Convicting judges for abuse of office

This article analyses the issue of criminal liability of judges for abuse of office. The analysis is based on the case Bădescu et al. v. Romania. It is shown that in order to qualify an act as abuse of office, it is necessary to distinguish between the hypothesis of a solution given in good faith in a case and the case in which a judge deliberately and in bad faith interpreted a legal norm in a way contrary to its meaning, thus directing the process towards a solution contrary to the law and premeditatedly violating the norms.