Recorder supports these claims with case histories, court documents, and testimony from current and former magistrates, some speaking on the record and others anonymously.

The documentary’s central thesis is that these patterns, taken together, point to a justice system that can be controlled without openly breaking the law – a system that is formally independent but vulnerable in practice.

Immediate and Unusual Institutional Reactions

The response from judicial institutions was swift and unusually public.

The Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM), which governs the judiciary, initially accused the documentary of undermining public trust in justice. At the same time, however, it announced that the allegations would be referred to the Judicial Inspection, the body responsible for investigating judicial conduct.

Shortly afterward, the Bucharest Court of Appeal held an extraordinary press conference to defend the institution and criticize the way judges were portrayed in the documentary. Such a public, coordinated response from a major court is rare and underscored the seriousness of the situation.

A Visible Split Inside the Judiciary

Rather than closing ranks, the judicial response exposed a rare and unusually public split inside the system.

One of the most significant moments came when Judge Raluca Moroșanu, a senior magistrate at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, publicly contradicted her own institution’s leadership during an extraordinary press conference that had been called in response to the Recorder documentary. Moroșanu said the pressures described in the investigation were real and spoke about a “toxic” internal climate, arguing that magistrates who raise concerns risk being isolated or targeted.

In a follow-up interview published by Recorder, Moroșanu explained that she spoke out because she did not want colleagues who appeared in the documentary to remain exposed alone. She warned that “if nothing changes now, nothing will ever change,” acknowledging that there could be professional consequences but insisting the moment was too important for silence.

Protests Spread Across the Country

The controversy quickly moved beyond institutions and into the streets.

Demonstrations began in Bucharest and soon spread to other cities, witnessed also in Cluj-Napoca, where several evenings of protests have taken place. Protesters gathered near courts and central public spaces, chanting slogans such as “Justiție, nu corupție” (“Justice, not corruption”) and calling for transparency and accountability.

While the protests have not been massive in size, their persistence is notable. In Cluj, they have become a visible part of the city’s evening landscape, reflecting strong civic engagement and concern about the rule of law.

Beyond protests, Cluj has also become a hub for public discussion. Cultural venues have hosted screenings of the documentary followed by debates with legal experts and civil society figures, indicating that the issue is being examined not only emotionally, but critically.

Cluj-Napoca’s Cinema ARTA is hosting a special screening of Justiție capturată on 18 December 2025, followed by a public discussion with lect. univ. dr. Andreea Chiș, a legal expert and former member of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM). The event is explicitly organised as a screening-plus–debate format, indicating local engagement with the issues raised in the film and inviting public reflection with a legal professional.

Political Response and What Happens Next

As pressure mounted, President Nicușor Dan announced that he would hold consultations with representatives of the judiciary later in December, acknowledging that the situation raises serious concerns about how justice functions and how public trust can be restored.

For now, the Judicial Inspection is reviewing the issues raised, though it remains unclear how broad or narrow that review will be. Critics fear the process could focus on disciplining outspoken magistrates rather than addressing structural problems, while supporters argue it is a necessary first step.

Does this Moment Matter?

In short, yes. Romania has faced repeated debates over corruption and judicial independence over the past decade. What makes this moment different is not just the content of the Recorder investigation, but its impact:

• Judicial institutions were forced to react publicly.
• Internal fractures within the system became visible.
• Citizens took to the streets not for a party or a politician, but for the functioning of justice itself.

At this stage, Recorder’s claim that the justice system has been “captured” remains an allegation, not a legal conclusion. But the scale and seriousness of the response suggest that the underlying questions cannot be dismissed.

Whether this moment leads to genuine reform or fades into institutional self-defence remains to be seen. What is clear is that Romania is, once again, being forced to ask a fundamental question: who is the justice system really serving… and who is watching it?