The Venice Commission’s Opinion is aimed at softening the intransigent positions and at bringing the politicians closer to each other so that they solve the problems mentioned in this document. Such important issues as the functioning of the prosecution service and the judiciary should be addressed in an extremely responsible way. The political forces from the government and the opposition should try and reach a consensus. The Venice Commission’s Opinion should be examined very seriously and solutions should be found based on the Commission’s recommendations, the standing expert of IPN’s project Igor Boțan stated in a public debate hosted by the Agency.
As to civil society’s reaction to the Venice Commission’s Opinion, the expert said the specialized organizations were critical of the way in which the law on the prosecution service was amended in August and the request was to make sure the legislation on decision-making transparency is obeyed. A problem existed and the parties in June 2019 adopted a declaration on state capture. That declaration wasn’t sufficient as it wasn’t clear what was to be done next. Now the situation is clearer, but we have this conflict that implies dangers. The government and the opposition should analyze together the Venice Commission’s Opinion so as to achieve compromises and return to normality.
Igor Boțan noted the government and the opposition should refer to the Constitutional Court’s decision of December 2010 concerning the delimitation of state institutions of special public interest and the state institutions of special political interest so that there is a framework law that stipulates the general rules concerning appointments at the independent institutions of the state, like the Audiovisual Council and the Central Election Commission, and those who come to power obey these principles. The struggle involving the government and the opposition should produce predictable rules, not rules that change suddenly, together with the government.
The expert said the representatives of political parties that are in power and in the parliamentary opposition should attentively read the Venice Commission’s Opinion and examine it together so as to make the required amendments and normalize the situation in the prosecution service.
“It is essential for the mates to realize that even if the prosecutors and judges enjoy functional independence, the political factor is very important and political abuse should be excluded. Neither the prosecutors nor the judges should yet turn into corporations. These systems, even if they enjoy independence, should have a rather pronounced tie based on the law and should not allow influence form outside. They should avoid being transformed into closed corporations that isolate themselves from the needs of society,” stated Igor Boțan.
The public debate titled “Venice Commission’s Opinion: signal of alarm about state of rule of law or call to improve democratic processes?” is the 219th installment of IPN's “Developing Political Culture” Series, supported by the Hanns Seidel Foundation.
