In response to the controversy surrounding the election of the Chief Public Prosecutor, the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) guarantees that the process will comply with the rules.
With regard to the PUBLIC, the PGR stated that “neither the rules of the tendering process nor the evaluation criteria have changed since it was launched” and that the Supreme Council of the Public Ministry (CSMP) has decided not to consult the competitor beforehand for the qualification of the process as urgent.
The clarification of the PGR comes after the President of the Union of Judges of the Public Ministry, António Ventinhas, believed that the way the actual prosecutor was chosen opens the door to “all suspicions” and knowing that The competition is contested before the Supreme Administrative Court.
According to the PGR “the procedure for selecting and filling posts for judges in the public prosecutor’s office respected the current legal framework – namely Article 162 of the new EMP, which has been in force since January 1, 2020, and Article 20, No. 2 and 25, No. 3 of the Magistrates Regulation of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, published in the 2nd series of the Diário da República of October 28, 2020 ”.
In addition, the PGR recalls the fact that the competition was attended by a jury appointed by the CSMP “who proceeded to assess the curriculum of interested parties and an individual interview, finalize the candidates and provide their final opinion for validation. Selection and naming by the CSMP “.
Regarding the admission to the competition of prosecutors who had previously served as district coordinators (which was also one of the issues criticized by the SMMP), the PGR made it clear that this issue was the subject of discussion in plenary sessions of the CSMP.
“At the plenary sessions of the CSMP on May 12 and December 16, 2020, decisions were made about the vulnerability to admission of prosecutors who had previously held functions as district coordinators,” he emphasizes, adding: With regard to the decision of May 12, based on the idea that a service commission reported to a particular county, the CSMP was seen by a large majority (also with three votes against) as the best interpretation of Article 162 No. 2 of the EMP, which admits that a district coordinating judge is can apply for a third term as long as he is in a different district than the one in which he served on two service commissions.
The PGR also clarified that the deliberations of the CSMP on the composition of the jury on December 23, 2020 and January 7, 2021 were published in the SIMP (Public Information’s Information System), namely on the replacement of a member based on the request to excuse the Item originally designated, but before the deadline for submitting applications.