A PNL senator defends the Social Democrats after the rejection of the law on the special pensions of magistrates. “We cannot talk about an interference with PSD”
PNL Senator Daniel Fenechiu rejects the possible influence of the PSD on the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding special pensions, emphasizing instead the connections of four of the five judges with the judiciary.
Daniel Fenechiu, PNL senator PHOTO: Facebook
Asked, on Tuesday, if it is a coincidence that four out of five judges are proposed by the PSD, Fenechiu answered: “The Social-Democratic Party supported this reform and I am certain that there is no influence of the Social-Democratic Party in the position of the judges”, he writes Mediafax.
But the Liberal senator offered another explanation: “The answer to your question is slightly different. It is no coincidence that three of the judges who ruled against it are magistrates and have broad connections with the magistrate caste. The fourth judge has a judge husband. And the fifth is in an extremely good relationship with the three I was talking about”.
Political interference – excluded
Regarding possible political interference, Fenechiu argued: “We could not speak of an interference with the PSD because, in the last instance, with the exception of Mr. Licu and respectively Mr. Busuioc, the others were practically appointed by Liviu Dragnea”.
“All in all, the PSD is a component of the coalition. Our collaboration with the Social-Democratic Party is a serious collaboration, with the strict exceptions that we know and see, and in matters of justice, in general, we have not had, at least in the last period, slip-ups“, adds the liberal senator.
On the other hand, Fenechiu claims that the CCR has changed its judicial practice in the case of special pensions, contradicting previous decisions.
“I don't think it was a mistake and I'll tell you why. If you look at the timeline of the facts, you find that on July 28 Prime Minister Bolojan sent the note of changes, the table of changes to the CSM.”
The senator explained that the process had successive stages: the CSM initially refused to discuss a draft, requesting a formal request. “In mid-August, the Minister of Labor sent an address to the CSM with the changes, but he did not request an opinion, he requested a point of view”, stated Fenechiu, noting that that opinion was requested two days later.
CCR contradicts itself
Regarding the practice of the Constitutional Court, the PNL senator says: “Look at the court decisions and you will notice that we have a decision in which the court found that notices or the lack of issuing notices on addresses sent 5-7-9 days before did not constitute grounds for unconstitutionality. So, basically, the court changed its practice starting from that provision of law 303 with the fact that the CSM gives opinions within 30 days”.
Asked if CCR contradicts himself, Fenechiu confirmed: “Yes, I say that it contradicts itself and even in the hypothesis that it goes on the theory that 30 days were necessary, I believe that a serious constitutional court analyzes all things in terms of urgency.”
