The CSM prosecutor from the Recorder documentary, answer for Lia Savonea: “I am convinced that the covert method also expresses the independence of judges”

Prosecutor Claudiu Sandu, former vice-president of the CSM, gave a harsh response to Lia Savonea after the head of the High Court stated in Tuesday's meeting of the Superior Council of the Magistracy that politicians and criminal prosecution bodies, not judges, are to blame for those who escaped punishment by statute of limitations.

Claudiu Sandu, known to opinion also because he appeared in the Recorder documentary “Captured Justice”, where he spoke about the irregularities in the judicial system, posted on his Facebook account a large response message, entitled “The Two Truths”, to the statements made by Lia Savonea on Tuesday.

It claimed, mentioning the “capture of justice” theme in the Recorder documentary, that it was “manipulations” whose aim “was to weaken the judicial power, to weaken the real independence of judges”.

The prosecutor speaks of the “cover” method

In an apparent reply to these statements, Claudiu Sandu says:

“I am convinced that the “cover” method or the replacement of one member of the panel, which had the effect of resuming the judicial investigation from 0 (although the ECHR does not require such radical measures), years of unnecessary delays in high-stakes cases, successive postings or the revocation of delegations or postings are all an expression of the absolute independence of the judge.”

He states that he agrees that part of the blame lies with the politicians, but he does not agree that the blame also belongs to the prosecutors, pointing to the decisions in the field taken by the Constitutional Court: “Political appointees to the CCR silenced the great mass of criminal magistrates who had interpreted the law in its spirit.”

“Culture, those who destroyed independence claim to defend it”

“To top it off, those who destroyed every vestige of independence today claim to be defending independence.
When you punish those who, showing their independence, allowed themselves to give one more sentence to a corrupt grandmaster, when you revoked delegations or secondments because the magistrate no longer met the required standard, when you sent the Judicial Inspectorate to harass some people who allowed themselves to disagree with you, when you mockingly give leadership positions to those who made the mistake of signing up for the competition against the favorites of the clique at the top of the judiciary, when you remember after almost a year that it is possible that a magistrate had an unethical manifestation and you file a complaint ex officio, you can no longer claim to defend the independence of the judiciary”, accuses Claudiu Sandu.

At the end of his Facebook post, the prosecutor says that “those who are called upon to determine the TRUTH are the beneficiaries of the judicial act – the citizens. If they are satisfied with the judicial act, it means that the Division for Judges is right; but if they are not satisfied with the judicial act, it is possible that I am right.”

Claudiu Sandu's full post:

“I notice that a topic that we hoped would no longer reach the public's attention is being reheated – the prescription of criminal liability, which resulted in saving all the corrupt (but not only).

Thus, in today's session of the Section of Judges, two culprits were identified – the politicians and the criminal prosecution bodies (i.e. the prosecutors), who sent the case to court too late and thus the statute of limitations could not be avoided.

It was stated that the judges cannot be blamed because they only applied European principles and the highest standard of protection of human (defendant) rights, thus declaring their independence, and this led to a dissatisfaction of the government.

I am convinced that the “cover” method or the replacement of one member of the panel, which had the effect of resuming the judicial investigation from scratch (although the ECHR does not require such radical measures), years of unnecessary delays in high-stakes cases, successive postings or the revocation of delegations or postings are all an expression of the absolute independence of the judge.

This independence is understood as I can do any judicial mischief without suffering any consequences because we are magistrates, aren't we.

Regarding the two culprits indicated, I fully agree that a great deal of the blame lies with the politicians, whose vileness and cynicism amazes me every day.

It is true that, if politicians had wanted to, they could have saved the statute of limitations by legislatively intervening within the time frame provided by law.

But it was not wanted.

As for the second culprit indicated by the Section for Judges, namely – the prosecutors – we have become accustomed to being the culprits on duty (see the Caracal case, when all the incompetence of the state bodies broke into the head of a prosecutor who, instead of sleeping peacefully at home, chose to fight for the lives of those children).

However, today's statement is not correct, and since no one is willing to tell the truth, I will tell it myself.

Regarding the PRESCRIPTION, there were two decisions of the CCR.

In the first decision, although the device clearly shows that the unconstitutionality of a legal text is found, the considerations showed that if the accusation was presented to the suspect, the limitation period was interrupted.

99% of the case law has gone in this direction, the judges being aware of the catastrophe that would have resulted if the special prescription disappeared overnight.

After 4 years the CCR came again and explained that the special prescription has disappeared and that all judicial practice is wrong.

So some political appointees at the CCR silenced the great mass of criminal magistrates who had interpreted the law in its spirit.

Evidently the great mass of magistrates were ready to surrender before such a legal enormity, when a glimmer of hope appeared.

ECJ

Some brave magistrates did not allow the criminals to escape and went to the European Court of Justice.

For the first time, this court showed that the decisions of a Constitutional Court can be left without effect, and the magistrate can directly apply European legislation.

For their audacity, these magistrates were harshly punished by imposing the Judicial Inspection on them, by promoting disciplinary actions, by sanctioning them, by removing them from the panels, by any measure likely to scare and create frustration.

Who committed such acts?

Those who today call for the independence of justice, those who today adopt those who allow themselves to criticize some definitive decisions, those who complain that the Government abuses them.

It was unthinkable for a magistrate not to apply the decisions of a national court and to apply European law directly.

In the end we must be sovereign.

To top it off, those who destroyed every vestige of independence today claim to be defending independence.
When you punish those who, showing their independence, allowed themselves to give one more sentence to a corrupt grandmaster, when you revoked delegations or secondments because the magistrate no longer met the required standard, when you sent the Judicial Inspectorate to harass some people who allowed themselves to disagree with you, when you mockingly give leadership positions to those who made the mistake of signing up for the competition against the favorites of the clique at the top of the judiciary, when you remember after almost a year that a magistrate may have had an unethical act and you report yourself ex officio, you can no longer pretend to defend the independence of the judiciary.

In reality, the destruction of judicial independence, followed by waves of acquittals and case returns, created the public anger that provided the fuel for the government's crackdown on magistrates.

I personally believe that this was a strategy with the participation of both parties, and the reason why I believe this is that, while it seems that there was a fight for the independence of the judiciary against the government, apoplexy solutions were pronounced, such as the solution regarding the documents prepared by the DGA workers, which led to a new wave of irretrievably destroyed files.

In the end, the functioning of a public service such as justice is evaluated by each citizen according to the RESULTS.

And these results speak for themselves.

Saving the corrupt, but not only (including children or drug traffickers were saved), the disappearance of the big cases of corruption or tax evasion (although everyone notices the generalization of the phenomenon of corruption, as well as the generalized theft of public money), the general feeling of impunity for criminals who film themselves on TikTok committing crimes, the feeling of the citizen that there is no justice anymore – all this cannot be hidden under the mask of respecting some European or international principles.

The great democracies distinguish themselves precisely by punishing criminals, while we distinguish ourselves by punishing magistrates.

Therefore, we live today in two truths: the one in which thieves and criminals must be treated with empathy and must be saved from the clutches of the prosecutors, who are abusive scoundrels, but also the one in which the criminal investigation bodies have been disarmed, by laws written in bad faith, of the possibility to effectively fight thieves, and the last brave judges are killed in a chorus of howls of bots or the Judicial Inspection.

Those called to establish the TRUTH are the beneficiaries of the act of justice – the citizens.

If they are satisfied with the act of justice, it means that the Division for Judges is right; but if they are not satisfied with the act of justice, I may be right.”