The Council of State has therefore queried the Ministry of Justice's future authority in relation to court cases.
The question of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers has still not been resolved, after the Parliamentary Commission on the Institutions decided in mid-January that the independence of the prosecution will not be enshrined in a new constitution. This decision has also affected the creation of a "Supreme Council of Justice", according to the Council of State's opinion on the bill, published in a statement on Tuesday evening.
The statement specified that if the independence of the prosecution does not appear in the constitution, the Council of State will still have the opportunity to express itself in an opinion on a partial revision of the constitution.
One of the questions posed within the document asks whether the Minister of Justice will have authority over the State Attorney General and state prosecutors.
The question of the autonomy of the judiciary vis-à-vis the government, particularly with regard to budget management, remains open.
In addition to the question of the independence of justice, the Council of State raised other concerns in the document. Several formal objections mainly concern the procedure for the appointment of the nine members of the Supreme Council of Justice. Three of the nine members must be proposed by the Council itself. The Council of State however takes umbrage at the fact that the Grand Duke has the possibility of refusing a candidate, even if the Head of State must present a good reason.
