President Klaus Iohannis convened an emergency sitting of the Supreme Defence Council (CSAT) on Friday to debate the recent Constitutional Court’s decision to ban the Romanian Intelligence Service from tapping. The Romanian head of state is expected to give statements at the end of the meeting.
Klaus Iohannis had initially informed a week ago that the first CSAT meeting of this year would take place on March 15.
The Constitutional Court’s decision banning the Romanian Intelligence Service from tapping in criminal cases displeased the National Anti-corruption Directorate (DNA) and the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT), as they used to resort to SRI to do the wiretaps during their investigations.
The Constitutional Court’ s ruling is valid also for the ongoing cases, but will not affect the files that have been already solved.
However, the two criminal investigation bodies argue they have to set up their own tapping equipment, which would mean more staff to hire and more money to invest.
In retort, the president of the Constitutional Court, Augustin Zegrean said on Thursday that nobody would get away unpunished following the ruling on the tapping.
“The criminal prosecution will be conducted by those entitled to do that, meaning the prosecutors and the judicial police. We haven’t done anything disastrous through this decision. We removed 2 or 3 words- <and other specialised state institutions>- for it was confusing. Now we found out what was this specialized state body that used to do the wiretapping,” Zegrean said.
In his turn, the constitutional judge Daniel Morar, former DNA chief prosecutor told Hotnews.ro that the evidence considered to have been illegally obtained will not automatically removed, but that the judges are allowed to decide from one case to another.
CC motivated its decision by saying that SRI is not a criminal investigation body and therefore cannot conduct tapping actions.
The Constitutional Court argues that there is no law regulation, except for the Criminal Procedure Code, that should specially stipulate the competence of a state body, except for the criminal prosecution institutions, to conduct technical surveillance.