The leadership of the Judicial Inspection (JI) considers the National Anticorruption Directorate’s (DNA) reaction to the leaking of fragments from the JI’s audit report to be “emotional behaviour” and “an attempt to draw the Judicial Inspection into an area foreign to the deontological values that should be shared by all those carrying out the act of justice.”
“The National Anticorruption Directorate’s press release of October 6th, containing, among other things, accusations against the leadership of the Judicial Inspection concerning the management of the confidentiality of some documents related to the audit activity carried out at that prosecutor’s office unit, is a new attempt to draw the Judicial Inspection into an area foreign to the deontological values that should be shared by all those carrying out the act of justice,” the Judicial Inspection points out.
At the same time, the JI leadership labels the DNA’s reaction as emotional behaviour that does not justify the fact that it publicly revealed the conclusions of the Judicial Inspection’s audit report.
“The Judicial Inspection’s leadership deems that such emotional behaviour, taking concrete form as groundless accusations, exceeds the conduct a magistrate should adopt when exercising their prerogatives and cannot represent the grounds for releasing information not meant to be made public,” the JI points out.
On Friday evening, the DNA made public the conclusions of the JI report, pointing out that they are taken from the provisional document sent to the Directorate.
Thus, the DNA states that it wants “the proper informing of the public opinion, bearing in mind the deficient way the Judicial Inspection managed this report.” This, against the backdrop in which information presented as the conclusions of the Judicial Inspection’s report had started to appear in the public space as early as Wednesday.
According to the conclusions of the document made public by the DNA, Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi “has the qualities required to continue to exercise the leadership position.” The provisional conclusions are appreciative of Laura Codruta Kovesi, stating that she “managed to render the activity efficient” and to coalesce “a homogenous collectivity, transforming it into a team that is capable of performance in the specific field of activity.” In the rapports with her subordinates, Kovesi adopted “a reversible responsibility, in the sense that, while asking her subordinates to carry out their tasks, in her own turn, she also explained her activity to them.”