[ad_1]
The Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy on Wednesday dismissed the request of the Attorney General to establish certain limits for the Judiciary Inspection as part of the supervision of the implementation of the SRI protocol by prosecutors of the whole country
Codruţ Olaru, supported Lazar and requested that limits be set for the control of the judicial inspection at the level of the Public Prosecutor's Office concerning the protocol concluded in 2009 with the ISR and the IRA. state of warrants for national security
See also: Top 10 expressions trusted by others
"Based on the observations made by the Prosecutor General's Office and to which at least the prosecutors of the section (prosecutors section), we subscribe, I believe – the way in which this control carries out a series of clarifications from our point of view, from those who ordered such a control for example, although we all know it – the protocol was concluded in 2009, the targeted control period begins in 2005, so virtually retrospectively with 5 years. The names, forenames and first names of prosecutors who have worked, professionally speaking, on the basis of these provisions, are requested by the Judicial Inspectorate, nominally. And finally, a third observation concerns the part of the national security mandates of the Public Prosecution Service. We all know – it is not up to the prosecution to have such a situation, it only partially interferes with this issue. As a result, I urge you to complete the agenda and to try to signal the limits of the control that he ordered on April 19, "proposed Codruţ Olaru.
Lazar's request, supported by Olaru, was and the judicial inspectors are free to request any information, including the names of prosecutors who have applied the SRI protocol and the number of national security warrants issued under the Protocol
. "After completing the 39 agenda of the meeting, the Plenary Council The Superior Council of the Judiciary has decided to reject the request of the Prosecutor General of Public Prosecutions to the High Court of Cassation and Justice at the address n ° 13979 / C / 1160 / 03.07.2018. (8 votes for admission, 9 votes for rejection) ", says the decision of the CSM
See also: Top 3 myths about motor oil and why do not believe it
[ad_2]
Source link
