Magistrates from the Sibiu Tribunal, along with their counterparts from associated courts, have taken a firm stand against a proposed salary law they claim undermines judicial independence. The manifesto, voted by these magistrates, asserts that the new salary law represents an abusive cut to their income and acts as a subtle instrument of symbolic subordination. On June 9, 2026, Sibiu judges convened urgent General Assemblies to discuss these pressing issues.

The CSM Judges' Section had earlier called for these assemblies, emphasizing the critical nature of the situation. During the meetings, all 57 magistrates present expressed total solidarity, adopting radical resolutions unanimously. Among these resolutions was a proposal to suspend all judicial activities completely, though a decisive vote on indefinite suspension was postponed.

The manifesto issued by the Sibiu magistrates highlights the active threat of a judicial blackout, urging the CSM to intervene both internally and internationally. They demand an immediate halt to what they describe as a "systematic discredit campaign" against the judiciary. The new salary law, referred to as the "apple of discord," is at the center of this controversy.

According to a document from the Sibiu Tribunal, the law conceals a significant political trap, explicitly subordinating magistrates to the legislative and executive powers. The magistrates' resolution stresses that judicial independence is neither a luxury nor a personal benefit but the citizen's only real guarantee against state abuses. They argue that subordinating courts to political interests jeopardizes fundamental rights.

Sibiu judges have refused two major compromises and aligned themselves with high-level challenges from the ÎCCJ and CSM. They claim that any calculation reducing current salaries is both unconstitutional and inadmissible, with salary algorithms diminishing judges' moral and legal authority. The government and parliament now face the challenge of addressing these concerns, as ignoring the warnings could lead to a conflict between state powers, according to the judges.