Sebi’s father, the young man killed by Vlad Pascu, in the accident on May 2, reacted to the CSM’s decision to reject the proposal to suspend the judge from the case. Judge Ancuța Popoviciu remains in office, after the episode in which she asked if Sebi was present in the courtroom.
“I have nothing more to comment on! If the CSM said that the judge is good for the case, I have nothing more to comment on. After we are destroyed, this decision… I trusted that someone would solve this case. I have no words! We are finished people”, said the father of Sebi, the young man killed by Vlad Pascu, on Antena 3.
The parents of the victims accused the behavior of judge Ioana Ancuța Popoviciu. They told reporters that when she entered the gym she was chewing gum. Later, the judge asked for the bulletin of the young man who died in the road accident, whom she did not know had died.
In the meantime, the judge made a request to abstain, which was definitively rejected.
SCM DECISION
The section for judges of the Superior Council of the Magistracy rejected, on Wednesday, the proposal made by the Judicial Inspection regarding the suspension from office of judge Ioana Ancuța Popoviciu, who handles the case of Vlad Pascu, the driver involved in the fatal accident on May 2.
“Rejects the proposal made by the Judicial Inspection regarding the suspension from office of Mrs. Popoviciu Ioana Ancuța – judge in the Mangalia Court, as unfounded. There is no appeal,” said a statement from the CSM on Wednesday.
According to a statement from the CSM, in essence, in order to pronounce this solution, the Section for judges in disciplinary matters held that the suspension of a judge can only be ordered under the conditions strictly provided by the provisions of art. 52 of Law no. 305/2022 regarding the Superior Council of the Magistracy.
“Thus, the aforementioned text of the law expressly provides for two situations that may attract this measure, respectively: 1. if the continued exercise of the position could affect the impartiality of the disciplinary procedures or 2. if the disciplinary procedure is likely to seriously damage the prestige justice. Analyzing the reasons cited by the Judicial Inspection in formulating the proposal for suspension from office, the Section noted that, in the present case, no elements of the nature of those that can be circumscribed to the cases regulated by the law were identified”, the statement reads.
With reference to the first case that allows the measure of suspension, the Section held that the continued exercise of the position by Judge Popoviciu Ioana Ancuța is not likely to affect the impartiality of the disciplinary procedure towards her.
“Thus, the aspects presented in the public space targeted criticism of the manner in which the judge conducted the judicial investigation in a criminal case, for which there are other procedural remedies. Also, the aspects regarding the violation of the rules of criminal procedure can be invoked through the formulation of legal appeals and can be relevant for establishing the guilt of the judge in the case of exercising a disciplinary action”, the quoted document also says.
With reference to the second case that allows the measure of suspension, the Section held that the disciplinary procedure, by itself, is not likely to affect the prestige of justice, its role being, on the contrary, that of sanctioning non-compliant conduct precisely for the purpose to contribute to ensuring the prestige of justice.
“At the same time, the section also noted the fact that up to this point no disciplinary action has been taken against Ms. Judge Popoviciu Ioana Ancuța, although the president of the Superior Council of the Magistracy ordered, as early as 23.02.2024, the notification of the Judicial Inspection to carry out the legal checks with regarding the aspects revealed in the press on the dates of February 22 and 23, 2024”, the statement also states.
According to him, the rejection of the suspension proposal does not affect the further development of the disciplinary procedure against the concerned judge, being within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Inspection the legal prerogative to exercise the disciplinary action if it deems that the legal conditions are met.
