Mr. Maduro (II) - o primado do Direito
Muito bem lembrado, Pedro.
O artigo do Economist pode ser lido aqui. E merece a leitura.
A opinião de Miguel Poiares Maduro é referida pelas melhores razões. Sem tergiversações, radica na assunção plena do 'rule of law' e, portanto, em coerência, das suas diversas implicações. Sem cedências a urgências securitárias, torna actual e cogente o imperativo de fidelidade aos valores fundadores da ordem jurídica europeia. Preto no branco, Miguel Maduro lembra-nos que o Direito é o que é - logo, o que deve ser - e não o que as conveniências de uma concreta circunstância poderiam determinar que fosse.
Pedagogia essencial, nos tempos que correm. E, como assinala o Economist, um muito provável ponto de viragem relativamente à tolerância que tem envolvido as práticas de combate ao terrorismo.
Parabéns, Miguel!
Antecipando a leitura integral:
«(...) in a potentially ground-breaking “opinion” to the European Court of Justice in the al Barakaat case on January 23rd, Poiares Maduro, one of the court's eight independent “advocates-general” (with a rank equivalent to that of a judge), argued that the court cannot “turn its back on the fundamental values that lie at the basis of the [EU's] legal order and which it has the duty to protect.” Where those values were at stake, the court might have to annul Security Council measures, he said.
Mr Maduro also says that even when such measures were intended to suppress terrorism, this “should not inhibit the court from fulfilling its duty to preserve the rule of law”. In doing so, it would not, as a lower EU court had argued, be “trespassing into the domain of politics”, but “reaffirming the limits that the law imposes on certain political decisions”.
Although the prevention of international terrorism might sometimes justify restrictions on an individual's right to property, it did not remove the need to demonstrate why those measures were being applied to that particular person or entity. Delivering a similar opinion in Mr Kadi's case, he said that imposing sanctions with such “potentially devastating” consequences on someone who might be totally innocent was “anathema in a society that respects the rule of law”.
(...)
Mr Maduro's opinion to the court marks the first substantive legal challenge to the fundamental assumption on which the UN's watchlist is based—namely that where world peace and security are at stake, virtually anything goes so long as it has the blessing of the world's great powers. An advocate-general's opinion is not, of course, the same as a ruling. The court still has to decide whether to accept Mr Maduro's advice. In the past, it has followed such opinions in about 80% of cases. But in potentially precedent-setting cases, such as those of Mr Kadi and al Barakaat, its reaction, expected by the summer, is much harder to predict. At the UN's headquarters in New York, the securocrats are increasingly twitchy.»
Mr Maduro also says that even when such measures were intended to suppress terrorism, this “should not inhibit the court from fulfilling its duty to preserve the rule of law”. In doing so, it would not, as a lower EU court had argued, be “trespassing into the domain of politics”, but “reaffirming the limits that the law imposes on certain political decisions”.
Although the prevention of international terrorism might sometimes justify restrictions on an individual's right to property, it did not remove the need to demonstrate why those measures were being applied to that particular person or entity. Delivering a similar opinion in Mr Kadi's case, he said that imposing sanctions with such “potentially devastating” consequences on someone who might be totally innocent was “anathema in a society that respects the rule of law”.
(...)
Mr Maduro's opinion to the court marks the first substantive legal challenge to the fundamental assumption on which the UN's watchlist is based—namely that where world peace and security are at stake, virtually anything goes so long as it has the blessing of the world's great powers. An advocate-general's opinion is not, of course, the same as a ruling. The court still has to decide whether to accept Mr Maduro's advice. In the past, it has followed such opinions in about 80% of cases. But in potentially precedent-setting cases, such as those of Mr Kadi and al Barakaat, its reaction, expected by the summer, is much harder to predict. At the UN's headquarters in New York, the securocrats are increasingly twitchy.»
1 comentários:
Em minha opinião, como cidadão europeu, o problema não é se a watchlist europeia ou da ONU inclui 50, 60, ou 72 terroristas, e se alguns estão lá por erro (há e haverá sempre um preço a pagar no funcionamanto da justiça).
Isso são pormenores.
O que deveria merecer Leads de primeira página e 7 ou 8 ou 18 páginas da Economist era eles escreverem acerca de e inquirirem à inoperante Comissão Europeia o porquê daquela Watchlist não incluir seitas e ideologias fundamentalistas, que advogam o terrorismo como meio de luta, gerando não 60 mas 600 ou 10000 terroristas - e operacionais- em células adormecidas. E parece que Inglaterra, Espanha e outros países europeus já estão cheios delas.
Com os melhores cumprimentos,
CCInez
Enviar um comentário