New justice laws designed to correct the damaging changes made by the PSD government will be adopted by the government on Wednesday. Prime Minister Nicolae Chuke said at the start of the executive session that the process by which these laws were developed was “an example of maturity and responsibility for all institutions involved”, while Justice Minister Katalin Predoyu spoke of “consolidating the independence of the judiciary” through new normative acts. However, associations of magistrates speak of “compromising some progress achieved in the fight against corruption and organized crime.”

Thus, the Cabinet of Ministers of Chuke will decide today:

• Project on the status of judges and prosecutors (draft law + explanatory note)
• Bill on the judiciary (bill + explanatory note)
• Bill on the Higher Council of Magistracy (bill + explanatory note)

Then the projects will be sent to the parliament for approval.

Chuke: Through these laws, we ensure the strengthening of justice

At the start of the cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Nicolae Chuke said that “the process in which this package was developed is an example of maturity and responsibility for all the institutions involved.”

“This is the goal that we have set through both the PNRR and the MCV, and I believe that through these laws we are ensuring that justice is strengthened and the rights and freedoms of citizens are guaranteed,” Chuke stated.

We have supplemented the justice accountability in the report with our own findings

For his part, the Minister of Justice Katalin Predoyu said that these laws ensure the accountability of the judicial system, he emphasized that the judicial system will be entered only through an exam, except in cases where there is a shortage of personnel:

• “Indeed, the laws on justice are fundamental for the careers of judges and prosecutors, the functionality of courts and the prosecutor’s office, but also for the SCM, the guarantor of the independence of justice, both according to the Constitution and in my opinion the most important institution in this group of institutions with powers in the judicial sphere.
• In this endeavor, we wanted to be guided by some arbitrary principles, (..,), namely, first of all, the independence of the judiciary, the independence of judges and prosecutors.
• Another fundamental principle, which was strongly affirmed by the judicial system in recent years, was the principle of separating the careers of judges and prosecutors, taking into account the constitutional functions of each of these professions.
• Another principle that was followed was the accountability of the judiciary for its own results and its own functionality, because there are still unmet expectations of citizens, companies and even the system itself.”

Predoyu listed the provisions of the new laws, “which aim to make this system more responsible.”

• “The provision that provides for the transfer of the management and responsibility of the budgets of justice to the Supreme Court of Cassation and justice, a goal that is constantly demanded by judges and prosecutors as an element of strengthening their independence, but also an element of accountability in relation to the spending of public funds assigned to the judiciary, of course, according to by the same rules, in financial coordination with the Ministry of Finance, but with an increased role in the distribution of financial resources in the judicial system.
• If these projects see the light of day in the Official Gazette, then, as a rule, entry into the judiciary will be only through an exam. There is one exception for retired judges who can be rehired if the courts and prosecutor’s office are understaffed. So a very limited exception.
• The rule will be the admission to the position of a judge by an exam, and not by an interview or other methods, which in recent years have had an undesirable effect on the quality of the judicial act, in our opinion of the Ministry. of justice, but also SCM,
• The statute of limitations for disciplinary action has been extended from 2 to 3 years.
• We strengthened the judicial inspection and strengthened the role of the Prosecutor’s Office Section of the Supreme Court in determining proposals for the positions of senior prosecutors as part of the commission, which for this purpose will operate under the Ministry of Justice.

“Fears that we are undermining the binding nature of KKR decisions are unjustified”

Predoiu also argued that through these three laws “the binding nature of the CCR’s decisions was not harmed” and “none of the provisions affect Romania’s relations with the European Commission”:

• “In addition, none of the provisions of this law concern Romania’s relations with the European Commission, Euro-Atlantic integration is the subject of some articles of the Constitution and does not affect (…)
• This discussion has been useful, but fears that with the help of these new laws we are affecting the binding nature of CCR decisions, according to the texts, are unwarranted.”

Four main problems that the magistrates complained about. Prosecutor: Reflects the position of the authorities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs

The projects to amend the justice laws have been strongly criticized by three associations of magistrates, who say that “European partners are being cheated without any restrictions by the Minister of Justice in an insidious and endless game”, as many of the harmful changes criticized are supported by international organizations in last years.

In an open letter, the Association of Judges, the Initiative for Justice and the Association Movement for the Protection of the Status of Prosecutors called on the European Commission to intervene “to restore hope to magistrates who act in good faith that the values ​​of the rule of law have not disappeared in Romania.”

Military prosecutor Bohdan Parlog, co-president of the Association “Initiative for Justice”, listed for Hotnews.ro four main problems in the new laws on justice, which, according to him, “reflect the position of the authorities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MAI). ) and the interest group, which after the revolution managed the MAI at its discretion.”

The main problem in question is related to the judicial police. More precisely, with the new changes, the norms regarding the secondment of judicial police officers to the prosecutor’s office for investigative work alongside prosecutors disappear:

• “Indirectly, the technical service of the Public Ministry is canceled so that it can no longer intercept, for example.
• By removing the judicial police from legal activity, the constitutional provision that regulates the role of the judicial police is stripped of its content and returns to the period before Romania’s integration into the European Union, when the judicial police was a tool exclusively at the disposal of politicians.
• In this way, an attempt is made to deprive the prosecutor’s office of the necessary means to conduct an effective investigation.
• They want to report everything to the police organization, even for admission to the master’s degree, the method of organization established by the Ministry of Internal Affairs must be taken into account.”

Another problem complained about is that they are trying to turn the Prosecutor General into a “super prosecutor”, because he will be able to refute the decisions of the prosecutors.

Thus, regulations have been introduced that enable the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Cassation and justice to challenge all measures and decisions assigned by prosecutors (including DNA and DIICOT prosecutors). “Unless otherwise expressly stated, the prosecutor general can refuse to consider the case by the prosecutor,” says prosecutor Bohdan Pyrlog.

The third criticism is related to the reduction of the powers of the Prosecutors’ Section of the High Council of Magistrates and their transfer to the Prosecutor General regarding delegation and secondment.

“We have discussed with magistrates’ associations and our proposal, which was also found in the form of laws sent to the European Commission, was to have a written examination in criminal law and criminal procedural law for access to senior positions. Management positions are obtained mainly through the process of memorization. For example, in order to get the position of chief prosecutor, I must study motivational theories from the end of the 19th century to the present,” said the prosecutor.

He also claims that the new provisions will give chief prosecutors and presidents of appellate courts discretionary control over promotions, thus “enhancing clientelism and decentralization.” : “There is a return from the system to the laws of justice.”