How civic associations want the justice laws to be amended: more important roles for the CSM and INM Plenary and recorded court hearings. How the appointments to the head of the prosecutor's office would be made

Civic associations propose the amendment of justice laws with greater roles for the CSM and INM Plenary, contests organized by the INM, court hearings transmitted live and mandatory approval of the CSM when appointing the heads of prosecutors' offices.

The discussions concern proposals for the amendment of justice laws PHOTO Archive

According to the proposed amendments, heads of public prosecutor's offices would be appointed by the President of Romania, upon the proposal of the Minister of Justice, with the approval of the Section for Prosecutors of the CSM, from among the prosecutors who have a minimum of 12 years of experience as a prosecutor or judge, for a period of 4 years, with the possibility of reappointment only once, in the same way”.

A negative opinion of the CSM would mean resuming the procedure, without the participation of the negatively evaluated person.

Art. 148 – (1) In the case of issuing a negative opinion of the Superior Council of the Magistracy, the Minister of Justice cannot continue the appointment procedure for the respective position, being able to trigger a new procedure as a result of which the same person for whom a negative opinion was issued cannot be proposed. (2) After the issuance of the favorable opinion of the Section for prosecutors of the Superior Council of Magistracy or upon the expiration of the term provided for in art. 6 para. (3), the Minister of Justice can continue the procedure, by sending to the President of Romania the proposal for appointment to the leadership position, accompanied by all the relevant documents.

(3) The President of Romania may refuse, with reasons, the appointment to the management positions provided for in art. 3 paragraph (1), making public the reasons for the refusal. The decree of the President of Romania on appointment or his reasoned refusal is issued within a maximum of 30 days from the date of submission of the proposal by the Minister of Justice.”

the prosecutors would have a say in the judges' careers, simply by involving the Prosecutors' Section of the CSM in the proceedings, something that was not accepted by the judges over time. Also, the National Institute of Magistracy will be part of the procedure for the promotion of judges, which would have a mediating and administrative role, according to the proposals.

Greater duties for CSM and INM

The organization of the contest for promotion to the ICCJ is the responsibility of the Superior Council of Magistracy, through the National Institute of Magistracy.

The results are validated by the CSM Plenary, which can invalidate the competition in case of fraud or non-compliance with the law. Promotion is strictly based on the section for which he applied, in order of marks.

Also, those who would participate in the competition could benefit from paid study leave: “Judges have the right to paid specialized study leaves, for the preparation and support of the competition for promotion to the position of judge at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, according to the law, on the condition that they appear for the competition.”

Delegation of judges

As for the delegation of judges, the proposals provide that if a judge who would be transferred by delegation to another court has a case in court that could become time-barred in the next 12 months, the transfer will be suspended until the cases are resolved.

“In the event that, on the panel in criminal matters, there are files whose object is facts that are prescribed within 12 months from the date of approval of the delegation, the delegation of the judge is suspended until the resolution of the respective cases. The files on the role of the panel, whose object is facts that are prescribed within a period of more than 12 months from the date of approval of the delegation, are immediately transferred to another court panel”the document states.

Public expression of magistrates

At the same time, the magistrates will be able to express themselves publicly regarding the situation of the judicial system: “The exercise of freedom of expression by judges and prosecutors does not constitute a prohibition likely to attract disciplinary sanctions, insofar as it concerns:

a) public debate on issues related to the proper functioning of the justice system; b) defense of the independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and the constitutional order; c) reporting institutional or legislative dysfunctions that affect the judicial act.”

Live streaming of meetings

Another proposal provides for the court hearings to be broadcast live.

“The live transmission provided for in paragraph (41) is carried out at the request of one of the parties or ex officio, in compliance with the following mandatory procedural guarantees:

a) protection of personal data and the identity of victims, vulnerable witnesses and minors, including through anonymization, audio-video distortion or limiting the filming frame; b) exclusion from transmission of the deliberation, which remains secret in all cases; (43) The panel of judges can exceptionally refuse the live broadcast, through a reasoned conclusion, in the following situations: a) the safety of the trial participants; b) protection of minors; c) the existence of classified or confidential information according to the law; d) maintaining public order”according to the document.