RĂSPUNDEREA DISCIPLINARĂ A MAGISTRAȚILOR. NERESPECTAREA ÎNDATORIRII DE A SE ABȚINE ATUNCI CÂND JUDECĂTORUL SAU PROCURORUL ȘTIE CĂ EXISTĂ UNA DIN CAUZELE PREVĂZUTE DE LEGE PENTRU ABȚINEREA SA, PRECUM ȘI FORMULAREA DE CERERI REPETATE ȘI NEJUSTIFICATE DE ABȚINERE ÎN ACEEAȘI CAUZĂ, CARE ARE CA EFECT TERGIVERSAREA JUDECĂȚII. ANALIZA PRINCIPIULUI IMPARȚIALITĂȚII, EFECTUATĂ ÎN JURISPRUDENȚA CURȚII EUROPENE A DREPTURILOR OMULUI. IPOTEZELE AVUTE ÎN VEDERE DE CURTEA DE LA STRASBOURG

The disciplinary misconduct related to the „non-compliance with the duty to abstain when the judge or the public prosecutor knows of the existence of one of the causes provided by law for his abstention, as well as the filing of repeated and unjustified applications of abstention in the same case, which has the effect of delaying the judgment”, regulated by Article 99 i) of the Law No 303/2004 on the by-law of judges and public prosecutors, was introduced by the Law No 24/2012 amending and supplementing the Law No 303/2004 on the by-law of judges and public prosecutors and the Law No 317/2004 on the Superior Council of Magistrature; it could not be found in the original version of the Law No 303/2004, nor in the Law No 92/1992 on judicial organization. The material element of the objective side of the disciplinary misconduct regulated by Article 99 i) of the Law No 303/2004 includes two distinct hypotheses: the first hypothesis has as object the non-compliance with the duty to abstain when the judge or the public prosecutor knows of the existence of one of the causes provided by law for his abstention, and the second relates to the filing of repeated and unjustified applications of abstention in the same case, which has the effect of delaying the judgment.