Update – Constitutional Court: There was a constitutional DNA-Gov’t conflict on EO 13. Prosecutor’s Office: CCR reasoning, crucial

The Constitutional Court on Monday admitted the Senate Speaker’s appeal on the judiciary constitutional conflict between the Government and the National Anti-corruption Directorate arisen from the DNA’s investigation on the circumstances in which Grindeanu Cabinet has adopted the controversial emergency ordinance 13 amending the criminal codes. The constitutional judges have thus ruled that there is a constitutional conflict in this case.

“The DNA started round ups at the Justice Ministry, hearings on the way the regulatory document has been adopted (….) Practically, the DNA started to probe into to what extent the provisions of adopting an emergency ordinance have been met, if the emergency was motivated or not, or if all goes-ahead have been received, things which get beyond the DNA’ s authority,” said the CC president Valer Dorneanu

JusMin defending the Gov’t case on EO 13: Prosecutors cannot probe into opportunity or legality of juridical acts

Previously before the CCR’s ruling, Justice Minister Tudorel Toader said that prosecutors are not allowed to probe into the opportunity, legality or constitutionality of juridical documents, but only into criminal deeds.

The new Justice Minister represented PM Sorin Grindeanu, at the latter’s request, at the Constitutional Court on Monday, at the meeting judging the Senate Speaker’s appeal on a possible judiciary constitutional conflict between the Government and the National Anti-corruption Directorate.

Senate Speaker Calin Popescu Tariceanu has filed the appeal after the DNA had started to investigate the circumstances in which the emergency ordinance 13 amending the criminal codes had been adopted by the Grindeanu Cabinet.

Justice minister Toader, who was also constitutional judge in the past argued that it is not enough to say it has been a conflict, it is not enough t say who has created the conflict, but a decision must be taken so that such conflicts would not happen again in the future.

“A favourable ruling of the CCR would solve a principle problem generated by the separation of powers, namely that prosecutors probe into criminal offences while not being allowed to investigate the opportunity, legality or constitutionality of judiciary documents. Briefly, if the Government passes judiciary document, decisions, energy ordinance, you name it, the prosecutors may both probe into the opportunity of drawing up the document or the legality or constitutionality of adoption. Because opportunity is censored by Parliament when approving, vetoing or amending ordinances; legality is checked by the judge of administration law while constitutionality is ruled by constitutional judges,” Toader said after a meeting of the Constitutional Court.

The Senate Chairman Calin Popescu Tariceanu argued when filing the appeal that by probing into the timeliness and circumstances of drafting a law, “the officials of the Public Prosecution Service have usurped one of the Government’s powers incumbent on the Justice Ministry”, thus leading to the preset judiciary constitutional conflict.

Prosecutor General: CCR reasoning will be crucial

The Prosecutor General said on Monday he has been informed about the Constitutional Court decision on finding a conflict between the Government and the Public Ministry, through DNA, and that the CCR reasoning will be decisive for the future course of the investigation on the crimes that are object of the file known as ‘Adoption of Ordinance 13’.

“The Constitutional Court reasoning will be decisive for the future course of the investigation regarding the offenses of favouring the offender, presentation in ill-faith of inaccurate data to Parliament or to the President of Romania on the work of the Government or a ministry, in order to conceal the deeds able to bring prejudice to the interests of the state, according to article 8, paragraph 1, letter b of the Law 115/1999, on peculating or destruction of documents, on peculating or destruction of evidence or documents, forgery, representing a case registered at the Department of criminal investigation and Criminology of the Prosecutor’s Office upon the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ – Supreme Court), known collectively as ‘the adoption of Ordinance 13’,” the statement reads.