On May 30, the Constitutional Court of Romania ruled on an alleged conflict between the Minister of Justice and the President of the Republic. CCR issued a press release that glimpses into the legal argument, but the motivation is not yet public. CCR decisions cannot be appealed, and are obligatory once published in the Official Journal. The case refers to the Minister’s proposal to revoke the Chief Anti-Corruption Prosecutor; apparently, CCR ruled that the President must revoke her. Political outcry, street demonstrations and heated debates ensued, with several legitimate questions preoccupying the analysts and decision-makers alike: In many jurisdictions, the Minister of Justice may revoke the General Prosecutor or the chief prosecutors of specialized structures, so what makes Romania different? In contrast, what other jurisdiction can fathom that an appointed official (Minister) gain leverage over the top elected official (President)? Usually, CCR doesn’t order other institutions around, so how is this situation different? What are the legal and political implications of this ruling? What are the options of the political actors involved? [full article on telegraful.net]