Venice Commission President expressed concern over Moldova's irregular appointment of Constitutional Court judges

The Venice Commission President Gianni Buquicchio expressed his concern over the irregular appointment of Constitutional Court judges, Alexandru Tanase writes on his Facebook. 

"In the Friday's meeting, the Venice Commission President Gianni Buquicchio made an important reference to Republic of Moldova. He expressed his concern about the violation in process of appointing the Constitutional Court (CC) judges in Moldova and called on the authorities to respect the laws in force for the same procedures". 

Publika.md recalls that the Chisinau authorities denied the result of contest which was held to select CC judges. The party PPDA led by Andrei Năstase appointed Domnica Manole while Socialist Party appointed Vladimir Ţurcan who then became the CC President. 

Tanase also wrote that members of the Venice Commission have adopted a preliminary opinion on the draft law on reforming the Supreme Court of Justice and the prosecutor's offices. The final opinion is to be adopted at the next session, from December 2019.

"Commission recommendations:

  • In order for the draft law to comply with the constitutional provisions, all decisions regarding the transfer, promotion or dismissal of judges must be taken by the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM).
  • The SCM should be entrusted with the power to make decisions based on the recommendations presented in the reports of the evaluation committee.
  • The decision of the SCM must be public and fully motivated, and automatically result based on the report of the evaluation committee;
  • The draft law should provide for the possibility of contesting in the court the decision of the SCM issued on the basis of such a report. This court must be composed outside the body of judges of the Supreme Court of Justice. The criteria for the selection of its members, as well as the procedure, must be expressly established in the law;
  • The criteria that will be used in the extraordinary evaluation must be clearly and exhaustively indicated in the draft law, and must be the same as those in force regarding the disciplinary responsibility and the evaluation of the performances of the judges;
  • The number of members of the evaluation committee with judicial experience (former judges or former constitutional judges) must be increased in such a way that a substantial part (if not even half) of its members have judicial experience.
  • The Commission recommended the exclusion from the project of reversing the burden of probation placed on the judges.
  • The judge who fails to assess the integrity shall not be offered any other judicial function, including in the hierarchically inferior courts, but shall be subject to disciplinary sanctions commensurate with the severity of the offense committed. The situation will be different if the judge drops the professional evaluation.
  • In accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Superior Council of Magistracy must be empowered with the power to decide on the candidates to the Supreme Court who will be submitted to Parliament on the basis of the proposals of the evaluation committee, "Tanase wrote.

 

 

loading...

Lasă un comentariu