The question has been one already in the public sphere over the past few weeks, after a letter written by public prosecutor Martine Solovieff and the president of the highest district court Jean-Claude Wiwinus, addressed to president of the Chamber of Deputies Fernand Etgen, was published in the press. The letter in particular criticised the frequent parliamentary questions submitted by CSV MPs Laurent Mosar and Gilles Roth.
Two weeks later, a second letter has reignited the debate, sparking concerns of the judiciary intervening unduly in the political sphere. This letter concerns events that took place on 25 June. On that day, CSV MP Félix Eischen sent a letter to the public prosecutor's office, attaching an audit report of the Film Fund. The audit had been completed upon the order of Prime Minister Xavier Bettel last year. The MP was adhering to article 23 of the procedural criminal code, which dictates that Members of Parliament must make it their duty to pass on any concerns surrounding infractions or offences committed in the audit.
The public prosecutor's response has raised eyebrows among CSV politicians, as Solovieff requested that Eischen first of all inform her about the circumstances under which the MP was given the document. In other words, the public prosecutor asked Eischen for his sources, a reaction CSV leader in the Chamber Martine Hansen described as 'a very bizarre reaction'.
As Hansen explained, MPs are duty-bound to pass on any matters that could have legal consequences to the public prosecutor's office, which is all Eischen did in this case. Citing a ruling involving [ADR MP] Gast Gibéryen, Hansen reiterated that MPs must not supply their sources, making the public prosecutor's question a very bizarre one. Explaining about the importance of keeping sources anonymous, Hansen stressed that forcing MPs to provide sources could 'impeded their work'. She highlighted that people are unlikely to step forward if they know delicate information could be traced back to them.
Above all, the opposition MP pointed out that the opposition is unable to do its work - namely holding the executive to account and reporting any suspicious aspects - if it cannot use anonymity, as reiterated in the Gibéryen ruling.
Etgen, the recipient of the first letter, agreed with Hansen in finding the public prosecutor's procedure odd. Referring to Eischen's case in particular, he added that Xavier Bettel, as Minister for Communications and Media, confirmed in a response to a parliamentary commission that the audit in question would be made available to MPs. The Chamber of Deputies then passed the audit on to members of the parliamentary commission on digitisation.
The letter addressed to Etgen, dated 22 August, highlighted the independence of the judiciary and argued that the parliamentary questions concerning the secret records affair had forced the judiciary to justify its internal workings, something Solovieff and Wiwinius described as 'inadmissable'.
Reacting to this letter, Hansen reiterated the duty of MPs. Both Roth and Mosar acted as 'exemplary' members of the opposition, fulfilling their duty. Above all, Hansen decried that another body was attempting to intervene in the legislative's work and preclude MPs from asking questions. "The Chamber of Deputies is at a liberty to ask questions, and parliamentary questions are a means to gaining clarity." The only person who can dictate that some questions are unacceptable is the president of the Chamber of Deputies.
Etgen, acting in that capacity, was clear that it is not the case that these questions are unacceptable. Instead, he confirmed that the questions were appropriate and MPs acted correctly in submitting these questions. For now, Etgen has issued his full support to the Chamber of Deputies and will attempt to foster harmony between the three branches of power.
