The Constitutional Court has declared inadmissible three applications challenging several provisions of the Law on the External Evaluation of Judges and Prosecutors. The provisions in question include the Evaluation Commission’s right to appeal decisions of the Superior Council of Prosecutors and the Supreme Court of Justice’s authority to determine whether a judge or prosecutor has passed or failed the external evaluation, IPN reports.
The applications were filed in connection with legal proceedings concerning the external evaluation of three prosecutors from the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. In all three cases, the Evaluation Commission recommended that the prosecutors fail the vetting process, but the Superior Council of Prosecutors (CSP) rejected the reports and ruled that they had passed the evaluation. The Commission subsequently challenged the Council’s decisions before the Supreme Court of Justice.
During the proceedings in these cases, constitutional challenges were raised concerning the powers of the Commission and the Supreme Court of Justice. The applicants challenged the Commission’s right to appeal decisions of the Superior Council of Prosecutors, as well as the Supreme Court of Justice’s authority to determine whether an evaluation had been passed or failed. They argued that these powers undermined the constitutional role of the Superior Council of Prosecutors and the principle of legal certainty.
The Constitutional Court held that the Commission’s right to challenge CSP decisions ensures access to judicial review and does not constitute interference in the Council’s work. The judges also stressed that the CSP remains the authority responsible for the initial decision on the outcome of the evaluation, while the CSJ exercises judicial review.
Regarding the Supreme Court’s authority to determine whether a person has passed or failed the vetting process, the Court clarified that this authority may be exercised under the conditions prescribed by law, once the evaluation procedure has been reopened and the decision subsequently adopted by the Superior Council of Prosecutors (CSP) has been annulled.
According to the Court, the mechanism is intended to prevent proceedings from being drawn out by repeatedly referring cases back for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court declared all three applications inadmissible without examining them on the merits.
