Never, to our knowledge, had our profession recorded such a mark of esteem, coming, moreover, from one of the most prestigious jurisdiction in the world: the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) .

This position of the ECHR was taken pertaining to a child retaking case between two Italian couples versus the Romanian State. For not having given the necessary support to the Judicial Officer in charge of enforcing a decision prescribing the retaking of a child by his adoptive Italian parents, the Romanian State was condemned by the ECHR . Everyone will have noticed the relation made by the Court between the role of the Judicial Officer (interest of a good administration of justice) and his implication in the elaboration of the notion of a lawful State (essential element of a lawful State).

Moreover, when considering the text of the Recommendation 17 of 9 September 2003 prepared by the European Commission on Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) - one of the aims being to contribute to the improvement of the judicial systems of the Member States - it is noticed that the States are invited to precisely define the powers of Judicial Officers as regards Judges, in two essential parts: liability and the field of activities of Judicial Officers.

No one may dare to say it, but is it nevertheless clear that the high European institution, through the voice of its organs, goes way beyond the simple recognition of the profession of Judicial Officers. Without speculating on the interpretation that must be made of the Court Judgement and Recommendation 17 of 9 September 2003, two things can be remembered: firstly, Judicial Officers are a essential part of a lawful State, secondly, their prerogatives must be clearly underlined, with respect of those given to judges.

In other words, are Judicial Officers an institution?

This situation, whatever appreciation can be given, does not eventually come as a surprise. As a matter of fact, because of our persistency throughout the years in promoting a standardised profession  for Judicial Officers, conceived through strict criteria articulated around such notions as competence, high legal value, professional liability, high degree of training, etc. we realize that it has finally paid off.

We are now probably recording, not only the results of all those years spent adding value to our functions, in other respects so often ran down -sometimes even contested - but also do we collect all the perseverance of the profession hammering down the message of a high quality enforcement, for the benefit of a close correlation between a lawful State and a requirement for a body of independent and highly qualified Judicial Officers. Finally, do we also profit from the time spent pacing up and down corridors, halls or conference rooms to promote the virtues of an impartial Judicial Officer, independent and impervious to the effects of corruption.

It is probably because of all this, to which can be added economics factors, that Judicial Officers have increased their credibility and won the battle of their USEFULNESS. No one can pretend to exist if he doesn't justify his usefulness. To this end, the formula, according to which every lawful State is based on a judicial system leaning on three pillars: the Judge, the Lawyer and the Judicial Officer, and which accredits the indispensable nature of Judicial Officers, has just brilliantly  taken its full measure with the Judgement given by the ECHR.

The occasions where the profession can be legitimately proud of its excellence are so rare that it would be inappropriate not to mention it, especially when the Strasbourg Court and the CEPEJ cannot be suspected of being indulgent towards us.

The influence of the Council of Europe, the ECHR and the CEPEJ is vast. Without doubt, the relevant Members States' internal legislations, but also other important jurisdictions - we are thinking of the Common Court of Justice and Arbitrage of Abidjan in the framework of the Ohada Treaty - should well be inspired by the Strasbourg Court decision.

It is now the task of the presidents of the National Chambers to relay the message that the Judges of the “Big” Europe has sent us.