The Society for Justice (SoJust) draws the attention of public opinion and state authorities to non-compliance with court decisions. Thus, the SoJust experts identified several situations in which central and local authorities did not submit to the final and / or irrevocable decisions of the judges.
The most recent case, which also attracted the concern of the European institutions, is the one regarding the Communications Regulatory Authority. Thus, within 3 years, the Government adopted three normative acts by which it modified the structure of this institution (transforming it, in turn, from ANRC into ANRCTI and then into ANC) in order to avoid decisions of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, respectively of The High Court of Cassation and Justice, which ordered the reinstatement of the presidents of this authority.
Thus, in 2005, the prime minister decided to replace IS, the president of the National Regulatory Authority for Communications (ANRC), with GI. By challenging this decision in court, the IS obtains an irrevocable decision by which the prime minister is obliged to reinstate him in the position of president of ANRC. Immediately, the Government adopts an emergency ordinance by which ANRC is reorganized into the National Authority for Regulation in Communications and Information Technology ( ANRCTI), whose president is also IG, so that reintegration could no longer take place.
In 2008, history repeats itself: the prime minister dismisses the president of IG and replaces him with LN. By appealing the decision in court, IG obtains in the first instance the right to be reinstated in office. Until the judgment of the appeal, the Government adopts a new emergency ordinance by which ANRCTI is reorganized into the National Communications Authority (ANC), whose president remains LN. The situation, not unprecedented in Romania, attracted the reaction of the European Commissioner for the Information Society, Ms. Viviane Reading, who asked for explanations regarding these changes.
SoJust has prepared a study on this case which it attaches to this press release. The conclusions of the association are that in Romania the independence of the judiciary is also violated by not respecting the authority of court decisions, decisions that represent the purpose of a civil or criminal trial. The members of the association also draw the attention of the authorities responsible for the execution of the decisions that there are civil and even criminal means to impose this. Last but not least, SoJust experts point out that there has been no reaction from the professional organizations of magistrates or from the Superior Council of Magistracy on these situations, which has encouraged their perpetuation.