Tokens: [
17
]
Venice
Commission
Opinion
no
.
524/2009
,
cited
above
.
The
Commission
underlined
that
lustration
has
strict
limits
of
time
in
both
the
period
of
its
enforcement
and
the
period
to
be
screened
(
§
§
19
,
109
and
110
)
and
,
consequently
,
it
expressed
the
view
that
there
must
be
cogent
reasons
to
justify
enacting
a
new
lustration
law
eighteen
years
after
the
fall
of
the
communist
regime
(
§
38
)
.
The
longer
the
objected
activities
date
back
,
the
more
significant
the
personal
misconduct
in
the
past
and
the
individual
guilt
have
to
be
(
§
39
)
.
The
Commission
censured
the
extremely
wide
range
of
application
of
the
law
,
which
included
“
every
employee
of
the
organs
of
State
Security
”
,
like
for
example
the
secretary
or
the
cleaner
.
In
view
of
the
fact
that
lustration
measures
affect
significantly
certain
fundamental
rights
,
for
any
law
on
lustration
to
be
constitutional
it
is
inevitable
to
supply
a
precise
definition
of
the
objected
connection
with
the
totalitarian
system
(
§
50
)
.
Moreover
,
the
Commission
also
noted
that
the
Lustration
law
does
not
leave
room
for
consideration
of
each
case
individually
,
but
addresses
all
cases
globally
,
without
distinction
.
Sanctions
are
imposed
on
the
basis
of
formal
criteria
(
§
106
)
.
The
court
must
be
empowered
to
quash
the
decision
of
the
lustration
commission
due
to
circumstances
of
each
individual
case
(
§
108
)
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O