Antônio Cotrim / LUSA
The newly elected President of the Bar Association, João Massano
The Bar Association criticizes proposals in the new package to combat the slowness of justice, including fines for delaying maneuvers or limiting the extension of deadlines for complex processes.
The superior councils of judicial magistrates and the Public Prosecutor’s Office agree with most of the changes to the Criminal Procedure Code proposed by the government, but the OAB is harshly criticizing several measures,
The positions are contained in opinions sent to the Assembly of the Republic, where the proposed law aimed at combating slowness in justice is now being discussed in the specialty. Among the most relevant changes is the possibility for judges to apply fines exceeding 10,000 euros to anyone who presents incidents considered “manifestly unfounded” with the aim of delaying the proceedings.
The Superior Council of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (CSMP) and the Union of Public Prosecutor’s Magistrates do not raise relevant objections to most of the changes. Still, the CSMP suggests that the law clearly specify who may be subject to fines and that excludes prosecutors.
A member of the Superior Council of the Judiciary (CSM), the former president of the Constitutional Court José Manuel Cardoso da Costa, considers “the sanction framework is excessive” and warns of the margin of subjectivity in applying the measure in extreme cases.
The Bar Association presents by far the most critical opinion and questions the constitutionality of several changes. The entity led by President João Massano maintains that some of the changes “flagrantly violate essential constitutional principles“, including the right of defense, proportionality and technical independence of lawyers. “Lawyer cannot be practiced under threat of sanctions”, states the OA.
Among the most contested points is the expansion of the full confession regime and without reservations to crimes punishable by sentences exceeding five years in prison. The amendment would make it possible to dispense with the production of other evidence at trial when the defendant fully confesses to the facts. For the Order, in the most serious crimes the State has the duty to prove the facts independently, even in the face of a confession, says the .
The OA also criticizes the limitation of extension of deadlines in particularly complex processes, which would only be able to double the normal deadline, with limited exceptions. Currently, judges can adapt deadlines to the characteristics of each case, something that the Order considers essential to guarantee the effective exercise of the right to defense.
Another controversial point concerns the so-called “refusal incident” of judges. The proposal would allow the targeted magistrate to continue carrying out procedural acts while the request is analyzedwhich, according to the OA, could compromise confidence in the impartiality of justice.
