[ad_1]
The Cîțu government today issued a GEO on justice that comes with controversial changes in the field. Attorney Bogdan Bărbuceanu spoke to DCNews about what will happen in court.
”(1) The provisions of art. 54 par. (2) of Law no. 304/2004 on the judicial organization, reissued, with subsequent amendments and terminations, regarding the appeal sentence in its entirety made up of 3 judges, it will be applied to appeals filed in processes initiated as of January 1, 2023. In processes initiated As of January 1, 2021 and until December 31, 2022 inclusive, appeals are judged in their entirety by 2 judges. (2) In criminal cases, the provisions of art. 54 par. (2) of Law no. 304/2004, republished, with subsequent modifications and terminations, regarding the appeal trial in its entirety made up of 3 judges, will apply to the appeal trial in cases that were registered in the first instance as of January 1, 2023. Appeals filed in criminal cases registered in the first instance, as of January 1, 2021 and until December 31, 2022, inclusive, will be judged in a panel composed of 2 judges ”. It is the GEO of justice prepared by the Government of Cîțu, approved today by the Executive.
Lawyer Bogdan Bărbuceanu told DCNews that “it is not a very honest matter, because normally the panels have to be composed of three judges to have absolutely correct solutions, have three opinions. When there are two judges, they can be one of opinion, the other of opinion and a complete divergence is created, it is a little beyond the procedure ”.
“The GEO will be unconstitutional. You can’t do that in court.”
The lawyer also told us that the three-judge panels are not introduced directly for organizational reasons: to prepare the courts with the necessary number of judges. “The ordinance will be unconstitutional. What happens to the files whose deadlines are December 2022 and January 2023? Some will be judged by panels of two, others by three, it is an inequity that CCR, I hope, corrects. Things get done. half, or in court you can’t do that. What happens with cases that are not resolved in 2022, but start with two judges, go with two judges in principle and in 2023, when it should have three judges? ” Bogdan Bărbuceanu.
“This is the urgency, this is how we perceive lawyers”
Once published in the Official Gazette, the GEO will enter into force. But what will happen if the ICR decides that it is unconstitutional? AV. Bărbuceanu says that “everything that was pronounced in the cases with two judges, if it was found that the formation of this panel is unconstitutional, it will be annulled, it is cause for review.”
Why not wait with this decision, which was the urgency now, in the context of multiple ambiguities? Bogdan Bărbuceanu points out that the new Minister of Justice said that he wants all SCM opinions to be mandatory and not advisory: “He probably appreciates the urgency precisely from this perspective, because I understand that it is a priority of the new Justice Minister that SCM opinions are mandatory. The problem is that the SCM, in principle, could not agree to such a change in this way. I think this is the urgency, as lawyers perceive it ”.
“Without discussion, chaos will be created”
Asked if it will not cause chaos in the courts, av. Bărbuceanu replied: “Without arguing that it will create chaos, the courts are not prepared. There is also no training for two judges on the appeal panels, nor is the status of appeals declared before the ordinance, but judged afterwards. It will create chaos and confusion between magistrates and courts. What do I do with the appeal declared today, when it was not the ordinance, but the deadline is greater than one month when the ordinance will go into effect? Who judges him, a judge or a panel of two? ”.
In the case of separate opinions in the panel of two judges ”the divergence panel is created, which is not exactly correct, because a third judge comes who did not participate in the substantive debate, the appeal and then pronounces only by seeing a proceedings. The two judges will probably be forced to agree so as not to complicate the situation further. There have been situations like this in the past when the president of the court asked the judges to have the same opinion so as not to have to create divergence panels, because there were no judges. So I don’t know if we have another act of justice if the judge is administratively forced to agree with his colleague.The lawyer concluded.
[ad_2]
