“It is not viable to manage the Public Prosecutor's Office against the will of three quarters of its magistrates”

The Public Prosecutor's Office Magistrates' Union (SMMP) – led by Paulo Lona – has announced a national strike for July 9 and 10 and regional strikes for July 11, 14 and 15, to protest the magistrates' movement . The issue at hand is the notice published on June 4 in the Official Gazette that includes positions to be occupied by prosecutors from September in several departments and courts simultaneously.

The decision of the Superior Council of the Public Prosecution Service (CSMP), on the proposal of the Attorney General of the Republic (PGR), to maintain the movement of magistrates is at issue. Speaking to journalists, after leaving the launch ceremony of the Knowledge Center dedicated to research and promotion of Law and Children's Rights at the Faculty of Law of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, the PGR Amadeu Guerra said that, on his proposal, the CSMP decided to maintain the movement of magistrates, which takes effect from 1 September, but with “a nuance” that aims to avoid arbitrariness and overload in the distribution of services.

Advocatus spoke to the union leader about this decision to strike and its reasons.

Can you explain to our readers the measure decided by the CSMP regarding the movement of magistrates, in practical terms?

The recent decision by the CSMP eliminates permanent positions, adds vacancies to the competition and broadens, across the board, the functional content of many other positions. This decision introduces a combination of skills from different areas, in an attempt to mask the serious shortage of magistrates in the Public Prosecutor's Office, to the detriment of these professionals and the service provided to citizens. With this measure, we will no longer have a judiciary specialised in fundamental areas, such as family and minors, but will instead have a multifunctional and generalist judiciary, which will be required to handle cases of a very diverse nature. A prosecutor who, for the last 15 years, has dedicated himself to protecting children and young people, is not prepared to deal with investigations into domestic violence or complex economic crimes. The inevitable result will be a loss of quality in the specialist work that was carried out until now, while compromising the response in the criminal area.

Was the CSMP unyielding in the meeting it held with you?

The SMMP management met with the Attorney General, as President of the CSMP, to whom it conveyed the express will of 75% of the Public Prosecutor's Office magistrates, expressed in an open letter, to annul the aforementioned decision. However, the clear position of the vast majority of magistrates was ignored, and the possibility of annulling or suspending the movement was not even put to a vote in the CSMP. It was this intransigence that ended up pushing the magistrates into a strike that they clearly did not want.

A prosecutor who has dedicated himself to protecting children and young people for the past 15 years is not prepared to handle investigations into domestic violence or complex economic crimes. The inevitable result will be a loss of quality in the specialist work that has been carried out up until now, while compromising the response in the criminal area.”

How many more magistrates do our courts need for everything to work better?

We estimate that there is currently a shortage of between 120 and 150 magistrates to ensure the fulfilment of the essential functions assigned to this judiciary in its various areas of intervention. This number may, however, increase, taking into account the foreseeable departures due to retirement and the need to fill absences resulting from burnout and illness.

Is the strike called by the SMMP also a way of alerting the political powers to the lack of MP magistrates?

First of all, this strike is an action in defense of citizens, who are the final recipients of the work carried out by the Public Prosecutor's Office and who must be guaranteed quality and specialized intervention in the various areas of activity of this judiciary — labor, family and minors, civil, commercial, enforcement, criminal, administrative and tax. This is also an appeal to the Attorney General's Office, the Superior Council of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Justice, so that they recognize the reality experienced within the Public Prosecutor's Office: the exhaustion of its magistrates — many at high or even extreme risk of burnout —, the lack of occupational medicine, the precariousness aggravated by the elimination of positions and the conversion of permanent positions into auxiliary ones, as well as the crucial importance of specialization, which cannot be undervalued. It is essential to ensure citizens an excellent, qualified and specialized public service. This strike also represents a fight for the physical and psychological well-being of Public Prosecution Service magistrates, who are at the limit of their capabilities and risk no longer being able to meet the basic needs of society. In this context, this strike also constitutes a warning to the political authorities about the serious shortage of Public Prosecution Service magistrates and the consequences that this has for both the magistrates themselves and society in general.

Do you think this government is ignoring the needs of the MP?

Although some positive measures have been taken and the Ministry of Justice has shown greater openness to dialogue with all professionals in the judicial sector, it is essential that the necessary conditions are created in the short term to carry out a special training course for around 120 Public Prosecutor's Office magistrates.

Is this PGR – with this measure – opening a war with the MP?

The SMMP's appeal was clear: that the Attorney General's Office and the Superior Council of the Public Prosecution Service should not ignore the will expressed by 75% of the Public Prosecution Service magistrates, who signed an open letter requesting the annulment of the CSMP's decision. It is not viable to manage the Public Prosecution Service against the will of three quarters of its magistrates. I therefore reiterate my appeal to the common sense of the Attorney General's Office and the CSMP, so that they abandon the intransigent stance that has led us to the current situation. It is also important to emphasize that this strike is not directed against the hierarchy of the Public Prosecutor's Office, nor against the Attorney General of the Republic, the Superior Council of the Public Prosecutor's Office or even the Ministry of Justice.

How could they have resolved this issue before deciding to strike?

On June 21st, Public Prosecution Service magistrates, meeting in an Extraordinary General Assembly of the Public Prosecution Service Magistrates Union, recommended to the Board the calling of a national strike for July 9th and 10th, as well as regional strikes to be held on July 11th, 14th and 15th, covering the regions of Lisbon, Porto, Coimbra and Évora. This decision was not taken lightly, as it was the result of the inflexible attitude of the Superior Council of the Public Prosecution Service and the Attorney General, who chose to ignore the open letter signed by 75% of the magistrates of the Public Prosecution Service, in which they requested that the CSMP's decision be annulled. This stance demonstrated the deep discontent generated by the decision in question. If the decision had been annulled or suspended, this situation could have been avoided; it should be noted, moreover, that this possibility was not even considered by the CSMP.