The Constitutional Court’s judgment by which the exception of unconstitutionality of the Law on the examination of holders and candidates for public posts by the Security and Intelligence Service (SIS), specifically the provisions that refer to judges, is a historical one. The issue was developed in the talk show “Expertise hour” on Jurnal TV channel, IPN reports.

Judge Domnica Manole said the law, in its previous form, represented a method of pressure on judges and generated fear of not obtaining a negative appraisal of the Security and Intelligence Service. “All judges had this fear subconsciously and the cases when some of the judges were declared incompatible with the post show that this fear was justifiable,” noted Domnica Manole.

Nicolae Rosca, ex-chairman of the Disciplinary Board of the Superior Council of Magistracy, said the whole society will only gain from the CC’s judgment because a powerful judge is a judge who is confident that they will not be blamed for particular uncertain situations. “A legal norm is tested through its application. We can only regret that nine years had to pass for this norm to be reviewed,” he stated.

Ex-prosecutor Pavel Midrigan said society should welcome such a decision, but not too much as only two points of the law were annulled. The consultative appraisal of the SIS should not be taken as the main one, but the Superior Council of Magistracy respects this appraisal as a mandatory one. “Things should have been clarified in relation to judges: a judicial act can be checked by only a hierarchically superior judicial institution,” stated Pavel Midrigan.

The Constitutional Court (CC) admitted the exception of unconstitutionality of the Law on the examination of holders and candidates for public posts, namely the provisions that refer to judges. The Court ruled that the appraising of judges by the Security and Intelligence Service affects the independence of the judiciary.