Why was I interested in interviewing Ion? He is a Romanian jurist, diplomat and academic whose career bridges European law, international relations and judicial practice. Before joining the General Court of the European Union in 2021, he held senior legal and diplomatic positions in Romania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including serving as Romania’s ambassador to Bulgaria. His expertise in EU law and international law, combined with his experience in diplomacy and legal scholarship, offers a distinctive perspective on the relationship between law, national interests and European integration. Elected President of Chamber by his peers in December 2025, he now holds a leadership role within one of the European Union’s principal courts.
This interview is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand how European law operates in practice, how courts navigate complex legal questions, and how legal reasoning responds to an evolving political and institutional landscape. Drawing on Ion’s experience across national, European and international legal frameworks, it offers a rare opportunity to engage with the perspective of someone who has worked at the intersection of legal scholarship, public service and European judicial institutions. His reflections shed light on the principles underpinning the rule of law, the challenges of interpreting and applying legal norms, and the relationship between legal systems and the broader political context in which they operate. For legal practitioners, academics, students and readers interested in the future of European integration, the conversation offers valuable insights into the demands of judicial work and the enduring importance of sound legal reasoning in a rapidly changing world.
Here’s our exchange:
Where are you originally from, and what aspects of your childhood there most shaped who you are today?
I was born and I spent my childhood in Iasi, in North-East Romania. It was, and still is, an important city by national standards, home to one of the oldest universities, offering a rich cultural life and evoking a sense of nostalgia I still miss today.
My early childhood coincided with the last decade of the communist regime and I recall well the hardships my family encountered: energy cuts, very low home temperatures during winter, difficulty to obtain basic foodstuff. I was 11 years old when the communist regime fell. However, I recall being deeply touched by the events and following with great interest the political evolutions.
My father was a professor at the Technical University and my mother was an architect. They were both ambitious and hard working. More importantly, they were firmly rooted in values of fairness, freedom, justice and equal opportunities and they sincerely hoped that our country and the world could radically change.
How would you describe your family environment growing up, and who were the most influential figures in your early life?
The most influential figures in my family were my parents and my maternal grandparents. The latter were doctors and had experienced during their early professional life the greatest challenges during the Second World War and in the years immediately thereafter. I recall that they passed down to me the idea that hard work and perseverance will always help you achieve the goals you strive for. I also recall that my grandmother had an immense sense of compassion and empathy: even during the most difficult moments, she was calm and inspired trust and hope.
However, my family environment was not perfect: as my parents were both showing strong personalities, the rising tensions between them led them to divorce. In the years immediately after the fall of the communist regime, my father held a leading position in the local political life, which left him little time (or even no time) for family.
Were there particular family or cultural traditions that played a lasting role in shaping your values or worldview?
As I mentioned, the family environment and the changes my country experienced during the years after the fall of the communist regime determined to pay significant attention to values such as freedom, justice and equality. At the same time, family and school taught me that hard work is the way to achieve one’s goals.
What initially drew you to the field you chose to study, and was there a moment when you realized it was the right path for you?
My decision to study law was gradual and took shape during the last two years of high school. My family encouraged me to choose a profession that I would do with pleasure, if not passionately. When I was a teenager, I discovered certain aptitudes towards public speaking. During high school, our class was part of a project of English language studies, involving British or American lecturers. This helped me a lot to develop my public speaking and writing skills. Moreover, during high school, at the age of 16, I benefitted from a scholarship for Summer School courses in the United States, where I studied English and a subject called “Political Ideologies”. The latter included, in essence, a basic overview of comparative constitutional law, which also constituted an important impetus for studying law.
At what age did you begin working, and what did your first job teach you about responsibility or independence?
I have to be frank: I did not work as a student. I studied in parallel both at the Faculty of Law and at the French-Romanian College of European Studies, established in Bucharest by University Paris I, and the combined timetable comprised roughly eight to ten hours of classes every day. My first job was immediately after graduation: at the age of 22, on 1 September 2000, I started working as a diplomatic attaché (the first rank in the diplomatic service), within the International Law and Treaties directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of my country. It goes without saying that this job involved a high degree of responsibility, as the first files I dealt with involved negotiation of border treaties, maritime delimitations and aspects concerning the legal status of state properties abroad.
How would you describe your current professional role, and what aspects of it do you find most meaningful?
As a judge at the General Court of the European Union, one of the two courts that make up the Court of Justice of the European Union, my role is to ensure that the interpretation and application of EU law are observed. Thus, my role is to ensure that the principles of rule of law and effective legal protection are fully enforced. In this respect, I find really meaningful the fact that every case that is submitted to the Court is part of what ensuring effective legal protection means. Thus, putting in practice the rule of law, in every case we deal with, becomes a concrete feeling.
Your career is unusual in that it has unfolded simultaneously across diplomacy, academia and the judiciary. Having served as Legal Adviser and later Director General for Legal Affairs at the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs before joining the General Court, how has moving from defending the legal interests of a State to exercising judicial independence changed your understanding of what impartiality truly requires?
First, I would not name my career “unusual”. It was, and it still is, rather common in my country for professors of law to also be involved in the practice of law, notwithstanding the legal profession. The most important advantage is that practice offers a scholar the feeling of what law means in real life, allowing to pass down to students not only a theoretical approach, but also the skills they need for their future profession. At the same time, within the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is not uncommon for States to appoint judges or advocates general from among former academics, government agents before the Court or agents of European Institutions, such as the Council, Commission or the European Parliament.
Second, my position as a legal advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave me the opportunity to observe, on the one hand, what the most important legal questions on the international agenda are, and on the other hand, how each legal matter may be subject to interpretation and different legal arguments. However, my perception of what independence and impartiality requires remained the same: it is one of the inherent and fundamental elements of the rule of law, one of the values of the European Union.
Before becoming a judge, you participated in the legal and diplomatic work surrounding some of the most sensitive questions of international and European law. Looking back, did diplomacy teach you that law is ultimately an instrument for resolving political conflict, or did it reinforce your conviction that law must remain insulated from politics, even when the consequences are profoundly political?
The answer to this complex question involves several elements.
On the one hand, judges must be totally independent and impartial. According to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, judges take an oath to perform their duties impartially and conscientiously and to preserve the secrecy of the deliberations. Thus, justice is and remains independent and impartial.
On the other hand, your question concerns law in general. This includes law making. At the level of the European Union, law-making involves three institutions, the Commission, which proposes legislation, the European Parliament and the Council, which decide. This process is essentially linked to political decisions. In international law, treaty-making is a result of negotiations between States. The conduct of States within negotiations is a consequence of political decisions. International custom results from State practice accepted as law, which in many cases is influenced by political decisions.
Moreover, law is a system applying within society. Therefore, any practitioner of law should be aware of the structure, functioning and of the values of the society.
You have devoted much of your academic work to public international law while simultaneously working within the institutions of the European Union. At a time when geopolitical tensions increasingly test the limits of international law, do you believe the European Union still represents a model of law governing power, or is it itself beginning to experience the same pressures that have weakened the broader international legal order?
As a judge, I will answer this question through quotations.
According to Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, “[t]he Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail”.
In the international sphere, Article 21 is mostly relevant: “The Union’s action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law”.
These values have concrete legal consequences. As the Court of Justice underlined in the so-called “conditionality judgments” (judgment of 16 February 2022, Hungary/Poland v. Parliament and Council, C-156/21, C-157/21), “Article 2 (…) is not merely a statement of policy guidelines or intentions, but contains values which (…) are an integral part of the very identity of the European Union as a common legal order, values which are given concrete expression in principles containing legally binding obligations for the Member States”.
Throughout history, lawyers have often been asked to distinguish between what is legally permissible and what is morally defensible. Have there been moments in your professional life when that distinction became personally uncomfortable, and how should a judge approach cases where the law and moral intuition appear to diverge?
I will answer this question differently: in my view, interpretation is the key to any question of law. In European Union law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it appears and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it forms part. In international law, rules must be interpreted in good faith, based on the ordinary meaning of their terms within their context and considering the treaty’s object and purpose. Thus, I consider that lawyers have the capacity to adapt the rules of law, through interpretation, to situations that arise within society, be it at the national, European or international level.
Romania’s accession to the European Union transformed not only its institutions but also the careers of an entire generation of lawyers. Having belonged to that generation, do you believe lawyers from newer Member States bring a different intellectual perspective to the interpretation of EU law than colleagues whose countries were founding members of the Union?
I strongly believe that there is not and should not be any difference between what you call “newer” or “older” Member States, including concerning the perspective brought by lawyers of, in a larger sense, my generation. I think, in general terms, lawyers within my generation are and should be guided by the values of justice, equality, rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. I may sound idealistic but this is what I believe. It is true, I noted, within the European institutions, differences in the approaches of legal professionals. However, I think these differences stem from the person’s professional background: national judge, lawyer, academic, practitioner of international law, and not from nationality.
Your academic career has required you to explain European law to students, while your judicial work now requires you to interpret it authoritatively. Has teaching made you a more cautious judge because you are constantly aware that every judgment will itself become part of legal education?
I started teaching international law at the age of 22, in parallel with my work within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thus, while teaching, I was always mindful to explain to students how law works in practice, while being careful about the particularities involved in holding an official position.
After I became judge, my teaching activities are limited to being “guest professor”, upon invitation and on a case-by-case basis. Of course, while speaking publicly, any judge should observe certain limitations involved by the code of conduct.
However, I do not think it is correct to say that when a judge decides upon a case, he or she is concerned about how the case is going to be taught in legal education. The judges examine the interpretation and application of law to the facts of the case, which involve the situation of the parties and, of course the wider consequences of the interpretation chosen for future similar situations that may appear.
European law has often advanced through moments of constitutional courage by the Court of Justice. Yet every ambitious interpretation also raises questions about judicial legitimacy. Where, in your view, is the line between interpreting the Treaties faithfully and unintentionally reshaping them?
As I mentioned in an answer to a previous question, I consider that interpretation is the key to any legal question. Interpretation is not limited to the text of the law, but involves also context and the object and purpose of the rules. Moreover, the legitimacy of the Court of Justice stems from its independence and impartiality.
Much of your career has unfolded at the intersection of international law and EU law. As the European Union increasingly projects itself as a geopolitical actor, do you expect these two legal orders to become more complementary, or do you foresee tensions becoming more frequent as strategic interests grow?
On the one hand, respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law is part of the values that the Union promotes upon the international scene. On the other hand, international law is part of the European Union law: EU Courts may rely on customary international law in order to annul an EU act adopted by the institutions on the basis of the treaties the EU is founded; similarly, under certain conditions, agreements concluded by the Union with third countries or international organizations, entail direct effect in EU law.
The circumstance that, international law is widely subject to challenges, and instances of non-compliance, is not likely, in my view, to trigger what you name “tensions” between international law and EU law.
Lawyers are trained to reason through precedent, while diplomats are trained to anticipate consequences. When those two instincts point in different directions, which has tended to prevail in your own decision-making throughout your career?
Consistency of case-law is indeed an important objective of the General Court, as well as of any judicial system. When case-law establishes an interpretation of a rule in order to apply it to certain facts, in principle the interpretation should remain constant. However, when the legal question is new, when the facts are different, or even totally different, another interpretation may be required. And this takes into consideration all relevant factors, as I already mentioned: text, context and objective of the rule. Thus, law is a living and constantly evolving system.
Having represented your country abroad and later becoming a judge of a supranational court, has your understanding of sovereignty fundamentally changed?
I would not say that my understanding of sovereignty changed. Of course, sovereignty is one of the most important principles of international law. However, it has to be regarded through the lens of contemporary developments in international and European Union.
I do not think that sovereignty is eroded when States assume international obligations or when they decide to exercise sovereignty in common, while transferring competences that traditionally belonged essentially to States to supranational institutions. On the contrary, these are expressions of how sovereignty is exercised.
Does sovereignty today consist primarily in preserving national autonomy, or in creating legal frameworks through which states can exercise influence collectively?
Your question appears as an “either A”/”or B” question. Reality is more nuanced. In the European Union, Member States exercise in common certain competences. Thus, the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union define exclusive competences of the Union, shared competences between the Union and the Member States as well as the Union’s competence to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. At the same time, the Treaty on the European Union provides that the Union shall respect Member States’ national identities and essential state functions. These elements are complementary and not mutually exclusive. Moreover, I would like to outline the principle of sincere cooperation, according to which the Union and Member States shall assist each other in mutual respect.
The European Union is increasingly called upon to decide questions involving sanctions, security, artificial intelligence, climate policy and strategic autonomy—areas where legal certainty is difficult to separate from rapidly evolving political realities. Do you believe judges must consciously resist these broader developments, or is complete insulation from contemporary context neither possible nor desirable?
These are realities of the society we are living in. Cases involving restrictive measures, digital markets, digital services or legal acts related to protection of environment are a significant part of the cases submitted to the General Court. Thus, such cases shall be dealt with on the basis of the Treaties on which the Union is founded and the law adopted on their basis, which the Court is called upon to interpret.
You have taught and lectured internationally for many years, exposing students from different legal traditions to European law. Have you found that the greatest differences between legal cultures lie in legal doctrine itself, or in the assumptions lawyers make about the relationship between law, authority and society?
In the field of European Union law, the European Court of Justice has the competence to ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed. Therefore, I would say that legal doctrines and legal traditions in Europe, although conferring variety, are always in line with the unitary interpretation given by the Court. This is also because the judicial system of the Union is construed in such a way that the national judges are “the judges of the European Union law”, applying the EU law to cases submitted before them. When a question of interpretation or validity of a European Union rule arises, national judges enter into dialogue with the Court of Justice of the European Union, which includes the General Court, through the preliminary reference procedure, which has been named “the keystone of the EU judicial system”.
A great part of my teaching activities involved international law. On a global level, differences between legal theories demonstrate that different States have various perceptions about what law is and how its interpretation and application influences their conduct.
As someone who has written extensively while also serving in government, do you think academic legal scholarship has become too detached from the practical constraints under which public institutions actually operate, or is that very distance what allows scholarship to remain intellectually independent?
Academic independence is very important and I attach great value to it. I started teaching in a context in which all professors of law were also involved in legal practice. This confers value to teaching, as legal theory presented to students is anchored in practice. Of course, when a scholar holds an official position, he or she is careful that the opinions expressed in academic writings do not affect the position of the institution at issue. However, this does not mean that the opinion expressed are not original or independent.
I think all varied positions in which academics find themselves are valuable. On the one hand, if a scholar is active only in the academic life, the full independence is totally guaranteed. On the other hand, if the scholar also holds an official position or if they are a practicing lawyer, academic independence remains, but there is undoubtfully a duty of reserve, not to affect the position of the institution, of clients, or, in the case of judges, to fully respect the secrecy of deliberations. The advantage is, nevertheless, being closely anchored in practice and in the realities of how law works.
Many jurists describe their careers as a gradual search for legal certainty. Yet your own professional path—from international relations to diplomacy, government service, academia and finally the bench—suggests continuous adaptation. Has the passage of time made you more certain about the law, or more conscious of its limits?
“Continuous adaptation” is a good word and I thank you for this. I started working in the field of in international law, where in many cases jurisdiction is not compulsory, compliance with law requires good faith and realizing that international law is a value per se. International law appears thus as a common language according to which States communicate to each other, even when a dispute exists. International law also appears as a succession of arguments that come “in pairs”: for each question, when there is no compulsory jurisdiction, there is “interpretation A” and “interpretation B”. The choice is made by statements of States, academics writings, but in many cases the debate continues for many years.
In the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union, with its two Courts, ensures unitary interpretation of EU law and compliance with it. Thus, judges are called to determine the correct interpretation, among variants of interpretation proposed by the parties. New situations always appear, triggering new questions of interpretation. I think this is the normal way in which law operates. As I already mentioned, law is a living mechanism and it evolves together with the society.
Legal certainty is a different concept and is not compatible with the constant evolution of law. The principle of legal certainty requires that law must be clear and its application foreseeable to all interested parties and that any legally binding act intended to produce legal effect clearly states its legal basis. Legal certainty is fully compatible with the requirement that law should be interpreted. Law is written in abstract terms and is meant to apply to an indefinite number of future concrete cases. Therefore, each concrete case involves a higher or lower degree of interpretation.
If you could identify one misconception that young European lawyers hold today about the European Union’s legal order—something that only decades of experience in diplomacy, scholarship and judging have taught you—what would it be, and why do you believe it matters for the future of Europe?
It would be difficult to say what young lawyers think and what their conceptions are, and even more difficult to say that they have misconceptions.
I might answer your question by saying that I think it is important to realize that the European Union law and the judicial system that stems from it, is construed as such that the national judges are the judges of the Union. As a natural consequence, lawyers of each Member State are the lawyers of the EU law. It is for the national judges to be the first to apply the EU law. And it is for them to enter into dialogue – from judge to judge – with the Court of Justice of the European Union, through the mechanism of the preliminary reference. Thus, in practice, primacy of EU law appears not as a matter of hierarchy, but as a principle shaped through this dialogue from judge to judge, sometimes through repeated dialogue.
Has there been a book, film, or work of art that significantly influenced the way you see the world or think about your work?
I will not refer to one single work of art that “influenced” the way I see the world or my work.
I will nevertheless indicate a recent book that I found valuable, because of the perspective it offers on how society perceives historic events from different angles and through different lens: it is called “The Blind People’s History”, by Alina Pavelescu and Serban-Liviu Pavelescu, and offers various contemporary perspectives over Romania’s society, from the political and cultural point of view, between 1940 and 1945. It shows how perceptions of the same society can vary in a rather short period of time, following historic events. Thus, I find history very important not only because it shows us how events of the past can shape present conduct, but because the way in which it is presented can shape our identities and values.
Looking at younger generations today, what gives you the greatest sense of hope, and what concerns you the most?
I am very optimistic about the younger generation. They develop very high adaptation skills and will have the possibility to acquire knowledge from a much larger spectrum than previous generations. The challenge is represented by the very high amount of information the young have access to. I am confident that the young develop the right critical spirit and are attached to values, but this involves dialogue, debate and, very importantly, education.
If you could spend a full day with any historical figure, who would you choose, and what questions would you want to ask them?
This is a difficult question to ask. If I think about it, I have to confess that I really had a long meeting with a person we may call, within a certain limit, a “historical figure”. It was in 2010, when I attended as alternate head of delegation the 2010 Kampala Conference, which adopted the amendment to the Statute of the International Criminal Court that defined the “crime of aggression”. This, I had the occasion to speak at length to Benjamin Ferencz, an Amercian lawyer, born in Romania, in 1920, who has been the assistant to the prosecutor at the Nurnberg Trials. He attended the Kampala Conference as member of the “NGO team” and I was deeply impressed about the depth of his appeal to peace. I sincerely consider that his presence and his appeals had an important contribution to the efforts of States to achieve consensus on such an important topic as the crime of aggression.
If you had asked me this question when I was a student, I would have chosen Hugo Grotius, who is known today as the “father of international law” and who is known for developing international justice on the basis of natural law. I would still be interested in how natural law is envisaged to be valued in the context in which positive law witnessed an exponential development.
If you were asked to teach a class on a subject completely unrelated to your profession, what would it be, and what would you hope students take away from it?
I would like to teach history. I think history is very important in order to learn from past events, including from errors of the past. History is also important in order to shape our identities and uphold our values.
If you could ensure that one human value is never lost in society, which value would you choose, and why?
I would say that respect for human dignity, for the human personality and, in the larger sense, the respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms should be never lost in society.
I like very much a quotation from a 1990 OSCE/CSCE document defining the rule of law. Thus, rule of law “does not mean merely a formal legality which assures regularity and consistency in the achievement and enforcement of democratic order, but justice based on the recognition and full acceptance of the supreme value of the human personality and guaranteed by institutions providing a framework for its fullest expression”. I would like to underline the “supreme value of the human personality”, which has a particular meaning bearing in mind the context in which the document was adopted.
Humanity is facing radical changes. To name just ten: geopolitical instability, climate change, economic inequalities, technological risks, public health challenges, political polarization, resource scarcity, humanitarian crises, misinformation, and disparities in global healthcare access. If, in an imaginative exercise, you had the power to solve one of these problems, which one would you choose first and why?
Of course, I would like to be able to respond to all these challenges. Prioritizing involves a criterion. If the criterion refers to challenges that are beyond the powers of our society, I think that climate change is the challenge that would really need the contribution of “the power” you suggest in this imaginative exercise.
What do you believe human beings owe one another, both as individuals and as members of a global society?
Respect as a general concept, respect for the other’s individuality and rights and understanding
Interviews often focus on successes. Could you share something from 2025 that did not unfold as you expected, and what that experience taught you?
In spite of certain professional successes, 2025 was not an easy year, because of certain health challenges concerning my family. This taught me that health and family are of utmost importance for each one of us. General welfare stems from welfare of each one of us, and it starts with your own health and your family.
Are there any personal or professional goals you feel comfortable sharing for 2026?
The goals are simple, nothing unusual: continue to do what I do, with fairness and the right balance. Maybe continue some publications and sharing my thoughts in some conferences.
When you imagine the final moments of your life, what kind of news would you most hope to hear, and why?
Sincerely, I prefer not to imagine the final moments. However, if you ask me so, I would think of serenity and hope that the members of my family are well. Of course, it might be desirable that the society, the world as a whole, would continue to be balanced and fair and would follow a normal evolution throughout history.