The article titled “Granting a Motion to Recuse a Judge for Lack of Empathy: A Critical Note,” written by Assistant Professor Cristi Danileț, Ph.D.

The study critically analyzes the expansion of grounds for recusal of a judge beyond the strictly procedural sphere, with reference to axiological criteria such as empathy or the judge’s public discourse. The research is based on a ruling by the Bucharest Court of Appeals in which a motion to recuse a judge was granted on the basis of a reasonable suspicion of lack of impartiality, derived not from specific conduct during the proceedings but from public statements regarding the role of a judge’s empathy in criminal proceedings.

The methodology employed combines an analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court with doctrinal exegesis and a critical evaluation of judicial reasoning. The results highlight the lack of a concrete analysis of the recused judge’s statements, the existence of an unjustified logical leap, and the risk of using recusal as a tool against steadfast and outspoken judges, thereby inhibiting freedom of expression—contrary to European case law. The study concludes that empathy pertains to the quality of the judicial decision—which can be reviewed through reasoning and appeals—rather than to the realm of procedural incompatibilities.

Keywords: recusal; judicial empathy; the judge’s conviction; the appearance of impartiality; freedom of expression.