CCR's Dorneanu: We haven't been attacked by Kovesi with ECHR; decision to remove her not related to us

CCR (Constitutional Court of Romania) head Valer Dorneanu on Tuesday told AGERPRES that those who want to analyze "objectively and without any biases" the decision taken by the ECHR regarding Laura Codruta Kovesi's removal as chief prosecutor of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) will notice that "there is no criticism of the Constitutional Court" there.

"I would like to ask all those who want to analyze objectively the ECHR decision, in relation to the Constitutional Court, to notice this: we haven't been attacked by Mrs Kovesi, we haven't even been there, and whoever wants to read the ECHR decision objectively and without any biases will see that there is no criticism of the Constitutional Court or of the activity of the Constitutional Court there and will see that, basically, there was no decision of the Constitutional Court's or a certain gesture of the Constitutional Court that this decision relied upon," said Dorneanu.

According to him, the decision was based on two articles from the Human Rights Convention invoked by Laurea Codruta Kovesi in her notification, "which referred to a whole different matter." "Who wants to investigate further and check the notification and also the decision should read them objectively," said Dorneanu.

Laura Codruta Kovesi on Tuesday won at the ECHR the trial by which she challenged the decision regarding her removal from office as chief prosecutor of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate, informs a press release of the Strasbourg-based institution.

According to the ECHR, Romania violated the rights of the chief of the DNA, by removing her from office before the end of her term.

According to the ECHR decision, Kovesi to bring a claim in court against her dismissal as such proceedings would only have been able to examine the formal aspects of the presidential decree for her removal and not her substantive argument that she had been incorrectly removed for criticising the legislative changes in corruption law.

Moreover, the Court established that the right to freedom of expression of the former chief prosecutor of the DNA was also violated because she had been dismissed for those criticisms, which she had made in the exercise of her duties on a matter of great public interest.