Decisão de julgar Wilders teve interferência política

A decisão de julgar Wilders resultou da interferência directa do ministro da Justiça cessante Ernst Hirsch Ballin. Ballin deu ordens ao Ministério Público holandês para avançar com o caso, apesar daquela estrutura ter decidido não o fazer. Vem também a lume informação contida em trocas de correspondência electrónica entre procuradores, a qual revela um elevado grau de entusiasmo dos procuradores com a conclusão de um parecer jurídico, segundo o qual haveria bases para avançar com a acusação.
O julgamento de Wilders assume, com estas notícias e com o desenrolar dos acontecimentos na sala de julgamento, contornos marcadamente políticos.

Amplify’d from gatesofvienna.blogspot.com

from De Telegraaf:

Hirsch Ballin was consulted over the trial

by Johan van den Dongen

Outgoing Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin (Justice) was personally involved at a very early stage in the decision-making on whether or not to prosecute Geert Wilders.

This is evidenced by internal e-mail correspondence from 2008, between the public prosecutor’s office in The Hague (the head of the OM) and the public prosecutor in Amsterdam.

The information has quite a bit of piquancy, because in our country the justice minister habitually keeps a necessary distance to prevent exposing the OM to changing political influences. In addition, with this information a different light is shed on the role of Hirsch Ballin as one of the fiercest CDA opponents of tolerating the support of Wilders’ PVV [for a new coalition government].

On March 14, 2008, the prosecutor-general and the prosecutor in Amsterdam emailed each other on the advice of Rick Lawson, professor of European Law at the University of Leiden. Lawson was asked by the OM for a mapping on whether prosecuting of Wilders would have a chance. On the last page of his ten pages of analysis, Lawson concluded that it is “well-founded to prosecute Wilders”.

This opinion was received with cheers by both prosecutors, as can be established from the email correspondence: “What a superb piece!!!!” And: “Monday there will be a meeting with the Minister of Justice about this advice. We will try with all we have to provide as much input as possible to Harm Brouwer (OM chief) for this conversation. Everything is welcome.”

Wilders’ lawyer Bram Moszkowicz is stunned by the internal information. “From this it shows that not only that at the highest ministerial level the possible prosecution of my client was discussed, but moreover that there has been a substantive degree of political involvement in the decision to prosecute.”

Despite Lawson’s analysis, the prosecutor decided not to prosecute Wilders. The court, however, later ordered it to do so.

According to a spokeswoman for OM, there is nothing strange about the involvement of Hirsch Ballin. “In cases with a social impact, it is very common for the OM to discusses and exchange views with the minister. He is politically responsible for the OM and is regularly called to Parliament to explain why something will or will not be prosecuted. Also, when it concerns a prominent politician. The law provides that if the Minister disagrees with the OM, he may give a directive for an alternative action, which in this case has not happened.” Read more at gatesofvienna.blogspot.com

 See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/buyj