[ad_1]
The Venice Commission, the most prestigious forum of European constitutional law, abolished, with legal arguments, the changes made by the majority of the PSD-ALDE-UDMR to the three magistrates. But the advice of European experts is likely to stay in the wind. The reasons?
For example, the Law on the Judiciary (304/2004) and the law on the organization of the SCM (317/2004) were analyzed by the Constitutional Court (PSD-ALDE) and the advanced phase of the three laws in the process of entry into force. (CCR) and sent for promulgation to President Iohannis. The Head of State has exhausted all remedies: he can no longer refer the law to Parliament for reconsideration, nor challenge it to the CCR. Iohannis has 10 days to promulgate them, so they are in force, although Law 304/2004 provides for the establishment of a special section for the investigation of magistrates, a decision deemed inappropriate by the Commission of Venice
CCR, charged by European experts
The only text that can be modified according to the recommendations of European experts is the law 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors. The law provides for the appointment of chief prosecutors and is extremely important, especially in the current context where the majority of the PSD-ALDE has already proposed a new head of the DIICOT and began the selection of the head of the DNA after Iohannis was linked. by the CCR to dismiss Laura Codruţa Kovesi
The Venice Commission recommended that the procedure for the appointment and dismissal of Attorneys General should maintain a balance between the President of the country, the HJC and the Minister of Justice. But the CCR had just broken this balance by deciding to force the head of state to accept the proposal to remove the head of DNA passed on by the Minister of Justice, Tudorel Toader. In this context, the Venice Commission has hit the faces of constitutional magistrates, stressing that in 2005, all RACs decided that the role of the President in the procedure of appointment of prosecutors could not be purely formal. In short, there is a huge gap between the 2005 decision and the 2018 decision. "These different judgments are difficult to reconcile, and the exact constitutional situation for prosecutors' appointments remains unclear."
in force, gives the president the power to refuse indefinitely, but motivated, proposals made by the Minister of Justice for the chief of DNA or DIICOT. Modified by the PSD, Law 303/2004 gives Klaus Iohannis the possibility of refusing only once the proposal of the Minister of Justice.
The recommendations contained in the Venice Commission must be exploited so that the fight against corruption continues.
Klaus Iohannis, President
Law 303/2004, which provides for the appointment and dismissal of prosecutors, is now on the CCR table, having been challenged by PNL and USR for the third time in the CARs. The decision of the Court will be the last chance to bring the law in line with the requirements of the Venice Commission. The best possible scenario is as follows: The Court accepts – at least partially – the objection to the opposition, submits it again to the RCC decision and the majority of the PSD-ALDE modifies the text of the law to take into account not only the CCR judgment, but also the opinion of the Venice Commission. Indeed, President Klaus Iohannis has asked Parliament, as the only legislative authority in the country, not to ignore the recommendations of the European body. "In order to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the consolidation of the rule of law in Romania, the recommendations contained in the Venice Commission must be capitalized so that the fight against corruption continues," said Iohannis
. will agree to give the president more power in the appointment process of chief prosecutors after he has regularly cut off his duties. "This project gives Klaus Iohannis a slap in the face of opposition parties and pirates," said PSD MP Eugen Nicolicea after the Venice Commission's publication of the report containing extremely harsh criticisms of power, not the Opposition or President Iohannis
There is also a favorable PSD scenario: the objection to the opposition to Law 303/2004 must be rejected by the CCR because it is the third time that the law will be examined by the Court. In this case, the law will reach Cotroceni, where the head of state can return to the CCR once, although the chances of success are short after the three objections of the opposition
We have already taken into account the recommendations The Venice Commission This document is advisory, it is a kind of answer for the delegates of the PNL and USR
Codrin Ştefănescu, deputy general secretary of the PSD
The main requests of the Venice Commission
• Review the system of appointment and dismissal of senior prosecutors, the maintenance of the role of the President of Romania and the active CSM in order to ensure neutral conditions and a procedure in which the influence of the Minister of Justice should be balanced. In fact, the Venice Commission criticized the CCR's decision that the Minister of Justice has full power to dismiss chief prosecutors
• Repeal the restriction on prosecutors and judges of freedom of attorney. expression
. dismissal of the members of the CSM
• Abandonment of the early retirement of the magistrates. We recall that the PSD proposal would lead to massive depopulation of the courts, with major effects especially at the level of the High Court and courts of appeal
• Repeal or clearer definition of provisions allowing senior prosecutors to 39, invalidating as unsubstantiated the solutions of prosecutors filing cases
• Review of the creation of a special section for investigating magistrates. The appeal to specialized prosecutors, combined with effective preventive measures, is a desirable alternative.
• In conclusion, the experts of the Venice Commission also consider that these three laws would undermine the independence of Romanian judges and prosecutors, but also the public trust.
New EU critics announced
The demands of the Venice Commission would be a recommendation, but ignoring them would bring new criticism from the European Commission. At the end of last year, in the context of the changes to the laws of justice, the European Commission publishes the annual report of MCV, a report deemed "extremely critical". "The projects of successive amendments to the" laws of justice "promoted by the Ministry of Justice and the Parliament, ignoring the opinions of the SCM and the firm position of the body of magistrates, must be immediately abandoned", said the Judges Association. In January 2018, the European Commission launches a harsh call for amendments to the laws of justice and penal codes: "we are following with concern the recent developments in Romania (…) The Commission invites the Romanian Parliament to rethink the proposed actions . " The Group of States against Corruption in the Council of Europe (GRECO) "expresses its deep concern" about these changes, noting a regression in the independence of prosecutors in relation to duties of the Minister of Justice. Kovesi, noting that "DNA has been the target of criticism on the part of the political class many times, often taking the form of inappropriate attacks and comments from political leaders and individuals investigated and pursued by the DNA itself "In the same month, the annual report of the US State Department notes that" the phenomenon of corruption remains widespread in Romania, and that politicians hold the media and influence the editorial policy ". In July, the Venice Commission publishes the preliminary report on our country, which severely criticizes these legislative changes that "undermine the independence of the judiciary, its quality and effectiveness, which will have negative effects on the fight against corruption ". ( Laurentiu Sârbu)
Source link
