The Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) will announce the decision on the notification of the institutional conflict between the Presidency and the Government on DNA chief prosecutor’s dismissal on May 30. The Justice minister has notified CCR after President Klaus Iohannis refused to recall Laura Codruta Kovesi from office. Justice minister had represented the Government in this case.
Toader stated that the President’s refusal to recall Kovesi from office is leading to a gridlock, arguing the head of state has no authority on prosecutors and that the constitutional judges must decide if Iohannis has a right of veto or not in this matter.
The Justice minister also said that Laura Codruta Kovesi has exerted her position on a discretionary basis and that all those 20 points of his report which asked for her to step aside have become more actual than ever.
„The DNA chief prosecutor has exerted and she is still exerting her duties on a discretionary basis, by hijacking the action of countering corruption and the activity of the anti-corruption body, practically diverting the anti-corruption activity from its legal and constitutional role,” Toader argued.
He went on saying that the President’s denial to recall Kovesi, on political opportunity grounds, is leading to gridlock. „I would add that the Justice minister is the one who has authority on prosecutors, according to the article 132 in the Constitution, has the nceessary evaluation tools of the management activity, while Romania’s president has no authority in the matter, has no tools to assess the professional activity of a prosecutor,” the minister added.
Toader pointed out that the Government’s appeal is valid, for by deciding not to Ok the dismissal, the President has practically blocked the recall procedure of the anti-corruption head.
Presidency: The President’s denial is his legal task
The presidential aide on legal affairs Simina Tanasescu who represented Klaus Iohannis at the CCR on Thursday said that the President’s denial to recall Laura Codruta Kovesi is not the cause of an institutional gridlock, but means he has exerted a legal task.
„The Gov’t notification doesn’t target any conflict because there is no conflict. Article 54, line 1 in the judicial organization law shows what are the tasks of the three authorities involved in this procedure. The minister made a proposal. The Superior Council of Magistracy issued an opinion and the President answered. The President answered through an administrative document. So, basically there is no conflict. None of these three authorities has exceeded its authority or abstained from doing what it had to do by the law in force,” the presidential aide argued.