Tuesday , October 22 2019
Home / romania / Daniel Morar and Mona Pivnicer disagree with CCR decision on war between Parliament and JCCJ – News source

Daniel Morar and Mona Pivnicer disagree with CCR decision on war between Parliament and JCCJ – News source

Constitutional Justices Daniel Morar and Mona Pivnicer argue that the RCC was not competent to resolve the "alleged" conflict between Parliament and the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and all judges of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division specialize in prosecuting any crimes.

Separate opinion was given by Daniel Morar and Mona Pivnicer on the JRC decision on July 3, finding the existence of a constitutional conflict between Parliament and the High Court of Cassation and Justice, unconstitutionally generated by the Supreme Court of Specialized Judicial Units for the Prosecution of Corrupt Offenses.

"In disagreement with the decision adopted – by a majority vote – decision No. 417 of 3 July 2019, we consider the request for a settlement of the alleged legal conflict of a constitutional nature between the High Court of Cassation and the Judiciary, on the one hand, and the Parliament of Romania, on the other (…) cannot be the subject of an analysis of the Constitutional Court within its jurisdiction provided for in Article 146 (e) of the Constitution, "say Daniel Morar and Mona Pivnicera, motivating the decision issued Thursday by the RCC. , according to agerpres.ro.

In the opinion of the two, if sub-specialization of lower court judges may be requested, given that they lack the expertise and experience of a judge of the High Court of Cassation and Law, it is not possible to impose such a request on the latter, since they are, in principle, through have acquired a maximum professional degree from which their rule of law cannot be invalidated, namely the existence of their specialization in the matters they judge.

"It is also noted that in order to access the High Court of Cassation and Law, the judge concerned has passed all professional degrees, so that we can declare, even if we appreciate the element of fact, that such a judge has adjudicated a wide variety of causes. Typologies, including cases involving corruption committed by persons who did not exercise the jurisdiction of the High Court of Cassation and Law, "say two constitutional judges.

Daniel Morar and Mona explain to Pivnicer that it is art. 29 of Law no. 78/2000 wishes to establish specialized kits, without, however, the criteria laid down by law for determining sub-specialization.

"The legislature is empowered to set such criteria only in the hierarchically inferior courts of the High Court of Cassation and the Court of Justice, and not for the judges of the latter. As the composition of these endings was to be determined by the SCM or the Governing Council of the CCCC, it turns out to the extent that they did not do so, which in itself is a violation of the law, however, the consequence is not the unlawful composition of the whole, but the consideration of all endings as competent for evaluating in the first place the offenses regulated by Law No. 78/2000. Therefore, at the level of the High Court of Cassation and Justice , since its judges cannot be grouped into general workers and specialists, Article 29 of Law No 78/2000 could only regulate an organizational obligation in the sense that the College of Management of the High Court of Cassation and Justice must determine whether all were completed or only by some judges in the first instance, the offenses governed by Act No. 78/2000, "say Daniel Morar and Mona Pivnicer.

The conclusion of the two is that at the Supreme Court level, all judges in criminal matters are specialized in the prosecution of any crime, whether regulated by customary or special laws.

"Therefore, there is a simple premise on the basis that once a person is appointed as a judge in the High Court of Cassation and Law, within the Criminal Division, he has the specialization necessary to trial any type of crime. each had to meet the same professional requirements to obtain this professional degree, and the degree acquired imposes the right and obligation to continue their professional development in the field in which they specialize or in criminal law. specialized in criminal matters, and therefore not appointed as judges in specialized units for assessing only certain offenses in a criminal offense, falls under the jurisdiction of I. The High Court of Cassation and Justice, "the two say.

On the other hand, Daniel Morar and Mona Pivnicera show that between 2005 and 2018, the percentage of corruption cases out of all cases resolved by the Supreme Court was 70.83%, which is 100% in 2005 and 2005. 2006), "an aspect which however shows that all kits must be considered specialized".

They believe that the conflict between Parliament and the Supreme Court is wrong by informing the Constitutional Court.

"The uncovered issue of law has no constitutional dimension which could jeopardize the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, since it is an aspect that does not prejudice the influence of a certain intensity of constitutional values ​​and requirements. of the court would imply a violation of the division of competences between public authorities established by the text of the Constitution itself (…) To raise the issue of the explicit organization of specialized amendments regulated by Article 29 of Law No. 78/2000 at the constitutional level means to pay much more attention, and the effects the decisions rendered are disproportionate in the development of cases concerning the role of the ZCCJ, in particular in relation to those objected to. 3 JCCJ judges specialized, so in a case that, by chance, this tr however, a non-specialized unit is at once transformed into a specialized one, under conditions in which it has the same composition and, therefore, the cause is still legally assessed, "explained Daniel Morar and Mona Pivnicera.

Moreover, they show that if the case had previously been resolved by a judgment and she is on appeal, he would return to the full array of 3 judges who existed in the interim before the JCCJ Board of Directors decision of January 23, 2019. , specialized.

Daniel Morar and Mona Pivnicera conceded that there had been a breach of law at the JCCJ Board level, but felt that this breach did not affect the legal composition of the 3 judges' meetings and, consequently, did not affect enforcement activity. Justice.

Source link