The chairwoman of the Council of Judges initiates the evaluation of A. Purvainis’ public statements: a judge must act politically neutral – Respublika.lt

As the National Judicial Administration reported on Wednesday, S. Rudėnaitė proposed to the Council to consider the issue of A. Purvainis’ publicly expressed assessments at the next meeting.

The submission of the council chairperson indicates that the statements of the chairman of the Kaunas district court possibly violated the principles of respect and loyalty to the state, independence and impartiality and exceeded the limits of self-expression.

In the distributed report, it is noted that, in the opinion of S. Rudėnaitė, A. Purvainis is giving the public the opinion that his statement is a legal assessment submitted by the courts. According to the chairwoman, it is necessary to evaluate the judge’s statements about the political processes taking place in the Seimas in the context of compliance with the principles of judicial ethics.

“A judge must behave politically neutral and correctly, not publicly express his political beliefs, not engage in agitation. Public statements that do not adhere to political neutrality and correctness may also violate the independence of the courts, which is a necessary condition for the rule of law and the main guarantee of a fair trial,” the report reads.

According to the President of the Council of Judges, a judge, like every citizen, has the right to freedom of speech, belief, association and assembly, but when using these rights, he must always act in such a way as to preserve the dignity of his duties, the impartiality and independence of the courts.

ELTA reminds that at the end of March, A. Purvainis stated that the temporary commission of the Seimas, which examined the history of VSD reporter T. Gailius, was possibly formed illegally.

According to him, the purpose of the commission’s investigation was not clearly defined, so there is a risk that the investigation interfered “into the field of action of other authorities or the field of action of other state institutions, such as the VSD, the Special Investigation Service of the General Prosecutor’s Office.”

As A. Purvainis emphasized in the interview given to Elta, the Seimas commission cannot establish a violation of the Constitution or a violation of the oath.

“Not to mention the fact that the Seimas commission could make decisions, like, for example, the court or the Constitutional Court, to present a legal assessment, because this is not the function of the parliament,” the chairman of the Kaunas district court told Eltai at the end of March.

The findings of the investigation, which took place over several months, cast a shadow on G. Nausėda, the heads of VSD and STT

Last week, the Seimas commission that examined the history of VSD speaker T. Gailius confirmed the conclusion of the parliamentary investigation.

After several months of analysis and the testimonies of a dozen officials, it was established that the head of the Security Service, Darius Jauniškis, helped the then candidate Gitan Nausėda by collecting intelligence information about his environment.

The Seimas investigators conclude that the VSD director’s material about the candidate’s environment reached him through G. Nausėdas himself or a person acting on his behalf. It is also indicated that the information collected in the department could have been disclosed to G. Nausėda himself.

At that time, the president who refused to answer the questions presented by the commission, in the opinion of the parliamentarians, prevented the Seimas from fulfilling its duties and violated the Constitution and the provisions of the oath to respect and execute the laws.

The parliamentary investigation casts a shadow over STT head Linas Pernavos, who, according to the conclusions, abused his duties by refusing to provide the commission with information gathered during the criminal intelligence investigation and by misleading the commission members.

The conclusions of the investigation also state that during the parliamentary investigation, it became clear that the VSD investigated possible violations by financing the election campaign of the then candidate G. Nausėda.

It was also found out that G. Nausėda and members of his electoral staff in 2018-2019 maintained contacts with representatives of the Belarusian fertilizer business, met with them, and after becoming the head of the country, invited these persons to the events held at the Presidency. It is noted that the members of G. Nausėda’s team, who testified to the commission and held high positions in the Office of the President, concealed this information. As a result, the parliamentary commission intends to apply to the prosecutor’s office.

The investigation commission also assessed the violations regarding the revealed identity of the whistleblower T. Gailaus – it is established that the director of the VSD, D. Jauniškis, is directly responsible for this.