[ad_1]
A judge of the Neamț Court writes in the sentences handed down that wearing a mask in the courtroom would represent “a restriction of access to justice due to the impossibility of identifying the parties by the panel,” writes clujust.ro.
According to clujust.ro, these assessments were made by Judge Carmen Elena Chirilă (ex Păduraru) of the Court of Neamț, in the sentences pronounced by her on June 30, shortly after the Constitutional Court’s ruling of June 25, by which provisions Since then, law 55/2020 on quarantine and self-isolation has been declared unconstitutional.
Here are some relevant excerpts:
“In accordance with art. 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the chairman of the panel has powers in matters of police of the judicial hearing. By virtue of this right, he finds that, in the absence of the approval of the supreme legislative forum, the Romanian Parliament, Hot. of the Government n. 476 / 16.06.2020 on the alert status, the Ministerial Order or the Internal Orders do not operate for the conduct of judicial hearings, since the use of a mask as a medical act cannot be imposed without the express consent of the people and, on the other hand, it presents risks to free access to justice, to the dignity of the person and to health, for which the mentions issued in the summons exceed the responsibility of the full president who issued the summons corresponding to article 157 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this regard, it is noted that the finding of unconstitutionality of the alert state, by means of resolution 457 / 06.25.2020 of the RCC, being in the drafting stage, will be mandatory at that time (according to the attached Communiqué).
The Constituent Court has consistently held that the administrative acts of the Government or Ministers cannot restrict the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and international law, and access to justice cannot be restricted even in a state of emergency, and much least in a state of emergency. alert.
Instead, it draws attention to the fact that people who are known to be carriers of a contagious disease are criminally liable in accordance with article 352 of the Penal Code (not combating the disease) if they knowingly transmit these diseases to other people.
By virtue of the principles of orality and solemnity of the judicial hearing, of non-discrimination in the application of justice, of the obligation of every European judge to respect the rights and freedoms of citizens, in accordance with the Decisions of the Constitutional Court, I consider that the obligation to wear a mask in court restricts access to justice due to the impossibility of identifying the parties and witnesses by the panel members, due to poor oral communication between the panel-secretaries-parties, affecting the human dignity of people who do not have symptoms of contagious infections and who refuse this medical procedure acting at risk In fact, it looks like a muzzle and presents a risk to health, since it is a scientific medical study that highlights the greatest risk for the health of people whose normal breathing is blocked by multiplying infections in the oral cavity and reduced lung capacity .
Likewise, the distance imposed by the 2 m between the members of the panel, flagrantly violates the principle of deliberation among all the members of the collegiate panel, deliberation being one of the components of the legality of pronouncing solutions on both preliminary procedural issues and on the background.
For these reasons, the Chairman of the Panel advises all trial participants that, in the event that there are people who insist on wearing a mask in the courtroom, they have the opportunity to request postponement of the case at a later date, then to draft the Judgment of the Constitutional Court, in order to ensure the other component of free access to justice, namely, the judge’s obligation to identify the addressees of the judgment to avoid any error in this regard. “
