In an Opinion adopted on Friday, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission expresses concern that many draft amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code in Romania seriously weaken the effectiveness of its criminal justice system to fight corruption offences, violent crimes and organised criminality. The Venice Commission recommends that the Romanian authorities conduct an overall re-assessment of the amendments in both codes through a comprehensive and effective consultation process in order to come up with a solid and coherent legislative proposal benefiting from a broad support within the Romanian society and taking fully into account the applicable standards, and to follow the guidance of the Constitutional Court. On 12 October the Constitutional Court of Romania established that over 60 articles of the draft law amending the Criminal Law Procedure were unconstitutional and is expected to examine the constitutionality of the draft amendments to the Criminal Code later this month. The Commission also adopted with some amendments the preliminary opinion issued in July on three drafts laws amending existing legislation on the statute of judges and prosecutors, judicial organisation and the Superior Council of Magistracy. This opinion criticises that these laws would adversely affect the efficiency, quality and independence of the judiciary, with negative consequences for the fight against corruption. The three laws have already been promulgated and entered into force. The Opinion notes that the two government emergency ordinances just recently adopted by the Romanian government address issues covered in this opinion. Whilst the Commission welcomes as a positive step the postponement of the entry into force of the early retirement scheme for magistrates, which will provide Parliament time to reconsider this scheme, it did not examine other parts of this ordinance and reserves its position in this respect. With regard to the draft amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the opinion underlines that although the public debate has focused on the risk that they may undermine the fight against corruption, their impact is much wider. According to the Commission, the reform could significantly affect the criminal justice system and its effective and efficient operation, in particular the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of other serious and complex forms of crime. The opinion criticises the excessive speed and the insufficient transparency of the reform process, especially because there were more than 300 amendments, many of them radically reforming criminal policy. The haste in their adoption had a negative impact on the quality of the legislation, which contains contradictions that could cause legal uncertainty in the future. The Commission also stresses that a more comprehensive process of discussion with legal practitioners and society at large would have been necessary, in particular taking into account that the amendments were questioned by actors such as the High Court of Cassation and that they were very divisive in Romanian society and institutions. In addition, considering the clashes between institutions (for example, the President of the Republic, the High Court of Cassation and the Prosecutor General versus the Parliament), the Commission highlights the need for more time to search for a broader support for the legislative package. The opinion does not provide a detailed analysis of all amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, but only those which raise the most serious concerns. The Commission in particular recommends to the Romanian authorities: Criminal Procedure Code to thoroughly review the amending law as a whole to ensure that the reform will not have a negative impact on the functioning of the criminal justice system. While all the amendments should be thoroughly reviewed, to amend in substance the rules on communication on on-going criminal investigations (Article 4), starting a criminal investigation (Article 305), evidentiary thresholds and inability to use certain forms of evidence (Articles 139, 143, 153, 168), and the right to be informed of and participate in all prosecution acts (Articles 83 and 92) to reconsider the final and transitional provisions. Criminal Code to reconsider and amend the provisions regulating corruption-related offences, in particular bribery (Article 290) – the Opinion stresses that the draft amendment would discourage bribe givers from co-operating with law enforcement -, influence trading and buying (Articles 291 and 292), embezzlement (Article 295) and abuse of service (Article 297); to reconsider and amend some other provisions with a more general impact, such as those on the statute of limitations (Articles 154-155) – according to the Opinion, the proposed amendment creates a high risk that in complex cases the crimes at issue be time–barred before the investigation and trial can be carried out-, false testimony (Article 273) and compromising the interests of justice (Article 277 CC); to reconsider and amend the provisions on extended confiscation measures (Art. 1121) and the definition of public servant (Art. 175), ancillary penalties (Article 65), in order to bring them in line with the country’s international obligations. The as-adopted opinion will be made available electronically on the Venice Commission website by Monday afternoon 22 October. President Iohannis requests Parliament to take account of Venice Commission’s opinions, reevaluate amendments to Justice laws President Klaus Iohannis calls for Parliament to take into account the Venice Commission’s opinions and reevaluate the amendments brought to the Justice laws but also to the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Code, because “the negative impact on Justice and the rule of law must cease.” According to the Presidential Administration, President Klaus Iohannis believes that the very serious aspects shown by the Venice Commission regarding the amendments to the laws of justice and the criminal codes represent an absolute signal the current government and the parliamentary majority have to take into account so that they don’t push Romania in a direction incompatible with the European Union’s values. “The two opinions of this European forum are extremely critical and prove, predictably, all the irregularities shown for more than a year by the President of Romania, the parliamentary opposition, the civil society, the Superior Council of Magistrates, the justices and prosecutors,” a release issued on Friday by the…
President Klaus Iohannis stated on Thursday, in Brussels, that the Government emergency ordinance amending the judicial laws is very disquieting and that Minister Tudorel Toader came up with the legislative act without a transparent assessment. “This GEO is very disquieting. There are many things to discuss. For instance, the retirement of magistrates is an issue that I signalled, I asked Parliament for a re-assessment. They did not do it, then the Justice Minister came up without a transparent assessment, changing the articles, but he did not solve the problem, he simply postponed it. New conditions for prosecutors have been introduced overnight. The opinions are being ignored,” Klaus Iohannis stated on Thursday, in Brussels. The Head of State added that the legislating is not done correctly and that the leaders of the PSD-ALDE coalition do not want to consult foreign partners, which is not a good way to solve the Romanian judiciary’s problems. “The legislating is not done correctly. People expect the legislating to be done transparently and by taking into account the opinions of the system too. But it’s clear that PSD-ALDE does not want to legislate transparently, to consult the partners. It is not the right path leading to social peace and it will not solve the problems within the judicial system. No law and no GEO are retroactive, but we know that the Ombudsman is being asked to notify the Constitutional Court and I will continue to wait and then I will go into more details,” Iohannis added. Head of State suggest he disagrees with appointing Adina Florea at DNA: I asked that the legality of this nomination be verified. There is a negative opinion from the CSM Referring to Adina Florea’s nomination at the helm of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA), President Klaus Iohannis stated that he will not allow Romania to backtrack in the fight against corruption and that he has asked that the legality of the nomination be verified, considering the CSM’s negative opinion. “Romania cannot backtrack in the fight against corruption and I won’t accept this. For that the DNA needs an independent person at its helm. It’s not possible to backtrack, considering Romania registered positive steps. We have a negative opinion from the CSM, which contains things that should be food for thought. Until then, I have asked the relevant department to verify the legality of this nomination. But I will not accept anything that represents a step back in the fight against corruption,” Klaus Iohannis stated on Thursday, in Brussels, when asked about Adina Florea’s nomination at the helm of the DNA. He added: “I don’t know the person, nor do I believe I have to. I will study the documents, after which we will talk more at home.” Justice Minister Tudorel Toader announced on Monday that he sent President Klaus Iohannis the proposal to appoint Adina Florea as Chief Prosecutor of the DNA. Adina Florea received a negative opinion from the CSM’s Section for Prosecutors.
The post Klaus Iohannis on GEO on judicial laws: This ordinance is very disquieting appeared first on Nine O' Clock.
The emergency ordinance on judicial laws was published in the Official Journal on Tuesday, 24 hours after it was adopted by the Government. Prosecutors from all prosecutor’s offices will remain in office provided they meet the conditions included in the new legal provisions. The Government emergency ordinance (GEO) came into force the moment it was published in the Official Journal. The legislative act establishes that, in order to be promoted to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (PICCJ), “prosecutors must have no disciplinary sanctions, good professional training, irreproachable moral conduct, at least 10 years seniority as prosecutor or judge, at least the professional rank corresponding to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Court of Appeals, and must have been declared admitted following a competition organised by the commission set up for this purpose.” The Prosecutor General, the Chief Prosecutors of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) and the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT), their First Deputies and Deputies, as well as the chiefs of the sections of these prosecutor’s offices are nominated by the Justice Minister and appointed in office by the President of Romania, with the opinion of the Superior Council of the Magistracy (CSM), from among prosecutors who have minimum seniority of 15 years as judges or prosecutors, for a three-year term, with the possibility of being reinstated in office only once. Previously, the chiefs of sections were appointed by the CSM’s Section for Prosecutors. Candidates will be heard by the Justice Minister and the hearings will be broadcast live on the Justice Ministry’s website. To be eligible for appointment within the DIICOT or DNA, prosecutors must have no disciplinary sanctions, good professional training, irreproachable moral conduct and at least 10 years seniority as prosecutor or judge and must be declared admitted following a competition organised by the commission set up for this purpose. The GEO stipulates that “the representatives of civil society take part in the proceedings of the CSM’s plenum and have the right to vote.” The legislative act also stipulates that “the Justice Minister can ask the Judicial Inspection to establish whether there are any clues pointing to prosecutors perpetrating a disciplinary offence.” A CSM member can be dismissed if the relevant CSM Section ascertains, based on the Judicial Inspection’s report, that the said member “did not fulfil or improperly fulfilled, in a grave, repeated and unjustified manner, the prerogatives stipulated by law.” Prosecutors from all prosecutor’s offices will remain in office only if they meet the conditions included in the new legal provisions. The GEO came into force the moment it was published in the Official Journal. Justice Minister Tudorel Toader presented on Monday, after the Government meeting, several provisions of the GEO, including the one raising the seniority needed to be appointed Prosecutor General, First Deputy Prosecutor General and Deputy Prosecutor General, and Chief Prosecutor of the DNA and DIICOT. “The minimum seniority is 8 years now and it will be 15 years. At the Justice Ministry, when those interviews take place, the Venice Commission recommends we show more transparency. We took over the CSM model and in the future the said interviews will be broadcast live, will be archived, will be viewable by anyone interested,” Toader emphasised. Another modification raises to 10 years the seniority needed to work as prosecutor within the DNA or DIICOT. “The GEO also consolidates the statute of prosecutor on secondment at the DNA or DIICOT, in the sense that at present the Prosecutor General can dismiss them if he enforces against them the most lenient sanction – a warning. So, we’ve eliminated the Prosecutor General’s ability to dismiss [them] in the presence of the lowest sanction. One observation here which is only liable to emphasise the fact that the future prosecutors who want an office within the section investigating judiciary crimes will benefit from the rights of prosecutors on secondment,” the Justice Minister also explained. Another amendment introduced by the GEO is that the Justice Minister will be able to ask the Judicial Inspection to establish whether there are clues pointing to disciplinary offences on the part of the prosecutors. Tudorel Toader brought as an argument the authority that the Justice Minister has over prosecutors, authority conferred by the Constitution. “Obviously, this authority would be purely declarative if you didn’t have also a juridical instrument to intervene. (…) I’ve been a minister for one year and a half and I’ve never used this instrument. I also wish I won’t have to,” Toader pointed out. Referring to the dismissal of CSM members, the minister said he finds it necessary to eliminate from the law the provision that says that CSM members can be dismissed if they lose the confidence of those who elected them, because confidence is subjective and cannot be quantified. Toader said that the Venice Commission shared this opinion too and took over procedural elements proposed by the CSM in this regard. The early retirement of magistrates has been postponed for the end of 2019, to avoid a personnel deficit crisis, the Justice Minister also announced. “We have decided to postpone early retirement at 20 years for the end of 2019. The Venice Commission would say that it would be a problem if magistrates were to retire after 20 years of actual work, I understand we would be talking about 2,100. That doesn’t mean all would retire on the same day. The proposal came from the CSM, the CCR validated it, the Commission said there is a problem, because a personnel deficit would be created. So, to maintain balance, to respond to the Venice Commission’s concerns, we’ve decided to postpone for the end of 2019, let’s see how many retire, how many enter the system and it will be decided at the end of next year,” the minister explained. Toader also said that an analysis will be made at the Public Ministry’s level to see how many prosecutors on secondment meet the legal criteria to hold their offices….
The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) upheld on Tuesday the challenge of President Klaus Iohannis to the amendments to the Law on the organization and functioning of the Court of Auditors, CCR said in a release. The constitutional judges admitted, by majority vote, President Iohannis’s challenge and found that the Law amending and complementing Law No. 94/1992 on the organization and functioning of the Court of Accounts is unconstitutional in its entirety. “Looking at the constitutional challenge from the point of view of criticism about extrinsic lack of constitutionality, the Court found that the Law amending and complementing Law No. 94/1992 on the organization and functioning of the Court of Auditors was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies as the first competent chamber, in breach of the time limits set forth in Article 75 (2) of the Constitution,” CCR said. On July 30 President Klaus Iohannis filed with CCR a constitutional challenge to the Law amending and complementing Law No. 94/1992 on the organization and functioning of the Court of Auditors. Klaus Iohannis argued, inter alia, that the law had been adopted in violation of the principle of bicameralism, adding that the debates and adoption of the normative act had exceeded the 60-day constitutional term established for the first notified chamber, specifically the Chamber of Deputies. Iohannis also invoked aspects of intrinsic unconstitutionality, such as the law’s reintroducing the preventive control of the Court of Auditors, yet with an incomplete regulation. The President also criticizes the provision according to which the Public Prosecution Ministry is required to send certain information to the Court of Auditors while the latter exercises its duties. “This new provision is a violation of the principle according to which the criminal prosecution is non-public, in accordance with Article 285 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; this aspect is contrary to Article 1 (5) of the Constitution. Such a requirement to the Public Prosecution Ministry to transmit information on the stage of a criminal case to an autonomous administrative authority under parliamentary control undermines both the principle of the separation of state powers provided for in Article 1 paragraph (4) of the Constitution, and the role of the Public Prosecution Ministry as defined in Article 131 of the Constitution, as it was developed by jurisprudence,” he said. The President also argued that making it possible to delegate some of the chairman’s executive powers to the vice-chairmen without an objective presentation of the reasons and conditions where such a delegation may operate violates the basic law, and the regulation lacks predictability and clarity. According to President Iohannis, not holding the representatives of the audited public entities responsible for the consequences of the errors / deviations from legality found by the Court of Auditors runs counter to the constitutional role of this authority.
The post Constitutional Court admits President Iohannis’s challenge to amendments to Court of Auditors statutes appeared first on Nine O clock.
A Government meeting was convened on Monday morning to adopt the emergency ordinance amending and supplementing the judicial laws, ordinance that was not initially included on the announced schedule of the day. The text of the Government emergency ordinance (GEO) was criticised by some Social Democrats. Premier Viorica Dancila announced on Monday, referring to the GEO on judicial laws, that the solution was discussed during the Justice Minister’s meeting with the representatives of the Venice Commission as well as during the meeting with European Commission First Vice President Frans Timmermans.   PM Dancila: The solution, discussed with Venice Commission representatives and Timmermans “This solution has been discussed during the Justice Minister’s meeting with the representatives of the Venice Commission and during the meeting with European Commission First Vice President Frans Timmermans. As you know, the three judicial laws were modified by Parliament, and the modifications were validated by the Constitutional Court,” Viorica Dancila stated at the start of the Government meeting. The Premier pointed out that the emergency ordinance correlates certain provisions for better practice within the judicial domain. “What we are adopting today within the Government represents a harmonisation of the provisions of the laws, to ensure better practice for the act of justice. The judiciary must be a guarantee for the defence of the rights of Romanians, and abuses in carrying out the act of justice are not and will not be tolerated,” the Head of Government added. The ordinance, which was relayed to the Superior Council of the Magistracy (CSM) on Friday evening and which MEDIAFAX got hold of, stipulates, among other things, the postponement of the early retirement of magistrates. Thus, the provisions concerning early retirement are postponed until 31 December 2022. According to the document, this provision’s potential impact on the human resources of prosecutor’s offices and courts was also underscored by the Venice Commission, which recommended that the early retirement scheme be dropped. The GEO shows that a new section will be adopted under Article 54 of Law no.303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, which concerns appointments at the helm of the Prosecutor General’s Office, National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) and the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT). According to the Ordinance, the section thus introduced shows that chief prosecutors are selected based on an interview in which the candidates will present a project and, to ensure the transparency of the procedure, the hearing will be broadcast live on the Ministry’s website. On Sunday evening, the Prosecutor General’s Office criticised some of the GEO’s provisions, warning that they risk violating constitutional order. PSD’s Senate whip Serban Nicolae stated on Sunday, for MEDIAFAX, referring to the text of the GEO on judicial laws, that the formula of dismissing CSM members is “stupid,” the provision regarding the accountability of magistrates is “a mockery,” and as a result the Government should reject the ordinance. “It raises significant questions. I feel that Macovei and Pruna have cast a shadow over the thinking of this ordinance, aside from the fact that the ordinance is very much extended in contrast to what appeared to be the topic of discussion for a potential modification. For example, I’ve seen phrasing the likes of ‘it is prorogued until the end of Romania’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union,’ I’ve seen the absolutely stupid formula concerning the dismissal of CSM members, [process] in which judges and prosecutors vote for dismissal but then the CSM decides with a majority of votes,” PSD’s Senate whip Serban Nicolae stated on Sunday, when asked for his comments on the text of the emergency ordinance amending the judicial laws, a text that the Justice Ministry had relayed to the CSM. Justice Minister Tudorel Toader stated on October 3 that the members of the Venice Commission agreed with the GEO on the judicial laws. “We know that the Venice Commission is not open to the GEO, but it’s not open to ordinances whose role is to avoid the parliamentary procedure, the constitutional procedure. In this case, we are talking about the pre-emption of less wanted effects. (…) They agreed by common assent, they expressed their agreement with the adoption of a GEO in the sense of the things discussed,” Tudorel Toader stated for RomaniaTV. On Friday, President Klaus Iohannis signed the decree promulgating Law no.303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, the final law in the package of three judicial reform laws.   What are the provisions of the GEO on judicial laws. Toader on novelties introduced: Minister can notify the Judicial Inspection On Monday, Tudorel Toader presented the provisions of the Government emergency ordinance on the judicial laws, pointing out that there are changes in what concerns the secondment of prosecutors, that the hearing of candidates for the office of chief prosecutor will be broadcast live, archived and viewable by anyone, and that the minister can notify the Judicial Inspection. “The seniority is raised for those in the magistracy, for those who will obtain the office of Prosecutor General of the ICCJ, First Deputy, leadership offices at the helm of the DNA and DIICOT, which will be the minimum seniority of 15 years. So, from 8 years to 15 years,” Tudorel Toader stated. The minister said that the GEO also establishes the steps to take regarding the appointment in office of high-level prosecutors. Thus, the hearing of candidates for the office of chief prosecutor, broadcast live, archived and viewable by anyone, is introduced in the law. “At the level of the Justice Ministry, when those interviews are carried out to propose to the President the high-level candidacies, the Commission said we should show more transparency. We have taken over from the CSM the said interviews and presentations of managerial projects and they will be broadcast live, they will be archived and will be viewable by anyone interested,” Toader pointed out. There are also changes in what concerns the secondments of prosecutors. The Prosecutor General will no longer decide on secondments at prosecutor’s offices,…
The post Emergency Ordinance on judicial laws adopted by Gov’t. Reactions appeared first on Nine O clock.
On Monday, Justice Minister Tudorel Toader announced on Facebook that he sent to President Klaus Iohannis the proposal to appoint Adina Florea as the Chief-Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA). She received a negative opinion from the Prosecutors Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM). “Today, I sent to the Romanian President the following appointing proposals in leading positions: Adina Florea – DNA Chief-Prosecutor; Elena Georgiana Hosu – Deputy Chief-Prosecutor of DIICOT; Florena-Esther Sterschi – Chief-Prosecutor of the Human Resources and Documentation Department of PICCJ!”, Tudorel Toader wrote on Facebook. On Friday, the Prosecutors Section of CSM has motivated the negative opinion related to Adina Florea as the proposal for the DNA Chief-Prosecutor. Referring to Adina Florea’s statement at the interview according to which “I never was an independent prosecutor, I am working within the Public Ministry”, the CSM prosecutors say that there is an obvious confusion related to the independence notion, “which is unconceivable in such a context”. As for the managerial skills required for the position for which Adina Florea is running, the CSM prosecutors noticed that on the occasion of the interview, she has a low resistance to stress, as well as a low analysis and synthesis capacity and certain gaps in relating to certain values, such as honesty and impartiality. Adina Florea was proposed by Tudorel Toader as the DNA head on September 6. One day later, General Prosecutor Augustin Lazar announced that checks are being made at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Constanta Court of Appeal, from where Adina Florea is coming, since there are suspicions that the secret protocol of 2016 was publicly revealed from there. Adina Florea’s hearing before CSM was scheduled for September 27, but it was postponed in order for the disciplinary investigation requested by the General Prosecutor to be finished. The hearing was resumed for October 8, and the negative opinion came later. President Klaus Iohannis has the right to reject the proposal only once, being obliged to motivate his decision, according to the legal provisions currently in force. Article 54, par.1 of the Law 303/2004 as amended, on the statute of the prosecutors and judges, which was published on Monday, October 15, in the Official Journal, provides that “the General Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, his First-Deputy and the deputy of the latter, the General Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, his deputies, the chief-prosecutors of the departments of these prosecutor’s offices, the Chief-Prosecutor of the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism and their deputies, are appointed by the Romanian President at the proposal of the Justice Minister, with the opinion of the Prosecutors Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy, of the prosecutors having a seniority of at least 10 years as a judge or prosecutor, for a 3-year term, with the possibility to reinvest them only once”. Paragraph 3 provides that “the Romanian President can refuse only once, providing the reasons, the appointments in the leading positions provided by paragraph 1, informing the public on the reasons of the refusal”.
High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) decided on Monday that public assemblies must be previously declared when they are going to be held in squares or on public roads, or in other places that are in the vicinity of the premises or buildings of legal persons of public or private interest. The decision is mandatory. Thus, the magistrates of the Supreme Court admitted the appeal in the interest of the law submitted by the Leading College of the Bucharest Court of Appeal. In July the Managing Committee of the Bucharest Court of Appeal notified ICCJ of an inconsistent practice in courts regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Art. 3 of Law No. 60/1991 on the organization and running of public gatherings, specifically of the phrase “taking place outside of or within the precincts of premises or seats of public or private legal entities.” Most of the courts under the jurisdiction of the Bucharest Court of Appeal considered that the gatherings taking place at a public venue – public road, carriageway, sidewalk, public square, or a location outside the premises of public or private legal entities do not need to be declared.
CSM motivates its negative opinion: She doesn’t know what’s the difference between the prosecutor’s independence and subordination, and she has low resistance to stress The Prosecutors Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) has motivated the negative opinion issued the case of Adina Florea as the proposition for head of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA), mentioning that she doesn’t know what’s the difference between the principle of the prosecutor’s independence and the one of the hierarchical subordination and that she has low resistance to stress, as well as low analysis and synthesis capacity. “The Prosecutors Section finds that she hasn’t proved an appropriate awareness of the difference and interdependence between the principle of the prosecutor’s independence and the one of the hierarchical subordination, which is a highly important issue, especially when exerting a leading position within the Public Ministry”, reads the motivation of the negative opinion issued by the Prosecutors Section of CSM in Adina Florea’s case. Referring to Adina Flora’s statement at the interview according to which “I never was an independent prosecutor, I am working within the Public Ministry”, the CSM prosecutors say that there is an obvious confusion related to the independence notion, “which is unconceivable in such a context”. “Mrs. Prosecutor’s confusion is even more serious since it shows a submissive ideational attitude, which is not congruent to the skills required to the person to hold the highest position in the National Anticorruption Directorate. The Prosecutors Section appreciates that at the level of the whole system, and even more at the level of the National Anticorruption Directorate, it is necessary to ensure that the leading positions are held by people representing a guarantee of the independence and impartiality in making the acts of justice. In this context, sending a public message that shows the existence of some external factors with possible decisional influences may cause a negative impact on the trust in judiciary. Although apparently Mrs. Prosecutor wanted to refer to the hierarchical subordination, the Prosecutors Section appreciates that the uninspired expression cannot be interpreted as a simple error”, shows the CSM’s Prosecutors Section. As for the managerial skills required for the position for which Adina Florea is running, the CSM prosecutors noticed that on the occasion of the interview, she has a low resistance to stress, as well as a low analysis and synthesis capacity and certain gaps in relating to certain values, such as honesty and impartiality. “Thus, Mrs. Prosecutor hasn’t provided an answer supported by a concise, coherent and right argumentation, in term so the juridical logic, on the Protocol concluded between the Public Ministry and the Romanian Intelligence Service in December 2016, stating, on the one hand, that this protocol is adding to the law, by creating mixed teams exceeding the legal framework, containing a working methodology based on which it was created the actual and concrete possibility for the prosecutors to delegate activities to some representatives of other structures than the judicial police, and on the other hand asserting that she didn’t know about the content of this protocol until it was publicly revealed, as well as any prosecutor that delegated such attributions”, according to the quoted source. CSM prosecutors were dissatisfied with the lack of interest shown by Adina Florea when she stated that it was enough for her to acknowledge the cover letter of the protocol, without wishing to know its content, and this proves, as the Section believes, “superficiality in exerting the specific attributions”. “Also, Prosecutor Florea Adina wasn’t able to provide us with a punctual answer on the impact on the activity of the National Anticorruption Directorate of the establishment of the Section for Investigating the Crimes in Judiciary and of a possible decriminalization of certain crimes with qualified subject, which are currently instrumented by the National Anticorruption Directorate, proving that she doesn’t have the ability to develop new solutions”, the Council’s prosecutors also claim, accusing Adina Florea of not being familiar with the manner in which the DNA activity is carried out. “Also, practicing the prioritization of the criminal investigations exclusively based on the public warnings, without being able to identify elements that are factually materialized, which can justify this vulnerability she has, puts the ability of the candidate to identify the threats of the institutional activity under question, this being a key prerequisite for assuming appropriate objectives”, according to the quoted source. JusMin Toader: Justice Ministry has received CSM’s opinion related to appointing Adina Florea as the DNA Chief-Prosecutor; we will analyze it on Monday, then we’ll make a decision Justice Minister Tudorel Toader announced on Friday morning that Justice Ministry has received CSM’s opinion on appointing Adina Florea as the DNA Chief-Prosecutor and that it will be analyzed on Monday, then a decision will be made. The Prosecutors Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy has issued a negative opinion on the proposal to appoint Adina Florea as the Chief-Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate. “MJ (Justice Ministry – e.n.) has received the opinion issued by the Prosecutors Section of CSM on appointing Mrs. Adina Florea as the DNA Chief-Prosecutor. The opinion will be analyzed on Monday, then we will make a decision on the ongoing procedure!” Tudorel Toader wrote on Facebook on Friday morning. On Monday, the Prosecutors Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy issued a negative opinion on appointing Adina Florea as the Chief-Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate. CSM’s opinion has a consultative role. On Monday, Adina Florea was heard more than three hours by the CSM’s Prosecutors Section. Justice Minister Tudorel Toader has repeatedly announced that he will submit to the President the proposal to appoint Adina Florea to DNA, regardless of the CSM’s opinion. On Tuesday, Tudorel Toader said he s waiting to see what are the considerations for which the Superior Council of Magistracy issued the negative opinion after hearing Adina Florea, and after reading the reasons of this opinion, he will announce if he will present his proposal to President Klaus Iohannis. “I…
The post Why Adina Florea, proposed for DNA, failed at the CSM test appeared first on Nine O clock.
The head of the special committee on justice laws, Florin Iordache, said he would participate next week in the plenary meeting of the Venice Commission, to express a point of view in respect to the modifications to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. “On Friday and Saturday there is the general assembly of the Venice Commission for October. I am invited to present a point of view on the preliminary report aimed at the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. You know they visited us in summer and met with the professional associations, the Justice Ministry, the Prosecutor’s Office, Parliament, etc. I will voice an opinion taking into account that, at the moment, the Constitutional Court has pronounced about the Criminal Procedure Code, and part of the articles have been declared constitutional, others unconstitutional, and we are putting them in agreement. I hope that by next week they also pronounce on the Criminal Code”, Florin Iordache told Agerpres on Sunday. The European Commission for Democracy through Law, called the Venice Commission, has, on the 19 October plenary meeting agenda, regarding Romania, the adoption of an opinion about the amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, a Council of Europe release announced on Saturday. The Government will meet on Monday having on the agenda the adoption of the Emergency Ordinance on the three laws on justice to harmonize them with the remarks of the Venice Commission. Victor Ponta: When everything is decided by night by a single person, the results are wrong and then they are fixed through emergency ordinances that repair some things and ruin other things Former Prime Minister Victor Ponta wrote on Sunday on Facebook that the government cannot be successful if it is not serious, professional and consistent. Ponta says that instead of measuring for seven times and cutting just once, the Government and the parliamentary majority were hurried to adopt “all the kind of laws and ordinances which they amend and review constantly”. “When everything is decided by nigh by a single person, the results are wrong and then they are fixed through emergency ordinances that repair some things and ruin other things”, Victor Ponta says. According to him, the laws on justice were given for certain politicians. “The government cannot be successful if it is not serious, professional and consistent! Instead of Measuring for 7 times and cutting just once, the Government sin 2017 and the parliamentary majority were hurried to adopt al the kind of laws and ordinances which they amend and review constantly! When everything is decided by nigh by a single person, the results are wrong and then they are fixed through emergency ordinances that repair some things and ruin other things. Everything indicates a chaotic and unproductive work that affect us all! The “Work for Nothing” Cooperative”, Victor Ponta wrote on Facebook, on Sunday. According to him, the Pay Law “was forcedly imposed in the parliament, and since then, it is constantly amended through emergency ordinances, without being possible to be properly applied”. Same with “the tax revolution”/the law on exploiting the offshore resources in the Black Sea was adopted and amended for 4 times/ the pensioners’ situation was wrongly amended through ordinances and nor the draft pension law goes on the same wrong way/ next is the ordinance amending the laws on justice – by night, being criticized by everybody and ruining more than it fixes”, Ponta added. The former PM says that since 2017, “those who govern and those who support them spoke only about the “Laws on Justice” (leaving behind the real priorities of a good governing: health, education, infrastructure investments, etc)”. “After many disputes and accusations, at the end of the last year, these laws were adopted by the Parliament. They were challenged to CCR, voted and debated again and finally promulgated by the President. Now, we find out that an emergency ordinance will amend them! Couldn’t you make them good from the beginning, without being needed to amend them now? Couldn’t you listen to the specialists and those working in the judiciary (magistrates, lawyers and non-governmental organizations)? Couldn’t you wait for the Venice Commission’s opinion? Who guarantees that the current ordinance fixes everything without ruining other things, if you don’t give enough time to be analyzed and debated?”, Victor Ponta also said. He appreciates that “things were wrongly done from the beginning”. “No one was interested to amend the laws for the litigant citizens’ sake and for the functioning of the judiciary in better conditions. The idea was to help certain politicians who have problems with the law to square accounts with somebody and make a demagogic noise on TV – and you can see the result”, Ponta added in his message, appreciating that “What is happening today must stop as soon as possible”.
The post Parliament justice law committee head, invited to Venice Commission meeting appeared first on Nine O clock.