¿Debe el Ministerio Fiscal ser independiente?
- Autores: Luis Díez-Picazo
- Localización: Societat civil i transformació de l'Estat al llindar del segle XXI / coord. por Pompeu Casanovas, 1999, ISBN 84-95166-12-7, págs. 37-44
- Idioma: español
- Enlaces
-
Resumen
Professor Díez-Picazo’s conference focuses on a current controversial debate held in many European countries: the legal and political estatute of the Public Prosecution. Stemming from a comparative perspective, Díez-Picazo shows that the Italian model –despite its successful efforts to prosecute so-called «governmental crimes»– cannot serve as a positive experience for those who defend the independency of the Public Prosecution from both the executive and the judicial power. Rather, the debate should concentrate on two main issues: the compulsory or discretional character of the Public Prosecution exercise of the public action (distinguishing between technical and political discretionality), and both the risks and advantages of such a discretional activity. Many questions arise then: the legal mechanisms to be implemented in order to avoid political arbitrariness, the degree of decentralisation needed to guarantee the independence of the institution (over the independence of every single member), and the role of the Public Prosecution in the European countries which maintain investigative judges in their criminal procedures. According to Díez-Picazo, the most appropriate solution to overcome the pervasive problem of Public Prosecution and Government relationships consist in maintaining the «operative autonomy» of the former: an indirect relation by means of which the Government is responsible for the orientation of the Public Prosecution’s general policy, without interfering in its concrete activity in particular cases.
