President of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (CAB) Liana Arsenie on Thursday responded to accusations made by several magistrates in the Recorder documentary, arguing that this is a campaign of 'media lynching' of the judicial system and that the actions appear to be part of 'an organised mechanism of destabilisation.'
'Today we are witnessing a campaign of media lynching of the judicial system, a demonisation of the magistracy by the arbitrary contestation of any form of judicial organisation, by ridiculing and anathematising the leadership of the judicial system, by manipulation and lies, using as supposedly representative voices of the judiciary people who act out of personal professional failure. Who benefits from the simultaneous delegitimisation of the DNA [National Anti-Corruption Directorate] and the Bucharest Court of Appeal? We see actions aimed at creating controlled chaos. The timing is not accidental. The attacks launched through the statements of Judge Besu and the anonymous statements of a prosecutor appear at the moment when the DNA finalises and sends heavy cases to trial. The Bucharest Court of Appeal, targeted directly in the discourse, is the court that will have to judge these cases. An ideal environment is being created for the moral contestation of any ruling in such cases. This is the classic recipe: you destroy trust in institutions before they rule so that the verdict is perceived as illegitimate, whatever it may be,' the president of the Bucharest Court of Appeal said at a press conference.
She considers the actions appear to be part of 'an organised mechanism of destabilisation' and questions the legitimacy of Judge Laurentiu Besu.
'Today we see a judge with a background in the Services who launches serious accusations based solely on perceptions, a media outlet that uses the message without checks. These attacks appear precisely when very complex cases are on the docket. The objective context raises legitimate questions about the intention to create this controlled chaos. Is it a coincidence that a judge with a background in the Services is involved in this mechanism? The institutionalised political attack also results from the broadcast on the national public television of a very artistic film, posing as a documentary, with evident public incitement against the constitutional order. In conclusion, we firmly reject any attempt to denigrate the professional body, to polarise, to antagonise and to weaken the independence of the judiciary,' Liana Arsenie said.
The president of the Bucharest Court of Appeal also referred to the street protests concerning justice.
'I want to assure you that we, the leadership of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, who stand before you today, and the entire body of judges of the Bucharest Court of Appeal will never abandon the values of the rule of law which we swore to uphold when entering the profession. We do not claim that there are no problems in the justice system. We do not claim that there is no need to improve our activity, but these can only be achieved through dialogue within the institutional framework with respect, professionalism and competence in accordance with the constitutional responsibilities of each party. The hostile takeover of judicial authority in the streets through public incitement is a mechanism that can never underpin a democracy,' Arsenie said.
In the documentary Justitie Capturata/Captured Justice, Judge Laurentiu Besu reveals serious misconduct that he claims took place at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the court where he worked for a period after being transferred by delegation from the Giurgiu Tribunal.
Besu maintains that after he arrived at the Bucharest Court of Appeal his new colleagues told him he had been moved because he was no longer wanted on the panel judging Dr Mircea Beuran, who was accused of corruption.
'I was approached by the president of the Giurgiu Tribunal who suggested I go to the Bucharest Court of Appeal because the Court had called and that now was the moment for me to make a decision, think about it and tell her the same day. I thought about it and said yes, it was a good decision to advance. There is also professional stagnation and you think about progressing. The judges of the Division II of the Bucharest Court of Appeal were puzzled by my arrival. Later, discussions arose with colleagues at the Court who told me: You had a case there and, from what we know, it is rather common for changes to be made to the composition of panels in sensitive cases.' And then I realised that I had Dr Beuran's case pending at the Giurgiu Tribunal. (...) It did not occur to me that there might be a link between the supposed promotion and a certain case. Some colleagues who had been there [at the Court of Appeal] longer assured me: Be certain there is a link.' The case was resolved by another colleague who delivered an acquittal. We do not comment on colleagues' rulings. An appeal was lodged with the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the acquittal was upheld,' Judge Besu said.
Later, according to Laurentiu Besu, his delegation to the Bucharest Court of Appeal was extended several times until this spring, when he joined a panel hearing an appeal in Niculae Badalau's case. When the appeal was heard, he held a different opinion to his colleague on the panel and shortly afterwards he was informed by the division head of the Bucharest Court of Appeal that his delegation would not be extended.
Comentează