Justice Minister Stelian Ion says that during Monday's coalition meeting, the Liberal colleagues put forward the possible linking of the abolition of the Section for the Investigation of Judicial Crimes (SIIJ) to the settlement of the long-drawn issue of the numerous criminal lawsuits filed by dissatisfied litigation parties against magistrates.
Stelian Ion took to Facebook to call on the Liberals and tell them that if they really want the urgent dismantling of SIIJ, "simply do it, without further amendments and requirements."
"After yesterday's discussion in the coalition on the eternal subject of dismantling the SIIJ, one of the conclusions we can draw is that the government's project to abolish the special section indeed lacks something: not so much other amendments, but rather the real political will to do so. During the coalition meeting on Monday I learned of the new opinion of our Liberal colleagues on the abolition of the SIIJ. This opinion differs from their previous ones: whereas so far the PNL agreed with the abolition of the SIIJ, whatever its form - in the variant proposed by the government or in that amended by the UDMR - now our coalition colleagues tell us that they agree with the SIIJ being dissolved in accordance with the opinion issued by the Venice Commission. This seems good news. That's what we have also been supporting: we must dismantle the SIIJ and restore the powers of the National Anti-corruption Directorate and of the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism, as we pledged in the governing program," Stelian Ion wrote on Facebook.
He goes on to remark however that what the Liberal colleagues now bring in the discussion is to link the abolition of the SIIJ to the concomitant settlement of the high number of criminal complaints filed by dissatisfied litigants against the magistrates, an issue mentioned also by the Venice Commission, "without making the abolition of the SIIJ conditional on this".
"In my opinion, this issue can be discussed in the broader framework of justice reform and of the adoption of the new justice package. Of course, we can discuss any new proposal, we'll look at this as well. But why is it that this new topic of discussion will even more delay the process of dissolving the SIIJ? Simply because we could have discussed the subject during summer, had those who invoke it now accepted our repeated invitations to meet and sort out some of the issues in the judiciary. The Venice Commission's opinion was issued on July 5. Was it necessary for almost two months to pass for this interpretation of the opinion to emerge?," Stelian Ion inquires.
According to the JusMin, despite the good intentions declared with the launch of this new variant, the effect may be quite the opposite: it complicates the discussion, delays the decision, brings no guarantee that UDMR will give up its amendment, and even more - adds a requirement no one imposes in this stage - anyway not the Venice Commission.
"Despite the aggressive and non-collegial statements of some of our PNL colleagues, my answer is simple: if you really want us to urgently abolish the SIIJ, let's just do it, with no other amendments and requirements! Not only does the opinion of the Venice Commission support this approach, but the Commission even welcomes this step, noting that 'dismantling the SIIJ is just the first step in this reform. We can then proceed to the other steps, to other discussions and reform proposals in the context of the justice laws," concludes Stelian Ion.
Comentează