- Revista Forumul Judecătorilor
- Redacţia
- Număr curent
- Numere anterioare
- Lectură online
- Principii de publicare
- Comenzi
- Forum
- Asociaţia FJR
- Comunicate
- 10.05.2016 – Asociaţia „Forumul Judecătorilor din România” solicită membrilor Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii să respecte rolul constituţional al acestui organism reprezentativ al corpului magistraților, de garant al independenţei justiţiei
- 17.01.2017 – Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” pune la dispoziția persoanelor interesate un WHITE PAPER privitor la „Suprapopularea carcerală. Inoportunitatea amnistiei sau graţierii”
- 24.01.2017 – The Romanian Judges’ Forum Association – Observations regarding the projects of Emergency Government Ordinances concerning the collective pardon and the amendments of the Criminal Code and the Procedural Criminal Code
- 21.09.2016 – Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România a luat act de votul prin care Senatul României a respins solicitarea DNA de începere a urmăririi penale faţă de fostul viceprim-ministru, Gabriel Oprea, în privința decesului polițistului Bogdan Gigină
- 20.09.2017 – Forumul Judecătorilor din România: Numeroase adunări generale ale judecătorilor și procurorilor resping modificările de esență propuse de Ministrul Justiției privind legile justiției
- 27.09.2016 – Către Ministrul Justiției – modificare procedura promovare
- 22.07.2016 – The Romanian Judges’ Forum Association expresses its deepest concerns over the current situation in Turkey, regarding the Judiciary
- 13.06.2016 – Punct de vedere cu privire la Propunerea legislativă nr. PL-x 555/2015 privind modificarea Legii nr. 51/1995 pentru organizarea și exercitarea profesiei de avocat
- 31.05.2016 – Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” își manifestă susținerea în situația judecătorului Domnica Manole, din cadrul Curţii de Apel Chişinău
- White Paper – Necesitatea eliminării din legislație a categoriei personalului de specialitate juridică asimilat judecătorilor şi procurorilor
- 03.08.2015 Romanian Magistrates Protest Memorandum
- 14.08.2015 Memoriu protest modificare legi justitie
- 30.09.2015 Memoriu privind proiectul Legii de salarizare a personalului plătit din fonduri publice
- 23.08.2016 Memoriu aplicarea nediscriminatorie a OUG nr.20-2016
- 30.08.2017 FJR către adunările generale de la instante si parchete – critici modificari propuse de MJ legi justitie
- 30.08.2017 FJR Memoriu catre MJ propuneri modificare legi justitie din 23.08.2017
- 27.06.2017 FJR: Judecatorii Curtii Constitutionale trebuie sa aiba dreptul neingrădit de a formula opinii separate si concurente
- 03.05.2018 PRESS RELEASE – Romanian Judges Forum Association regarding amendments proposed to Criminal and Criminal Procedure Code
- 03.05.2018 Forumul Judecatorilor din Romania: Instantele judecatoresti si parchetele resping modificarile esentiale din proiectele depuse la Camera Deputatilor privind Codul penal, Codul de procedura penala si Codul de procedura civila
- 03.05.2018 Forumul Judecatorilor din Romania: Scrisoare catre membrii alesi ai Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii in legatura cu modificarile esentiale din proiectele depuse la Camera Deputatilor privind Codul penal, Codul de procedura penala si Codul de procedura civila
- 06.01.2017 – Nu restaurației cu iz penal! Apel pentru o putere judecătorească independentă
- White Paper – Diurnele încasate în sistemul judiciar. Necesitate sau risipă bugetară?
- Statut şi Act constitutiv
- Evenimente
- Cerere de adeziune
- Comunicate
The Romanian Judges’ Forum Association and the Association Initiative for Justice reject the legislative proposals of the Ministry of Justice which, contrary to the Constitution, provide a kind of “wide impunity” for judges and prosecutors
We, undersigned professional associations of judges and prosecutors, took note of “The draft law on the dissolving of the Section for the Investigation of Offenses within the Judiciary, as well as for the modification and completion of some legal acts in the field of justice”, put for public debate today by the Ministry of Justice.
On this occasion, we found that, in addition to the provisions regarding the dissolving of the Section for the Investigation of Offenses within the Judiciary and the return to the competence of jurisdiction of the prosecutors’ offices existing prior to the establishment of this section, the draft law also contains a series of provisions, qualified by the Ministry of Justice, through the related press release, as “sound procedural guarantees meant to protect the independence of the magistrates from any judicial errors or possible abuses”.
By the proposed provisions, it is intended that charging of a judge or a prosecutor should be authorised by the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and that referring a case concerning a judge or a prosecutor to a court of law should be approved by the Section for Judges or, as the case may be, by the Section for Prosecutors of the Superior Council of Magistracy.
We point out that such provisions have never been demanded by honest judges and prosecutors in Romania.
Such filters in front of criminal liability of judges and prosecutors are obviously unconstitutional, because they place magistrates above the ordinary citizens. Moreover, if such changes were to take effect, the path to the creation of privileges for other social categories, such as parliamentarians, would be opened. The proposal of the Ministry of Justice is therefore completely inexplicable. We also point out that the Venice Commission was not even notified, in order to issue an opinion, absolutely necessary in such a context.
By giving the approval for referring the cases to the courts of law, both sections of the SCM would become a kind of hierarchical superiors of the case prosecutors, which would contravene art. 132 para. (1) of the Constitution of Romania. According to the constitutional provision, the prosecutors carry out their activity in accordance with the principle of legality, impartiality and hierarchical control, but this hierarchical control is performed exclusively within the Public Ministry, by hierarchically superior prosecutors, and not by administrative bodies outside the Public Ministry. The fact that the SCM sections have the prerogative to approve the taking of procedural of some intrusive procedural measures (search, detention, preventive arrest or house arrest) against the magistrates under investigations is not a valid argument, as these measures do not belong to the essence of the criminal investigation, while bringing the case to court does.
From another point of view, after the principle of the “separation of the careers within the judiciary” was recently adopted and applied almost without exceptions, the necessity of the involvement of some administrative, extrajudicial bodies (as the Section for judges of the SCM) in the prosecutors’ activities cannot be justified
Also, the proposal that the charging of a judge or prosecutor to be made only with the prior authorization of the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice appears to be completely inadequate, given that the recently started procedure of selection of the high-ranking prosecutors by the Minister of Justice blatantly disregards the recommendations of the Venice Commission, GRECO and the European Commission. It undoubtedly violates the independence of the case prosecutor and creates a “super-prosecutor”, enjoying a complete impunity, because he would never approve his own standing in trial.
Last but not least, the approval of the referral made by the Section for judges of the SCM, a purely administrative body, completely distinct from prosecutor’s offices, may inflict pressure on the judges of the case during the trial.
Creating a body of incorruptible, honest and well-trained magistrates does not imply granting of such immunities which no ordinary citizen “enjoys”. According to art. 16 para. (1) and (2) of the Romanian Constitution, citizens are equal before the law and the public authorities, without privileges and without discrimination. Nobody is above the law.
Consequently, such regulations, which not even the former government (whose projects in the field of justice have been strongly criticized by the European Commission, the Advisory Council of European Judges, the Advisory Council of European Prosecutors, GRECO, the Venice Commission, etc.) dared to propose are regrettable and inexcusable, liable to cause harm to the honest body of judges and prosecutors. For that reason, their issuer must urgently take responsibility and proceed accordingly.
The Romanian Judges’ Forum Association
judge Dragoș Călin, co-president
judge Lucia Zaharia, co-president
The Association Initiative for Justice
prosecutor Bogdan Pîrlog, co-president
prosecutor Sorin Lia, co-president
No related posts.
Leave a Reply