Judges and prosecutors who resign within 20 days after being notified about the initiation of external evaluation will no longer be entitled to the social guarantees applicable in the case of a regular resignation. As a result, they will lose their right to a one-time dismissal allowance, special pensions, and the possibility of holding public office. This statement was made by the President of the Constitutional Court, Domnica Manole, after a CC session, IPN reports.
The court's opinion comes following the examination of petitions filed by a group of deputies regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions from the laws on external evaluation of judges, prosecutors, and candidates for the position of judge at the Supreme Court of Justice.
"The Court has concluded that the legal provisions in question do not violate the independence of judges or the principle of the separation of powers. This rule, established by Parliament, primarily aims to ensure the proper conduct of the evaluation procedure by distinguishing between those who participate in the evaluation process and those who do not, as a result of submitting a resignation request, and by avoiding the waste of financial resources necessary to initiate the evaluations," stated Domnica Manole.
Regarding the competence of evaluation committees to consider the assets, expenses, and incomes of individuals close to the person being evaluated, the Court noted the intrusive nature of this in the private life of those close to the subject of evaluation. According to the Court, this competence aims to achieve a general legislative objective: ensuring a thorough verification of the integrity of judges and prosecutors. The Court considered that, by establishing similar competence for evaluation committees, the legislator did not exceed its discretionary margin in this area, as it sought to ensure the integrity of high-level public officials.
Similarly, the arbitrary nature of the behavior of the evaluated subjects and the acts issued by them must be determined by a high standard of proof. Councils are obligated to establish certainty that the act issued violates the mandatory legal norms and that, prior to the adoption of this act, the European Court of Human Rights has established that a similar decision was contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court ruled that the contested text complies with the Supreme Law, but with certain conditions. If an individual disagrees with the committee's decision not to organize a public hearing, they can appeal the decision to the Superior Council of Magistracy or the Superior Council of Prosecutors. Additionally, the publication of reasoned decisions by these councils on the official website is constitutional, but only after the deadline to challenge the decision expires or, if already challenged, after the Supreme Court of Justice makes a final decision.
The Court also noted that the Constitution does not impose a precise standard of proof that the Superior Council of Magistracy must use when evaluating judges or candidates for the position of judge at the Supreme Court of Justice. However, the Court emphasized that a decision not to promote a judge under evaluation can seriously affect their reputation and career.
