对最高法院法官的特别评估和设立法官和检察官自治机构成员职位候选人廉正或奴役司法机构风险评估委员会

Iulian Rusanovschi
{"title":"对最高法院法官的特别评估和设立法官和检察官自治机构成员职位候选人廉正或奴役司法机构风险评估委员会","authors":"Iulian Rusanovschi","doi":"10.54481/sju.2022.1.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a continuous attempt to reform the judiciary in the Republic of Moldova, the Parliament and the Government have amended and adopted several normative acts that allow the evaluation of judges and prosecutors by a Commission formed by 6 members, three of them citizens of the Republic of Moldova elected by the Parliamentary majority, and the other three, foreign citizens proposed by the development partners of the Republic of Moldova. The draft Law on the Supreme Court of Justice provides in art. 13 the fact that all judges of the Supreme Court of Justice will be evaluated extraordinarily depending on the date of entry into force of this law, including those suspended. The extraordinary assessment is provided for, more recently, in the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office. These legislative changes, in addition to giving the politician direct and unconstitutional control over the judicial power, represent a surrender of sovereignty in favour of foreign states or supranational international bodies. To understand in depth the risk of implementing this system of extraordinary evaluation of judges and prosecutors, we will successively analyze the notions of sovereignty, judicial power and the principle of its independence, but also the necessity or constitutionality of implementing the extraordinary evaluation system of magistrates. Basically, we believe that an evaluation of judges and prosecutors would be opportune, but the members of such a Commission cannot be foreign citizens or persons appointed by a political body, precisely to exclude political interference in the judiciary. The political character of these normative acts but also the tendency of the executive to control the judicial power has already been sanctioned by the Constitutional Court by declaring some phrases from Law no. 26/2022 as unconstitutional.","PeriodicalId":52793,"journal":{"name":"Studii Juridice Universitare","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Extraordinary Assessment of SCJ Judges and the Establishment of the Commission for Evaluating the Integrity of Candidates for the Position of Member in the Self- administration Bodies of Judges and Prosecutors or the Risk of Enslaving the Judiciary\",\"authors\":\"Iulian Rusanovschi\",\"doi\":\"10.54481/sju.2022.1.16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a continuous attempt to reform the judiciary in the Republic of Moldova, the Parliament and the Government have amended and adopted several normative acts that allow the evaluation of judges and prosecutors by a Commission formed by 6 members, three of them citizens of the Republic of Moldova elected by the Parliamentary majority, and the other three, foreign citizens proposed by the development partners of the Republic of Moldova. The draft Law on the Supreme Court of Justice provides in art. 13 the fact that all judges of the Supreme Court of Justice will be evaluated extraordinarily depending on the date of entry into force of this law, including those suspended. The extraordinary assessment is provided for, more recently, in the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office. These legislative changes, in addition to giving the politician direct and unconstitutional control over the judicial power, represent a surrender of sovereignty in favour of foreign states or supranational international bodies. To understand in depth the risk of implementing this system of extraordinary evaluation of judges and prosecutors, we will successively analyze the notions of sovereignty, judicial power and the principle of its independence, but also the necessity or constitutionality of implementing the extraordinary evaluation system of magistrates. Basically, we believe that an evaluation of judges and prosecutors would be opportune, but the members of such a Commission cannot be foreign citizens or persons appointed by a political body, precisely to exclude political interference in the judiciary. The political character of these normative acts but also the tendency of the executive to control the judicial power has already been sanctioned by the Constitutional Court by declaring some phrases from Law no. 26/2022 as unconstitutional.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52793,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studii Juridice Universitare\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studii Juridice Universitare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54481/sju.2022.1.16\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studii Juridice Universitare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54481/sju.2022.1.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了不断改革摩尔多瓦共和国的司法机构,议会和政府修订并通过了几项规范性法案,允许由6名成员组成的委员会对法官和检察官进行评估,其中3人是议会多数选举产生的摩尔多瓦共和国公民,摩尔多瓦共和国发展伙伴提议的外国公民。《最高法院法》草案第13条规定,最高法院的所有法官,包括被停职的法官,将根据该法生效日期进行特别评估。最近的《检察官办公室法》对特别评估作出了规定。这些立法变化,除了赋予政治家对司法权的直接和违宪控制之外,还代表着主权向外国或超国家国际机构的移交。为了深入理解实施法官和检察官特别评价制度的风险,我们将依次分析主权、司法权及其独立性原则的概念,以及实施法官特别评价体系的必要性或合宪性。基本上,我们认为,对法官和检察官进行评估是恰当的,但这样一个委员会的成员不能是外国公民或政治机构任命的人,正是为了排除对司法机构的政治干预。宪法法院已经批准了这些规范性法案的政治性质,以及行政部门控制司法权力的倾向,宣布第26/2022号法律中的一些短语违宪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Extraordinary Assessment of SCJ Judges and the Establishment of the Commission for Evaluating the Integrity of Candidates for the Position of Member in the Self- administration Bodies of Judges and Prosecutors or the Risk of Enslaving the Judiciary
In a continuous attempt to reform the judiciary in the Republic of Moldova, the Parliament and the Government have amended and adopted several normative acts that allow the evaluation of judges and prosecutors by a Commission formed by 6 members, three of them citizens of the Republic of Moldova elected by the Parliamentary majority, and the other three, foreign citizens proposed by the development partners of the Republic of Moldova. The draft Law on the Supreme Court of Justice provides in art. 13 the fact that all judges of the Supreme Court of Justice will be evaluated extraordinarily depending on the date of entry into force of this law, including those suspended. The extraordinary assessment is provided for, more recently, in the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office. These legislative changes, in addition to giving the politician direct and unconstitutional control over the judicial power, represent a surrender of sovereignty in favour of foreign states or supranational international bodies. To understand in depth the risk of implementing this system of extraordinary evaluation of judges and prosecutors, we will successively analyze the notions of sovereignty, judicial power and the principle of its independence, but also the necessity or constitutionality of implementing the extraordinary evaluation system of magistrates. Basically, we believe that an evaluation of judges and prosecutors would be opportune, but the members of such a Commission cannot be foreign citizens or persons appointed by a political body, precisely to exclude political interference in the judiciary. The political character of these normative acts but also the tendency of the executive to control the judicial power has already been sanctioned by the Constitutional Court by declaring some phrases from Law no. 26/2022 as unconstitutional.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信