The paper is a complex analysis of the national reform in field of justice that contains a great number of normative modifications in the relevant legislative acts, inclusively concerning the judge’s immunity. The authors explain, from an objective and absolutely professional point of view what are the risks of such a decision in our state and how the mentioned situation may affect the quality and the efficiency of justice, the people’s confidence in the act of justice, the independence and impartiality of justice in general and of magistrates in part. Maybe the actual Government does not realize that the risks are major, because there cannot exist a limited independence or impartiality; in such conditions the political interference in the field of justice may become a mechanism to control and influence justice as one of the three state powers and magistrates in taking decisions. It would not correspond to the fundamental principles specific to justice and to the exigencies of a state of law. The authors try to preview the impact of limiting judges` immunity on the justice in functional, institutional and organizational aspects and recommend the National Supreme Court of Magistracy to assume responsibility and manifest activism in consulting the competent state power representatives on the discussed problem, for preventing the risk to have the juridical authority completely influenced and controlled by the political forces in the state. Guaranteeing immunity and independence to justice as an authority, as a system of instances and as a body of magistrates is one of the most important premises of a consolidated justice; the judges` immunity may be limited only in a nondemocratic and sick society, but the democratic government, on the contrary, is a propitious field to discover the axiological essence of consolidated justice.