After declaring the President’s requisition concerning the law on the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) inadmissible four days ago, today the Constitutional Court (CC) presented its arguments for taking such a decision. It noted that the author of the requisition didn’t provide arguments concerning the non-constitutionality of the problems mentioned in this, IPN reports.

As regards the provisions stipulating that the president of the SCM is chosen by secret ballot from among judges who are members of the Council, the CC said Article 122 of the Constitution provides that the SCM consists of elected members – judges and law professors - and ex-officio members – president of the Supreme Court of Justice, minister of justice and prosecutor general.

The CC noted that the Constitution does not regulate the procedure for choosing the SCM president and does not say that this should be picked from among judges or law professors and does not specify the number of members of the Council. It also does not define the procedure for electing members and the proportion of judge members and law professor members.

However, under the Constitution, the organization and functioning of the SCM are regulated by organic law. It is thus up to Parliament to decide the number of elected members and the class to which the SCM president should belong, judges or law professors.

The CC reserved the right to pronounce in the future on the constitutionality of the legal provisions that can encroach upon the independence of the SCM.

As to the provisions saying that the candidates for SCM member from among judges shouldn’t have been punished disciplinarily during the past three years, the Court held that Article 122 of the Constitution does not specify the conditions that the judges who apply to become Council member should meet.

The CC decision is definitive and cannot be appealed. It takes effect when it is adopted and is published in the Official Gazette.