The Supreme Council of Magistrates (CSM) specified on Monday that the request of the General Prosecutor’s Office regarding the opportunity to refer to the Constitutional Court (CCR) a request to acknowledge a constitutional legal conflict between the Public Ministry and Parliament “does not meet the legal requirements to allow for its pursue.”
“Taking advantage of the Constitutional Court jurisprudence, the Superior Council of Magistrates considered that the request of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice regarding the opportunity to refer to the Constitutional Court a request to acknowledge a constitutional legal conflict between the Public Ministry – the Prosecutor’s Office with The High Court of Cassation and Justice and Romania’s Parliament does not meet the legal requirements to allow for its pursuit, as long as no violations of constitutional competencies have been invoked, there has been no claim for the failure to perform acts on obligations deriving from the Constitution’s provisions and no institutional blockage was created, the activity of the prosecutor’s offices being in no way disturbed by the request made by the inquiry committee established at the level of the Parliament of Romania,” reads a press release sent to AGERPRES.
As far as expressing an opinion in relation to the legality of the Prosecutor’s Office sending copies of the documents in the 2009 elections case, at the parliamentary’s committee’s request looking into the same events, CSM considers that such a deed entails the interpretation of legal provisions, other than the ones related to the judicial system organisation.
“Through the responses communicated to the two public institutions, taking into account the constitutional and legal provisions in force, the Superior Council of Magistrates highlighted that the request made by the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice in relation to CSM expressing an opinion, given its role of guarantor of the independence of the judiciary, on the legality of sending copies of criminal cases’ documents, upon the request of a parliamentary inquiry committee, entails the interpretation of certain legal provisions, other than those concerning the organisation of the judiciary, which would trigger an excessive expansion of the legal tools that defend the independence of the judicial system, all the more since the file requested has already been solved by the judiciary,” reads the release.
On July 31, Attorney General Augustin Lazar asked CSM to issue an opinion regarding the investigation into the 2009 elections and to express an opinion in relation to the necessity to refer to the Constitutional Court (CCR) a request to acknowledge a constitutional legal conflict between the legislative and the judicial authorities.
Augustin Lazar sent a notice to the CSM President, Mariana Ghena, in the context of the analysis of the parliamentary inquiry committee’s request into some issues related to the 2009 elections and, implicitly, the legal issue it raises.