After being dismissed from the post of president of the Supreme Court of Justice, Ion Muruianu risks losing the status of judge as well. At least this is the opinion of the Liberal Party head Mihai Ghimpu, Info-Prim Neo reports. “Muruianu should have a rest and we will thus make effort so that he leaves the post of judge,” Mihai Ghimpu told the press. The Liberals’ leader does not rule out that Muruianu’s dismissal will be challenged in court. “I know that there are persons who offer money to judges of the Constitutional Court, but there are honest persons there. I consider there are no reasons for which the Constitutional Court may declare the decision as unconstitutional,” said Mihai Ghimpu. He stressed he didn’t know that the Supreme Council of Magistrates will also suggest dismissing the president of the Supreme Court of Justice the same day. “They probably intuited or the buildings are situated too closely and they heard. Thank God it happened so,” said Mihai Ghimpu. Head of Parliament Marian Lupu said he knows from certain sources that a member of the Supreme Council of Magistrates had a different opinion and did not vote in favor of Muruianu’s dismissal. Asked if this can be Minister of Justice Oleg Efrim, who is an ex officio member of the Council, Marian Lupu said he will find out. According to the Speaker, the dismissal of Ion Muruianu marks the beginning of a real reform. “It is exactly the subject that we discussed in the last meeting of the national council for the reform of the legal system. The reform stages will be considered in the coming meeting, next week,” said Marian Lupu. The Supreme Court of Justice president Ion Muruianu was discharged by Parliament by 53 votes in favor on July 5. The issue was included in the agenda at the request of the Liberal leader Mihai Ghimpu. In parallel, the Supreme Council of Magistrates also decided to recommend Parliament to dismiss Muruianu. Last March, the legislative body discharged Ion Muruianu, but one moth later the Constitutional Court invalidated the decision, arguing the position of the Supreme Council of Magistrates was not taken into account.