The parliamentary committee inquiring into the 2009 presidential elections requests Justice Minister to initiate “in extremis” an investigation aimed at Augustin Lazar’s fulfillment of the prerogatives of his office as Attorney General and to refer to the Judicial Inspection in connection with the latter’s exercise of the position he holds.
“The Special Inquiry Committee of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies for the investigation of issues that have to do with the 2009 elections request that Minister of Justice Tudorel Toader use his authority to unlock the serious situation that resulted from the denial of the Prosecutor’s Office with the High Court of Cassation and Justice to make a copy of case No 213 / P / 2017 available to the Special Inquiry Committee. (…) Taking all these aspects into account and considering that it should be confined to the Justice Minister’s role accurately “laid out by the special laws regulating the magistrates’ statute and the judicial organisation,” (…) we call for the Justice Minister: to initiate ‘in extremis’ the exercise of a review aimed at Augustin Lazar’s fulfillment of the prerogatives of his office as Attorney General; in accordance with Article 44 (4) in conjunction with Article 45 (1), as the holder of the disciplinary action, to refer the Judicial Inspection regarding Augustin Lazar’s exercise of the position of Attorney General,” reads a press release sent on Friday to AGERPRES by committee chair Oana Florea.
According to the quoted source, the Romanian Attorney General turned down the request of the Inquiry Committee, misinterpreting provisions of the Criminal Code, the Constitution and decisions of the Constitutional Court (CCR), and the committee came back with a new request, “legally dismantling all the reasons invoked by the former.”
“Instead of collaborating in carrying through the parliamentary investigation, as stated by the Constitutional Court Decision No. 430/2017, art. 35, Augustin Lazar issued two postings on the Public Ministry’s Facebook page and a press release in which he assumes prerogatives pertaining to the Constitutional Court, thus violating two decisions of this institution, namely Decision no. 428/2017 and 430/2017. In addition, the Attorney General solicits the Supreme Council of Magistrates (CSM) that it exercise, in its turn, prerogatives belonging to the Constitutional Court and violating the above-mentioned decisions. The Parliamentary Committee asked CSM to deny Augustin Lazar’s requests, which actually happened, the Superior Council of Magistrates rejecting all the requests of the Attorney General,” Oana Florea mentioned.