Motion Of No Confidence
It is my sad duty today, at the behest of Chief Justice Jacob Stipe, to request a Motion of a Vote of No Confidence against Justice Jonas Pfetzing of Stadt Luxemburg. According to Justice Stipe, Mr Pfetzing has not been seen within the ECoJ since 17th February. I am sure this Council will agree, as a body who have a great deal of authority and who have a number of issues to deal with, such a period of AWOL, cannot be justified by the Justice. As the single body which can hold our elected representatives to account, I feel it is our duty to the European Union to ensure that Justice Jonas Pfetzing is removed from his seat in the ECoJ.
Therefore, if there is sufficient support in word from the representatives of this body, I call upon the Council to open an Official Poll on the matter.
Under which clause of the Constitution is this motion started against a member of the Court?
Article VII [Special Powers of the European Council]
1.The European Council can cast a vote of no-confidence at any given time as proposed by any amount of member-states of the European Union, to attempt and unseat the executive, judicial, or other elected institutions of the European Union organisation or any single member of it and repeat elections, or overturn decisions made by the aforementioned institutions. Such a motion requires a seventy percent (70%) majority from the attending councillors as well as justification provided during the Debating phase.
The USSR shall abstain until we hear the Aleutian side.
Holy Roman Empire
As a justice of the ECoJ I must agree with the representatives from Aesop Rock. They have the right to demand a vote of no-confidence and it should be presented to the European Parliament for a vote.
Jonathan Anaximander Aurelius
Judge of the ECoJ
The Empire agree with judge Aurelius in his interprentation. To call for a vote of no-confidence are a right for every member of the EU and as such it must be carried out under our own rules. However, removing a judge from the ECoJ should not be taken lightly and a debate would be in order where Aesop Rock declares its stance, perhaps mr Stipe could present his view and most important, mr Pfetzing must be heard.
Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis
Pro-Consul of Jerusalem
A Message From Chief Justice Jacob Stipe
Indeed, I would agree that Mr. Pfetzing should be heard, yet he has still not graced us with his prescence. I also agree that removing a Justice from th e Courts is certainly not a decision to be taken lightly, however the ECoJ is a body whose duties ensure the need for constant activity from it's Justices. Decision-making in the ECoJ requires all 5 Justices to be present - as of yet, Mr. Pfetzing has not been seen nor heard from in any matter the Courts have discussed since 17th February. This period of inactivity could continue to plague the Courts with potential ties in any votes, and with no fifth Justice, there is no tie-breaker. As Chief Justice, it is not only my role to head the discussions held by the ECoJ, but also to ensure that the Courts are in order and that the Justices are aware and active. Mr. Pfetzing has not shown me any level of devotion to the position and I feel that this is unnacceptable not only to the Courts but also to this Union, this Council. This is my reasoning behind requesting a Motion of No Confidence. I hope you understand the severity of having inactive members in our Courts.
OOC: I am very sorry for my absence. Due to the combination of schoolwork and a family death, I'm afraid that nationstates hasn't been one of my priorities lately. I am making an effort to catch up and resume my daily forum checks; however, I realize that my absence was serious considering my IC position on the court.
My fellow Europeans, especially my honourable fellows on the European Court of Justice,
I wish to give my most sincere apologies for my recent absence. As a Justice on the European Court of Justice, I have failed gravely in my responsibilities to this Union, and for that I am deeply sorrowed.
On the 17th of February, my wife of forty-three years, Sophie, was gravely injured in an automobile accident while driving back from our cabin in the south of Stadt Luxemburg. After a nearly unbearable week of watching her suffer, the Good Lord felt it time to bring her peace. I had lost a very part of myself, and mourned deeply for days.
In my concern, I lost my clarity of thought and did not notify those around me of my departure from Europolis, nor of the situation regarding my absence. That which should have been fact was only a vague rumor circulating the halls of the Courts, and this is directly and solely my fault.
And as greatly as the loss of Sophie has devastated me, I know that I must not allow my personal tribulations to interfere with my duties to the people of this Union any more than I already improperly have. So I thank deeply his Honour Aurelius for letting me explain my error, and his Honour Stipe for so vigilantly monitoring this Court, for actions such as mine should not be taken lightly. But I ask you for forgiveness, that I may still serve this Union of which Sophie and I have always been so proud.
First, I would like to offer my condolences Jonas Pfetzing.
As human beings, we should understand how the loss of a love one could affect one's action, in this case, Mr. Pfetzing's failure to notice the Court of his absent. Furthermore, Mr. Pfetzing's act has not presented any dire consequence. Therefore I believe that Jonas Pfetzing should be given another chance remain in the Supreme Court.
However, Mr. Pfetzing's irresponsibility should not be forgone without any notice from the European Council. I believe the Council should issue a reprimand regarding Mr. Pfetzing's situation, and proceed no further.
said Alexander Kuznetsov, Aleutian Ambassador to Europolis.