Traduction de «nomination à la magistrature » (Français → Anglais) :

Ensure a transparent election for the future SJC, with a public hearing in the National Assembly before the election of the members of the parliamentary quota, and giving civil society the possibility to make observations on the candidates. Establish a track record of transparent and merit-based appointments to high–level judicial posts, including the upcoming appointment of a new President of the Supreme Administrative Court. To improve the practical functioning of the ISJC and the follow-up by the Supreme Judicial Council to the inspectorate's findings, in particular on integrity issues, consider soliciting external assistance, for exa ...[+++]mple from the SRSS and/or Council of Europe. Adopt amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code to improve the legal framework for the prosecution of high-level corruption and serious organised crime. Publish a report for public consultation detailing the progress made implementing the national judicial reform strategy and setting out the remaining steps to be taken.

2015 provides an important opportunity for Romania to fully commit to transparent and merit based nominations, in time for a number of important appointment procedures for senior positions in the judiciary expected in 2016.[9]

An important test case is coming now with the nomination of a new Chief Prosecutor for the Directorate for Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT), following the resignation of the Chief Prosecutor in November.[6] The procedure includes a strong political element in terms of the role it gives to the Minister of Justice.[7] The Superior Council of the Magistracy (SCM) is working on an amendment to the law to change this, and to align appointment of prosecutors on the procedures used for judges, in line with the guidance ...[+++] of the European Commission for Democracy through Law of the Council of Europe (Venice Commission):[8] if this were to be pursued, the next step would be for the government to propose this to Parliament.

The importance of more transparency and objectivity in judicial appointments has been a consistent theme in CVM reports.[9] Although some of the peaks of controversy seen in 2012-13 were avoided in 2014, the question of high level appointments within the magistracy has remained problematic.

A country-wide single recruitment system based on anonymous tests for first-time judicial appointments remains to be established.

These concerns have been confirmed, as a number of key judicial appointments by Parliament and by the SJC have lacked transparency and objectivity and have been marred by allegations of political influence.[17] Independence has also come in question following a series of direct political criticisms of individual judges - the dismissal from the judiciary of the President of the Union of Judges by the SJC raises concerns in this context.[18] The Council has not taken clear action to protect judicial independence in these cases.