Tag: independence of the judiciary

  • New changes to the justice laws in Romania

    New changes to the justice laws in Romania

    On Monday, the Romanian Government passed an
    emergency ordinance amending the justice laws, which have been the topic of
    fierce debates for some time. Applauded by some and contested by others, the
    amendments have been validated by the Constitutional Court, as the Prime
    Minister Viorica Dancila announced in the latest government meeting, also
    stressing that the changes will ensure a better functioning of the justice
    system, for the benefit of the Romanian citizens. In turn, the Justice Minister
    Tudorel Toader has stated that passing this ordinance was necessary in order to
    incorporate some of the recommendations made by the Venice Commission and some
    of the requests made by the Superior Council of Magistracy. The minister has emphasized
    some of the changes, such as the provision according to which, in order to hold
    a leadership position within the General Prosecutor’s Office, the National
    Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) and the Directorate for Investigating Organized
    Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT), prosecutors will need to prove 15 years of
    seniority, instead of 8 as before. Interviews for these positions will be
    recorded, archived and available to all those interested in watching them.
    Also, the prosecutors who want to work with the National Anticorruption
    Directorate or DIICOT will have to have 10 years of seniority. The provision
    regarding the early retirement of magistrates after 20 years of seniority will
    be applied after December 31st, 2019, in order to avoid shortage of
    staff, which is one of the concerns voiced by the Venice Commission. Minister
    Toader explained:


    In order to strike the balance between
    the desire of some of the magistrates to retire immediately after 20 years of
    work, the ruling of the Constitutional Court and the recommendations made by
    the Venice Commission, which believes that this would create staff shortage, we
    have decided to postpone the implementation of this provision up until the end
    of 2019. In the meantime we will see how the system works.


    The president of the opposition National Liberal
    Party Ludovic Orban has stated, however, that out of the nine recommendations
    made by the Venice Commission, the Government has only complied with two and
    that the current ruling coalition ignores all the messages conveyed at European
    level. Ludovic Orban:


    The National Liberal Party firmly blames
    the Government for continuing to mock the independence of the judiciary, the
    citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms and the cooperation with the European
    Commission and other European institutions.


    In turn, Romania’s Prosecutor General Augustin Lazar
    has stated that the changes brought to the justice laws were done hastily, thus
    affecting the solving of important cases:


    Staff from several prosecutor offices
    have been mobilized and posted to solve big and complex cases. In this new
    situation, the staff working on these cases will be dismantled.


    According to Augustin Lazar, unless these so-called
    ‘big cases’ are solved, Romania might have to pay large amounts of money
    following rulings by the European Court of Human Rights.

    (Translated by M. Ignatescu)

  • Reactions to the proposed amendments to the justice laws

    Reactions to the proposed amendments to the justice laws

    As expected by the media, the Superior Council of Magistracy on Thursday gave a negative opinion on a bill to amend the justice laws proposed by the Justice Minister Tudorel Toader. What came as a surprise for many commentators, however, is the tight result of the vote in the Council, which indicates deep divisions among its members. Ten of them voted in favour of a negative opinion and eight for a positive opinion, albeit with some observations.



    The objections of those who voted against are essentially related to several controversial proposals in the bill. These include the transfer of the Judicial Inspectorate under the control of the justice ministry, the elimination of the president from the procedure to appoint the chief prosecutors of the anticorruption and antimafia prosecutor offices, the interdiction to become a magistrate for legal professionals under the age of 30 and the creation of a specialised directorate to prosecute magistrates who commit crimes. The eight Council members who stood for a positive opinion blame the majority for hindering reform.



    Minister Toader, who did not attend the meeting of the Superior Council of Magistracy saying he did not wish to influence debates, later said some people do not want to reform the system, which must be brought within what he called the parameters of constitutionality. He also said he was convinced that the negative opinion also reflected a wish to maintain the current privileges enjoyed by magistrates. The Association of Magistrates in Romania has also criticised the negative opinion issued by the Council. The Association writes in a press release that under the circumstances, the viewpoints sent to the Council from around the country could no longer be supported before the lawmaker.



    President Klaus Iohannis, on the other hand, said, through his spokesman, that the Councils opinion, despite being only advisory, cannot be ignored by the government and Parliament. Speaking on behalf of the biggest party in the right-wing opposition, the leader of the National Liberal Party Ludovic Orban said the government should give up on all provisions in the bill in question, which he said limit the independence of the judiciary. The media and civic organisations view the vote in the Council as rather good news. They reflect the lack of confidence of a significant section of Romanian society in a government suspected of wishing to seize control of the judiciary and put the break on the fight against corruption.



    At the beginning of the year, an attempt by the government to amend the criminal codes through an emergency order triggered the biggest street protests in post-communist Romania. In Bucharest and around the country as well in the Diaspora, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets blaming the government for trying to exempt from criminal accountability influential people from the world of politics and the administration accused of corruption. (Translated by C. Mateescu)