The Ombudsman addressed a request to the Constitutional Court, aimed at the declaration of unconstitutionality of a rule enshrined in the Judiciary System Organisation Act, approved by Law No. 62/2013, of August 26, when it foresaw the possibility for the Superior Council of the Judiciary, on the proposal of the president of the district court, to re-allocate judges to another chamber of the same district (while respecting the principle of specialisation of magistrates) or to transfer proceedings to another judge (for procedural handling and decision), having regard to a better balance of the caseload and the efficiency of the services. According to the Ombudsman, as the contested rule allowed for changes of judges and subtraction of proceedings on a case by case and discretionary basis, it was in breach of the right to be heard by a court or tribunal established in accordance with the law, the right to a fair trial, the principle of irremovability of judges and the principle of independence of the courts as well, all embraced in the Constitution. In its argument the Ombudsman also emphasised, as an interpretative tool, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the right to a fair trial. The aforementioned rule was amended in the meantime by Law No. 40-A/2016, of December 22, the proposal in its origin using am argumentative line consistent with that pursued by the Ombudsman in his request. • Case Q-4802/13 Date: 2016/09/15 Subject: Freedom to exercise a profession (private security). Automatic effects of a penal sanction Status: Pending After examining an individual complaint about this matter, the Portuguese Ombudsman requested the Constitutional Court to analyse the constitutionality of the legal rules restricting access to private security activity. According to the Law No. 34/2013, of May 16, the directors or managers of companies which perform private security activities must fulfill, permanently and cumulatively, the requirements listed therein, among them, not have been convicted, by a final judgment, for the perpetration of an intentional crime described in the Penal Code and other criminal legislation [article No. 22 (1, d)]. Also in conformity with the contested legal precepts, that requirement applies not only to the company managers, but also to the security personnel, the security director, the person responsible for self-protection services and the private security trainers [article No. 22 (2, 3 and 4)]. 154 |