The Judicial Inspection’s (JI) disciplinary action against National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) prosecutors Marius Bogdan Bulancea, Paul Silviu Dumitru and Jean Nicolae Uncheselu, who probed the way government emergency ordinance no.13 (OUG 13) was adopted, was cancelled on Monday by the Supreme Magistracy Council’s (CSM) Section for Prosecutors.
Thus, the Supreme Magistracy Council’s Section for Prosecutors admitted on Monday the exception that the DNA prosecutors had invoked in their defence, and consequently noted the nullity of the disciplinary action.
The Judicial Inspection can challenge this decision by lodging an appeal with the five-judge panel of the Supreme Court, or it can re-do its disciplinary investigation and then once again notify the CSM’s Section for Prosecutors.
In early September, the Judicial Inspection (JI) started a disciplinary action against prosecutors Marius Bogdan Bulancea – Section Chief, Paul Silviu Dumitriu – Deputy Section Chief, and Jean Nicolae Uncheselu – member of the National Anticorruption Directorate’s (DNA) Central Structure, for “exercising their prerogatives with severe negligence.”
“Failure to observe the criminal procedure norms in exercising their prerogatives, which required the judicial body, on one hand, to close the case without carrying out criminal probe acts, as a result of the incidence of one of the cases that forbids the exercise of the criminal prosecution and, on the other hand, not to order the start of the criminal prosecution against the guilty act, since all of the guilty acts claimed in the complaint actually concerned aspects pertaining to the procedure of adopting a legislative act, namely aspects pertaining to advisability and legality, aspects that do not fall under the jurisdiction of criminal prosecution bodies regardless of the legal classification of offences established by the prosecutor (Article 294, Paragraph 3 of the CPP; Article 315, Paragraph 1, Letter b) of the CPP; Article 305, Paragraph 1 of the CPP),” the Judicial Inspection explained.
The JI report pointed out that the result was the grave violation of the separations of powers principle on the part of the three DNA prosecutors “who considered themselves competent to verify the advisability, observance of the legislative procedure and, implicitly, the legality of the adoption of the Government Emergency Ordinance.”
According to the aforementioned source, another consequence was the deterioration of the public opinion’s confidence in and respect for the office of magistrate, damaging the image of the judiciary as a public service, considering that, given the concrete conduct adopted by the prosecutors under investigation – which took shape in the violation of the criminal procedure norms shown above –, the Constitutional Court noted that the Public Ministry not only exceeded the prerogatives allotted to it by Constitution and by law, but also assumed prerogatives that belong to the Constitutional Court or the legislative branch.
The dossier concerning OUG no.13 was closed on June 26 by the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, against the backdrop of the Constitutional Court ruling issued as a result of a notification concerning the existence of a constitutional conflict between the Government and the DNA.