Premium
Former Prime Minister Dacian Ciolos said on Monday that the government he headed proceeded to amending the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code in full transparency, "with all the necessary endorsements and following long and well-reasoned discussions," and that the text had not been devised to benefit a political clientele.
"Nothing was done secretly because we had nothing to hide and no reason to do so. The draft ordinance presented by then Justice Minister Raluca Pruna got the endorsement of the Supreme Council of the Magistrates (CSM) as early as on May 12, a few days before adoption. (...) The reasons for the urgency were clearly stated, as it was justified by the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the fact that Parliament was making no progress on adopting the many draft pieces of legislation amending the Codes so as to render them consistent with the dozens of Constitutional Court decisions, although there was an urgency required by the judicial system to end legislative instability," Ciolos wrote on Facebook.
He also explained that many of the changes operated by his government to the Criminal codes had been taken over from the Parliament law committees. "We had no party bosses, political clients or sponsors to defend. The text was discussed again in detail with CSM, the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Prosecution Office. Our only goal was to serve the interests of citizens who were going to court and the interest of the magistrates who were facing delays in the trials. In conclusion, the two ordinances were adopted by two different Cabinets for different reasons and in different manners," explained Ciolos.
He voiced appreciation for the Grindeanu Government's intention to shine more light on the way the two ordinances were approved, but rejected "any attempt to put the sign of equality" between them. "I will not comment too much on the quality of debates in the two Cabinets. I would only emphasize that in the Government under my conduct, internal debates came naturally, they were substantial, ample, sometimes contradictory, but always supported by arguments and having all the time the public interest in view. The ministers were perfectly in the know about what laws were being adopted," said the former Premier.
