[ad_1]
The ECHR ruled that the Romanian state violated her right to defense when the SCM and the Judicial Inspection decided to exclude Camelia Bogdan from the judiciary. In 2016, the Judicial Inspection notified the SCM and requested the exclusion of Camelia Bogdan from the judiciary for being incompatible with the Dan Voiculescu corruption case due to a course for which she had been paid by the Ministry of Agriculture, an institution and civil part.
“With regard to decision No. 495 of April 25, 2017 of the SCM Plenary, the Court finds that this body, although it officially recognized its competence in the matter, refused to hear the complaints of a magistrate placed in a situation similar to that of the plaintiff and that her position was approved by the Superior Court.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be convicted because he did not present a dispute before the plenary session of the SCM, as suggested by the Government. Therefore, the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the latter must be rejected (see paragraph 57 supra).
Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant could not benefit from any form of judicial protection in relation to the decision to suspend the service. Given that the plaintiff’s suspension was a temporary measure adopted in the main disciplinary proceeding, the Court considers that the applicability of these guarantees in the present case should also be examined in the light of the criteria established by the Court in Micallef v. Malt ([GC], No. 17056/06, * 87, ECHR 2009). Furthermore, as regards applicability, the Court recalls that the Eskelinen criteria are as relevant to matters related to the right of access to a court as to those related to the other guarantees enshrined in said provision.
In these circumstances, the Court considers that there has been a violation of the guarantees provided for in Article 6 * 1 of the Convention ”, as shown by the judgment of the ECHR judges.
The Romanian state must pay the judge 8,000 euros, 6,000 as non-pecuniary damage and another 2,000 in court costs.
Complaint to the ECHR
Camelia Bogdan denounced before the ECHR that several rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated: the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for private and family life.
It all culminated in the SCM’s decision to exclude him from the judiciary. According to the procedure, the judge was suspended from office. On December 13, 2017, the High Court finally decided to reinstate Camelia Bogdan in the judiciary.
Inspection Self-notification
In February 2016, the Judicial Inspection notified ex officio in the case of the Food Research Institute (ICA), after the televisions controlled by Dan Voiculescu, convicted in the case, alleged that the judge was incompatible because she participated and taught in a seminar organized by an association. which was financed by the Ministry of Agriculture, the injured party in the ICA file.
On April 16, 2016, the inspectors who analyzed Camelia Bogdan’s case decided to reject the complaint and demonstrated that there was no disciplinary violation by the judge. However, the decision was reversed by Lucian Netejoru, the chief inspector of the Judicial Inspection, who decided to send the notification to the SCM Judges Section. In her plea, Netejoru shows that Judge Camelia Bogdan allegedly violated article 99 of the Magistrate’s Law, article according to which the violation of the legal provisions on declarations of assets, declarations of interests, incompatibilities and prohibitions regarding judges and prosecutors constitutes a disciplinary violation.
The decision was appealed by Camelia Bogdan, before the Panel of five judges of the Superior Court of Cassation and Justice. On December 13, the High Court decided to reinstate Camelia Bogdan in the judiciary, through a final decision.
The second exclusion
In another case, the SCM Judges Section resolved for the second time, on April 6, 2018, the exclusion of Camelia Bogdan from the judiciary and the suspension of the position. The judge challenged the decision in Superior Court.
Camelia Bogdan, a former judge in the Criminal Section of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, reportedly received several cases for trial, in January 2016, which had initially been assigned to another judge, but who had gone on leave, writes Agerpres. After the titular judge returned from vacation, Camelia Bogdan allegedly kept a file, in which he ordered, in May 2016, the confiscation of sums of money, among those attacked was the notary Jan Andrei, husband of Laura Andrei, owner of the Bucharest court.
[ad_2]
