IMPARȚIALITATEA MAGISTRAȚILOR: REPERE DOCTRINARE ȘI JURISPRUDENȚIALE.

The impartiality of justice is an essential component of the status of judge and a requirement of utmost importance of the fair trial. The lack of impartiality is likely to affect in its substance also the principle of independence, a principle proclaimed at constitutional level as well, but also at the level of some important international documents. A judge who shows partiality cannot be considered as an independent magistrate. The European jurisprudence, as well as the national jurisprudence, evokes two components of impartiality: an objective one (objective impartiality) and a subjective one (subjective impartiality). The latter is also the most subtle and difficult to prove, as it is related to the inner powers of the judge. It can still be proven to the extent that it is shown through significant manifestations that raise suspicions about the impartiality of the judge. That is why, in the jurisprudence of the ECHR it is made reference, judiciously, to a presumption of impartiality of the judge, which can be countered by a contrary evidence from the opposing side. The cases of incompatibility that can cause suspicions about the lack of impartiality of a judge are ruled in the two codes of procedure: civil and criminal. A big part of the practical assumptions that may arise can be found in the corresponding texts in our procedural codes. Life, however, is much more complex and sometimes puts the judge in the situation of making some interpretation efforts to determine whether or not in a specific case we are in a situation of violation of the principle of impartiality. The present study also offers us a perspective on some extremely complex situations, with a special resonance in jurisprudence. In this context, some of the most recent and significant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are also presented. Some of these solutions force us to rethink some procedural institutions in the future in order to find effective remedies at the level of all jurisdictions, regardless of their nature, so that any suspicion regarding the independence and impartiality of judges can be removed through the procedural mechanism of recusal, but also of abstention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]