Click Accept pentru a primi notificări cu cele mai importante știri!
As in the previous years, the debate about the status of Justice focuses almost exclusively on the fight against corruption and especially the fight against high-level corruption.
As in the previous years, the debate about
the status of Justice focuses almost exclusively on the fight against
corruption and especially the fight against high-level corruption.
The phenomenon has more causes:
a) Registering only the monitoring report as
a reference point. The report focuses only on the fight against corruption.
b) The obvious political partisanship of
those who argue the debate. Employing them as presidential alphornist imposes
debating a theme from which Traian Băsescu gets his electoral capital.
c) The sensationalist character of the investigations
regarding the great names of the Romanian politics.
Whatever the cause, such a limitation of the
debate is catastrophic for the Justice reform.
Citește pe Antena3.ro
The juridical size of a legal fight against corruption is just one of the aspects of the Justice reform. And yet a minor one. The surveys, as well as the realities reveal that the negative notes on the state of Justice are far more comprehensive and more profound. The debate on the status of Justice must talk about these notes essentially because, ultimately, it will require the taking of necessary measures. Therefore, we should see and analyze the causes of weaknesses such as:
a) the huge number of pending lawsuits existing at present in Romania.
Because of this huge number, our judges are
among the judges with the greatest amount of work in the European Union: 70
files per judge.
Faced with a huge number of files, the judges
don’t even have the time or energy needed to study the files and thus give a
correct sentence.
The huge number of lawsuits means a huge number of citizens directly involved in running the Justice. This is a way to explain the public dissatisfaction over the status of Justice.
A person engaged in a lawsuit that is taking longer than normal has sufficient
grounds to believe and argue that justice doesn’t work well in Romania.
The issue of the huge number of lawsuits sends us to multiple causes and, of
course, to multiple solutions.
During Zig-Zag with Ion Cristoiu on Antena
3, Norica Nicolai talked about the absence of the steps prior to opening a lawsuit.
Such steps would decrease the number of lawsuits, given that many of them have
minor causes. Another question refers to the absence of minimum legal knowledge
throughout the population. Not few times, the trials are opened for stupid
reasons.
b) The mess at the legislation level.
At present, even doctors in law can no longer handle the legislative thicket in Romania.
Almost every law has been amended several times successively. Changes have never been taken after considering the other laws so there are so many terms that contradict each other.
The chaos is increased by the excess of emergency decrees. They become valid
after their publication in the Official Gazette. They must, however, be debated
and voted in the Parliament. Confronted with an avalanche of emergency decrees,
the Parliament needs months to debate such documents. In many cases, amendments
for the decree appear or the decree is even rejected. In the meantime, its
effects show. Once adopted, the Law for the approving of the decree interferes
with the effects already produced by the decree.
c) The absence of a Penal Code, of a
Criminal Procedure Code and of a Civil Code adapted to the realities of Romania today.
No matter how weird it might seem, the Justice
in the 2008 Romania
is operating based on codes from the communist period.
It is true that the after-the-Revolution
Governments have made various amendments. They were made in a hurry, under the
pressure of circumstances or even of the interests of those times, without
taking into account the entire effect of the code.
So, at present, the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure contain many terms that contradict each other. The cause of this situation lies in the absurd ambition of each Minister of Justice to propose and impose its own code.
Since the development and the voting procedures of a code require long periods,
changing a minister led to the destruction of his entire work by the newcomer. A
newcomer who is committed to the development of its own code.
The monitoring report will be made public.
A certain boiling activity will appear in
our Balkan pond.
There will be reactions and degenerations, spiky assertions on TV, and interventions of “speaking” professionals.
This will be the limit of the autochthonous
effects after the publication of the report.
After that, our public opinion, attracted
by a new scandal, will forget about the status of Justice.
Until the publication of the next report!
