198 views

The life of a judge. Episode 10: After dining at a dubious tavern

After two years as a trainee judge at the People’s Court of the Zalău Rayon and People’s Court of the Dej Rayon, one year each, I was put in in the situation of presenting myself for the professional completion exam in Bucharest, at the Ministry of Justice, which was located on Avenue Kogălniceanu, across the Cişmigiu Park.

The examination was conducted in two stages. First, there was a written test based on the four core subjects (Civil Law, Criminal Law and the two corresponding procedures), and after passing these written exams, those who passed presented themselves to six oral examinations.

During my travel to Bucharest for the oral test, my faculty and promotion colleagues, who entered the Security, offered us dinner at a dubious bar, where I believe an altered wine was served. The effect was felt on the following day, the day of the exam. I had a terrible and unbearable biliary migraine, especially because it was my first biliary migraine. My head ached and I could not keep my eyes open. Sometimes I felt like I was floating, but the pain was persistent and piercing. I decided that I could not submit to examination and that no one would believe me if I invoke migraine, because it had no sign of exteriorization. I went down the stairs and got ready to cross the street to Cişmigiu, but conscience “no and no!.” I turned around, I went up to the second floor where were the rooms with the specialized committees and, at that time, someone said my name, he said that I was already called and that I can enter in the room where was the first comission of Criminal Law.

The moment I pressed the door handle, the pain erased as if it were a cigarette butt you throw in the trash can. Interestingly, the pain never came back  later that day or in the following days. Later, I learned from reading that dominant excitation has occurred. The cortex has created a hotbed of excitement stronger than the pain and migraine fully dimmed.

The Examination Committee consisted of three persons and was chaired by the President of the Criminal Section of the Supreme Tribunal, who, not being a professional examinator, carried me for 45 minutes through the entire practice of the Supreme Tribunal, without regarding the questions written on the note that I did not get the chance to read. After this period, which was assigned to at least three candidates, one of the comittee members respectfully informed the President of the Criminal Section, a leading authority in the profession, that it would be appropriate to also examine others.

In the examination room, ever since my extrance, was present a candidate who was with at least 20 years older than me, who had been a journalist at “The Sparkle” (for those born more recently, it was the primary mean of expressing for the Superior Committee of the Communist Party). This person was impressed with my knowledge, especially because he was deficient in this respect. I had had the advantage that, being at a small court with few processes, I was able to prepare to the best theoretical level. The man I tell you about made a decision and put it into practice. He knew many of the members of the committees and entered all the examination rooms to communicate to to the members of the other committees that next “is one who knows it all”. I expected out of the exam room for criminal law and accompanied me in other rooms doing authoritative and persuasive force worthy of a better cause. Come with me, and he drove a ticket, sit next to me at the table, I get my ticket and gave me his ticket telling me to write everything I know about the subjects on his ticket. As for my ticket, I had the right to read only the moment was to respond … so I finished all oral examinations after we broke up.He waited me at the exit of the examination room corresponding to Criminal Law and accompanied me in the other rooms acting authoritative and with a persuasive force worthy of a better cause. He entered with me, also extracted a ticket, sit next to me at the table, got my ticket and gave me his ticket telling me to write everything I know about the subjects on his ticket. As for my ticket, I had the right to read it only when I was about to answer … this is how I finished all oral examinations and after that split.

My grades were the highest in the grid, because I had good enough preparation conditions. I think with horror of what would have been my professional fate if I did not present myself to the exams that day, without verifiable justification? I think this failure would’ve downgraded me once and for all.

Twenty years later I was to be confronted with a similar situation to the examination before the International Faculty of Comparative Law Dean of the University Robert Schuman in Strasbourg, Mr Alfred Riege. About this, on another occasion!

:: The Source: JURIDICE.ro

Anda Laura TĂNASE

Related posts