“The Supreme Court of Justice recommends politicians, government, interest groups, the media and anyone else to refrain from humiliating labelling, public lynching and televised justice.” SCJ reaction after government criticism

“The Supreme Court of Justice recommends politicians, the government, interest groups, the media and anyone else to refrain from humiliating labelling, public lynching and televised justice,” reads a CSJ press release, issued after several officials criticised court decisions annulling 21 decisions not to promote candidates to the SCM and PSC, issued by the Pre-Vetting Commission.

The SCJ claims that the irrevocable decisions to uphold actions in 21 administrative cases brought by judges, prosecutors and civil society representatives who were candidates for membership of the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Superior Council of Prosecutors, issued on 1 August, were taken following “effective judicial review of factual and legal issues” by the special SCJ panel.

The Supreme Court states in the press release that it found “serious legality issues with regard to the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission, both in terms of substantive and procedural legality”

“The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the Pre-Vetting Commission and ordered the re-evaluation of the candidates because the violations are similar, starting from:

• misinterpretation of the substantive law rules governing the assessment, in particular the undefined legal concepts which form the legal basis for the decisions of the Evaluation Committee;
• misappraisal of the facts and their non-objective assessment;
• unequal treatment of similar facts;
• interference in the rights of judges, prosecutors and other candidates contrary to the principle of proportionality;
• misuse of procedural discretion;
• undermining the security of legal relationships;
• violation of the guarantees of the administrative assessment procedure such as the right to a full examination of the facts, the right to a reasoned and impartial decision, the right to an effective hearing, the right of access to the administrative file, the right to be effectively involved in the assessment procedure, the right to effective cooperation in clarifying the facts and the right to a decision without discretionary errors in the assessment of evidence;
• infringement of legitimate protection in the work of public authorities that have previously dealt with candidates in the processing of various legal relationships with candidates subject to assessment;
• non-application of the principles and rules forming the right to good administration enshrined in the Administrative and Tangential Code, and implicitly in some provisions of Law no. 26/2022, as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
• interpretation of legal rules with retroactive effect and unfavourable to candidates, and other violations,” the SCJ’s statement said.

The Supreme Court of Justice also notes that it “detached itself from any influence, including political influence, and weighed the facts and laws objectively in the balance of justice, taking into account the supremacy of the law, the separation of powers in the state, the dignity of man in general and of judges and prosecutors in particular. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice are irrevocable, binding and shall be executed according to law. They can be criticised in various articles, monographs and other scientific works.

The Supreme Court of Justice advises politicians, the government, interest groups, the media and anyone else to refrain from humiliating labelling, public lynching and televised justice.

At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasises that robust justice refers to a judicial system or legal and institutional framework that is strong, resilient and able to function effectively, fairly and equitably in the face of challenges and pressures.”