3.1 C
December 4, 2021

Iordache Committee issues third admission report for the Law no.303/2004 on the Statute of Magistrates. Definition of the judicial error has been changed; PNL and USR are taking into account to submit a new notification to CCR

The specialized Committee on the Laws on Justice changed on Thursday the definition of the judicial error, after the Constitutional Court established that there are several unconstitutional articles in the Law 303/2004 on the Statute of Magistrates. National Liberal Party (PNL) and Save Romania Union (USR) announced that they are taking into account to challenge the new law to the Court.

“Paragraph (3) of Article 90 related to the judicial error is amended as follows: (3) There is a judicial error when: a) Procedural acts were ordered by flagrantly breaching the legal provisions of substantive and procedural law, by which the legitimate rights, freedoms and interests of a person have been seriously violated, causing an injury which could not be remedied through an ordinary or extraordinary remedy; b) A final decision was issued by a court, obviously and undoubtedly contrary to the law or to the factual situation resulting from the evidence administered in the case, as well as when the legitimate rights, freedoms or interests of a person were affected by the clear and incontestable violation of the factual situation or the applicable legal regulations, which injury could not be remedied through an ordinary or extraordinary remedy” reads the amendment submitted by PSD on Law 303/2004.

The Committee also decided to amend paragraph of article 96, as follows: “Specific situations in which judicial error occurs can be regulated by the Civil Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code, as well as by other special laws”.

During the meeting, PSD MP Robert Cazanciuc dictated an amendment on redefining judicial error, but the Chairman of the Committee Florin Iordache said that he doesn’t agree with the proposal, which was rejected by voting.

“Non-unitary jurisprudence, the revival of the jurisprudence, judicial interpretations that are likely to be corrected through ordinary or extraordinary remedies or through other mechanisms of ICCJ or CCR, are not considered judicial error” was the amendment proposed by Robert Cazanciuc.

Also, PSD proposed and adopted an amendment to the Law 303/2004 according to which “Prosecutors appointed by the Romanian President benefit from stability”. IN the current form, “prosecutors appointed by the Romanian President benefit from stability and are independent, according to the law”.

The amendments of the law as a whole were adopted with 11 pros and 4 cons. Thus, the law will be voted for the third time by the two Chambers of the Parliament.

PNL MP Ioan Cupsa, a member of the specialized Committee, said that he thinks that the notification of CCR on redefining judicial error will be admitted because of the lack of clarity and predictability of the text.

“Imagine that today, in less than 50 minutes, without knowing beforehand the texts that were subject to voting, we managed, as they say, to transpose a CCR decision. It is false. If there are one or two transposition proposals that can be accepted, according to the decisions of the Court, the others are absolutely questionable. Regarding judicial error, I suppose that the notification that we will submit to CCR will be admitted again because of the lack of clarity and predictability of the text. Take into account that CCR has drawn the attention of the legislator that the unclear and non-compliant texts, which are uncorrelated with other normative texts, cannot be included in such laws” Ioan Cupsa stated.

In his turn, USR MP Stelian Ion said that if PNL wants, they will challenge together the amendments of the law to CCR, mentioning that the amendments were made “on the run”.

“We requested a postponement to have this respite. PSD legislated these texts in the evening, in the night, as PSD does, as we have already been accustomed to. What’s happening is a very serious thing. (…) And this time I am sure, together with our colleagues from PNL, if they want to sign together with us such an appeal, we will challenge them again to CCR, as they were made on the run, last night, in a hurry. They are superficial, they don’t observe the predictability and clarity requirements of a legal norm, and therefore we hope they will be declared unconstitutional” Stelian Ion stated.

The Committee Chairman Florin Iordache says that unlike PNL and USR, the ruling power has brought amendments – whether good or bad.

“We have also waited for the CCR decision, in order to have a better definition of the judicial error, we proposed a new addition, taking into account the two CCR decisions, and we believe that this new definition of the judicial error satisfies, on the one hand the CCR decisions, and also a better accountability of the magistrates. We said from the start that we want magistrates to be accountable when there is bad-faith and serious negligence, but at the same time we want a very good definition of error, so that no one can turn against a magistrate anytime, but only when there is a judicial error. Compared with our opposition colleagues, we proposed some texts – whether good or bad, we were constructive and proposed something to be debated. Between proposing and not proposing something, denying all the time and saying that the ruling power is bad and legislates in a certain way, it is a different approach” Florin Iordache stated.

Related posts

R. of Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, sign association agreements with EU

Nine O' Clock

Geoana backs administrative reform

Nine O' Clock

“Persons of the year 2013”

Nine O' Clock