Between the spring of 1994 and the end of 1996, the prosecutor general filed a great many appeals against court decisions that had ordered the return of nationalized houses and apartments to their original owners. The courts were clearly pressured by the executive to stall the process of property restitution, and the tactic apparently achieved the desired outcome. In the aftermath of the president's remarks, the Supreme Court, which had confirmed the lower courts' jurisdiction over restitution cases, suddenly reversed itself and held that the courts had overstepped their authority. This was not the end of the story, however. Many of the plaintiffs in the original cases then appealed the decision of the Supreme Court to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that they had been effectively stripped of their right of access to the courts.
Many similar cases are pending.
For the most part, this task is laxly carried out. To begin with, individual prosecutors are, at times, on quite friendly terms with prison officials, and therefore a strict enforcement of the rules might appear to be a breach of collegiality. In addition, prosecutors rely on the cooperation of those whom they monitor in order to fulfill their oversight responsibilities. For example, they are not allowed to enter police precinct detention centers without the consent of the local police chief. As a result, countless abuses against detainees go unpunished.