DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report 2007 ANNUAL REPORT 2007 Fight Against Fraud Department – Annual report 2007 Fight Against Fraud Department - DLAF Annual report 2007 Message of Mr. Tudor Chiuariu, State Counsellor for Justice, Home Affairs 6 and Antifraud.................................................................................................. Message of Mr. Ovidiu Dobleagă, Head of Fight Against Fraud Department – 7 DLAF............................................................................................................... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................... 8 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER I: THE CONTROL ACTIVITY.............................................................. 11 1.1 Operational competences............................................................................. 11 1.2 Optimization of the control activity in 2007.................................................... 11 1.3 Results of the control actions....................................................................... 12 1.4 Follow-up.................................................................................................. 14 1.4.1 Judicial follow-up............................................................................. 14 1.4.2 Administrative follow-up................................................................... 16 1.5 Analysis of operational data......................................................................... 17 1.5.1 Distribution of controls according to the source of the notification........... 17 1.5.2 Main fraudulent and irregularity committing practices........................... 18 1.5.3 Regional distribution of controls......................................................... 18 1.5.4 The distribution of cases according to Implementing Agencies................ 20 1.5.5 Operational coordination................................................................... 20 1.6 Case studies.............................................................................................. 21 CHAPTER 2: COORDINATION OF THE FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD......................... 24 2.1 Romanian anti-fraud system implemented by DLAF......................................... 24 2.2 The Antifraud Policy.................................................................................... 26 2.2.1 National Antifraud Strategy – SNLAF.................................................. 26 2.2.1.1 Implementing the Action Plan.................................................. 26 2.2.1.2 Final Evaluation of SNLAF........................................................ 26 2.2.2 Contribution to strengthening the PIF legal framework.......................... 27 2.2.2.1 Strengthening the institutional and legal framework.................... 27 2.2.2.2 Finding irregularities and recovering the prejudice...................... 27 2.2.2.3 Agreements/International Conventions...................................... 28 2.3 Coordinating the activity of data collection and analysis................................... 30 2.3.1 Development of the activity of data collection and analysis.................... 30 2.3.2 Irregularity Reporting Network.......................................................... 30 2.3.3 Irregularity reporting to the European Commission............................... 30 2.4 Coordinating the activity of professional training............................................. 31 2.4.1 Training activities organized with the support of external partners.......... 31 2.4.2 Financing Agreements signed with European Commission...................... 34 2.4.3 The Training Coordinators’ Network.................................................... 35 2 Fight Against Fraud Department – Annual report 2007 CHAPTER 3: COOPERATION WITH THE EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE......... 36 3.1 Operational cooperation.. ............................................................................ 36 3.2 Participation to COCOLAF meetings and its sub-groups.................................... 38 3.3 Annual Meeting of Heads of AFCOS............................................................... 39 3.4 OLAF Antifraud Communicators’ Network – OAFCN.......................................... 39 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS ACTIVITIES............. 41 4.1 Study visit of a delegation from Croatia......................................................... 41 4.2 DLAF activity in mass-media........................................................................ 41 4.2.1 The national mass-media.................................................................. 41 4.2.2 DLAF at the Open Doors Day for the European Institutions.................... 42 4.3 International Conferences and Public Debates................................................. 42 4.4 DLAF activity reflected in the evaluations of the European institutions................ 43 ANNEXES........................................................................................................ 45 A. Cases investigated by DLAF and sent to trial............................................ 45 B. DLAF’s coordination system................................................................... 48 C. Training activities – 2007...................................................................... 49 D. DLAF’s organisation chart...................................................................... 50 3 Fight Against Fraud Department – Annual report 2007 ABREVIATIONS AA Audit Authority attached to the Romanian Court of Accounts ACIS Authority for Coordinating the Structural Instruments APDRP Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fisheries AFCOS Anti-Fraud Coordination Service ANAF National Agency for Fiscal Administration ANPCDEFP National Agency for Community Programmes in the Field of Education and Professional Training ANV National Customs Authority APIA Paying and Intervention Agency for Agriculture COCOLAF Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention CNADNR Romanian National Company of Motorways and National Roads CNCFR National Railway Company CFR SA CSM Superior Council of Magistracy DLAF Fight Against Fraud Department DNA National Anti-Corruption Directorate EIB The European Investment Bank EU European Union/Treaty on the European Union GF Financial Guard HG Government Decision IGPR General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police INM National Institute of Magistracy ISC State Inspectorate for Constructions LdV Leonardo da Vinci Community Programme MADR Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MCP Multi-Country PHARE Programme MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance MDLPL Ministry of Development, Public Works and Housing MJ Ministry of Justice MIRA Minister of Interior and Administrative Reform MMFES Minister of Labour, the Family and Equal Opportunities MMDD Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development MT Ministry of Transport OAFCN OLAF Anti-Fraud Communicators’ Network OLAF European Anti-Fraud Office OPCSB National Office for the Prevention and Fight against Money Laundering OPCP Central Finance and Contracting Unit PHARE PIF Protection of the financial interests of the European Union RRN Irregularity Reporting Network SC Commercial Society SNLAF National Anti-Fraud Strategy for the Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Union in Romania 4 Fight Against Fraud Department – Annual report 2007 LIST OF DIAGRAMS Diagram 1: Comparative situation of controls conducted/finalised between 2005-2007 Diagram 2: Increase in the value of the projects verified Diagram 3: Distribution of controls conducted between 2005-2007, according to the financing programme Diagram 4: Situation of cases finalized Diagram 5: Distribution of cases in which indications of fraud were ascertained Diagram 6: Evolution of the number of cases sent to DNA Diagram 7: Follow-up of cases by National Anticorruption Directorate Diagram 8: Graphic representation of the solutions disposed by DNA Diagram 9: Distribution of controls according to the source of the notification Diagram 10: Increase of the number of controls conducted on the request of DNA Diagram 11: Regional distribution of controls Diagram 12: Distribution of cases according to Implementing Agencies Diagram 13: Results of operational coordination Diagram 14: „Phare RICOP” Case Diagram 15: „Sântana de Mureş” Case Diagram 16: Romanian anti-fraud system coordinated by DLAF Diagram17: DLAF – connector between national and European anti-fraud structures Diagram 18: Distribution of irregularity reports showing new indications of irregularities or frauds Diagram 19: Distribution of reports which contain updates regarding the stage of cases of irregularities and/or frauds previously signalled Diagram 20: Seminars organized between 2005-2007 Diagram 21: Total number of participants: 2005-2007 Diagram 22: The results of operational cooperation with OLAF: 2005-2007 Diagram 23: „Leonardo da Vinci” Case 5 Fight Against Fraud Department – Annual report 2007 Message of Mr. Tudor Chiuariu State Counsellor for Justice, Home Affairs and Antifraud The year 2007 meant the consolidation of Romania’s position as model for other EU Member States or Candidate Countries with respect to the protection of EU’s financial interests. The activity of the Fight Against Fraud Department – DLAF throughout the past year was the natural continuation of previous efforts. It was an important test. The accomplishments of the past years have been confirmed. This is even more remarkable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Romanian Political Nicknames
    ÀÍÒÐÎÏÎÍÈÌÈß GIOROCEANU, Alina (Craiova, Romania) ON ROMANIAN POLITICAL NICKNAMES Çà ïðîçâèùàòà íà ðóìúíñêèòå ïîëèòèöè On Romanian Political Nicknames The nickname which is given to a person and is initially used by a small group of people turns into a byname as the person becomes more popular in society. The byname contains indications about the individuality or the public image of its carrier. There is also a connection with the physical and psychic features of the person or to activities or events connected with him or her. On the political scene (the Romanian political scene is no exception) a byname is used as a weapon for disctediting or demonizing political oppo- nents. Linguistic analysis of bynames of Romanian politicians shows the variety of linguistic resources and means used in the creation of a byname such as contraction, composition, derivation and abbreviation. Keywords: nickname, byname, politics, truncation, composition, derivation, ab- breviation O poreclã, atribuitã unei persoane ºi utilizatã, la început, în colectivitãþi mai mici, odatã ce intrã în conºtiinþa publicã devine supranume. Supranumele capteazã indicii despre personalitatea sau imaginea/percepþia publicã a posesorului. Dincolo de nume, existã legãturi cu trãsãturile fizice sau psihice ale persoanei sau cu o acþiune/întâmplare a acesteia. Pe scena politicã (scena politicã româneascã nu face excepþie!), supranumele este folosit ca armã pentru discreditarea sau demonizarea oponenþilor politici. Analiza lingvisticã a supranumelor din politica româneascã va scoate în evidenþã varietatea resurselor ºi mijloacelor limbii utilizate în atribuirea unui supranume (trunchierea, compunerea, derivarea, abrevierea). A name given to someone by few people, once become public knowledge, is often used instead of the person’s formal name.
    [Show full text]
  • Partidul Naţional Liberal – P.N.L
    18.03.2003 – PARTIDUL NAŢIONAL LIBERAL – P.N.L. Actuala denumire a partidului este PNL –prin comasarea prin absorbţie de către PARTIDUL NAŢIONAL LIBERAL a Partidului ACŢIUNEA POPULARĂ - Sentinţa civilă nr. 15/F/ 19.05.2008 a T.B. - Secţia a V-a Civilă în dosarul 16303/3/2008. RADIAT conform Sentinţei Civile nr.1127 pronunţată de Tribunalul Bucureşti – Secţia a IV-a Civilă în dosarul nr. 26874/3/2014, în şedinţa publică de la data de 06.10.2014 şi a Deciziei Civile nr. 551A pronunţată de Curtea de Apel Bucureşti – Secţia a III-a Civilă şi pentru Cauze cu Minori şi de Familie în dosarul nr. 26874/3/2014 (2406/2014), în şedinţa publică de la data de 09.12.2014. Decizia civilă 3/17.02.2003 – Tribunalul Bucureşti – Secţia a III-a Civilă – Dosar 1/P/2003 – rămasă definitivă prin necontestare. Sediul central este în Bucureşti, Bd.Aviatorilor nr.86, sector 1. Preşedinte – Theodor Stolojan; Vicepreşedinţi: Teodor Meleşcanu; Gheorghe Flutur; Monica Octavia Muscă; Paul Păcuraru; Călin Popescu Tăriceanu - Modificări: (1.09.2003) – Decizia civilă nr.9/13.05.2003 a T.B.-Secţia a III-a Civilă în dosarul 7/P/2003 – comasarea prin absorbţie a Uniunii Forţelor de Dreapta de către Partidul Naţional Liberal; radierea U.F.D. din Registrul partidelor politice; rămasă definitivă prin decizia civilă nr.1774/22.07.2003 a Curţii de Apel Bucureşti – Secţia a III-a Civilă în dosarul nr.1980/2003. - Modificări: (27.11.2003) – decizia civilă nr.39/20.10.2003 – T.B.-Secţia a IV-a Civilă – dosar 42/PARTID/2003, definitivă prin necontestare – dispune înregistrarea modificărilor privind statutul Partidului Naţional Liberal şi a modificărilor în structura de conducere ale partidului determinate de comasarea prin absorbţie a P.N.L.-C.
    [Show full text]
  • 1100903 [2011] RRTA 323 (3 May 2011)
    1100903 [2011] RRTA 323 (3 May 2011) DECISION RECORD RRT CASE NUMBER: 1100903 DIAC REFERENCE(S): CLF2010/129628 COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Romania TRIBUNAL MEMBER: Paul Fisher DATE: 3 May 2011 PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne DECISION: The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa. STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS APPLICATION FOR REVIEW 1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). 2. The applicant, who claims to be a dual citizen of Romania and Moldova, arrived in Australia on [date deleted under s.431(2) of the Migration Act 1958 as this information may identify the applicant] August 2010 and applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a Protection (Class XA) visa [in] September 2010. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visa [in] December 2010 and notified the applicant of the decision and his review rights by letter [on the same date]. 3. The delegate refused the visa application on the basis that the applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention 4. The applicant applied to the Tribunal [in] February 2011 for review of the delegate’s decision. 5. The Tribunal finds that the delegate’s decision is an RRT-reviewable decision under s.411(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has made a valid application for review under s.412 of the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Stealing the Last Forest: Austria’S Largest Timber Company, Land Rights, and Corruption in Romania Contents 3 Executive Summary 6 Part 1
    STEALING THE LAST FOREST: AUSTRIA’S LARGEST TIMBER COMPANY, LAND RIGHTS, AND CORRUPTION IN ROMANIA CONTENTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 PART 1. ILLEGAL LOGGING IN ROMANIA: A LONG-RECOGNIZED PROBLEM 8 SECTION 1.1: RATES OF ILLEGAL LOGGING For over 25 years as a 8 SECTION 1.2: RESTITUTION PROCESS AND ILLEGAL LAND ACQUISITION nonprofit organization, EIA 10 SECTION 1.3: ROMSILVA’S MISMANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS AND STATE FORESTS has pioneered the use of 12 PART 2. THE CASE OF SCHWEIGHOFER undercover investigations to 12 SECTION 2.1 SCHWEIGHOFER IN ROMANIA 13 SECTION 2.2: POLICY OF DESTRUCTION REVEALED expose environmental crime IN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIONS 14 SECTION 2.3: KNOWLEDGE AT THE TOP: MANAGEMENT around the world. Intelligence BY GERALD SCHWEIGHOFER reports, documentary evidence, 16 PART 3. CASE STUDIES: ALL ROADS LEAD TO SCHWEIGHOFER 16 SECTION 3.1 BUYING ILLEGAL WOOD - SCHWEIGHOFER’S campaigning expertise and 1,000 SUPPLIERS PER YEAR 20 SECTION 3.2: STOLEN FORESTS - SCHWEIGHOFER an international advocacy AND ILLEGAL RESTITUTIONS network enable EIA to achieve 22 SECTION 3.3: BUYING FROM NATIONAL PARKS 26 PART 4. SCHWEIGHOFER’S EUROPEAN CUSTOMERS far-reaching environmental 26 SECTION 4.1: SCHWEIGHOFER’S EUROPEAN EXPORTS protection by spurring changes 28 SECTION 4.2: EUROPEAN UNION TIMBER REGULATION (EUTR) 29 SECTION 4.3: VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION: in market demand, government NO GUARANTEE FOR LEGALITY policy and enforcement related 31 PART 5. ROMANIAN POLICY CONTEXT 31 SECTION 5.1: ROMANIA’S ATTEMPTS TO REFORM FOREST GOVERNANCE to global trade in wildlife and 32 PART 6. CONCLUSION environmental products. 33 RECOMMENDATIONS 34 GLOSSARY 36 WORKS CITED ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS EIA would like to thank the following funders for their support: 7 TYPES OF ILLEGAL LOGGING COMMON IN ROMANIA The Tilia Fund 8 ROMANIA’S LAND RESTITUTION LAWS Good Energies Foundation 9 THE GHICA COMANESTI ILLEGAL RESTITUTION CASE Weeden Foundation The Cox Fund 11 FOREST LOSS IN ROMANIA 2000-2014 © Environmental Investigation Agency 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Stealing the Last Forest: Austria’S Largest Timber Company, Land Rights, and Corruption in Romania Contents 3 Executive Summary 6 Part 1
    STEALING THE LAST FOREST: AUSTRIA’S LARGEST TIMBER COMPANY, LAND RIGHTS, AND CORRUPTION IN ROMANIA CONTENTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 PART 1. ILLEGAL LOGGING IN ROMANIA: A LONG-RECOGNIZED PROBLEM 8 SECTION 1.1: RATES OF ILLEGAL LOGGING For over 25 years as a 8 SECTION 1.2: RESTITUTION PROCESS AND ILLEGAL LAND ACQUISITION nonproft organization, EIA 10 SECTION 1.3: ROMSILVA’S MISMANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS AND STATE FORESTS has pioneered the use of 12 PART 2. THE CASE OF SCHWEIGHOFER undercover investigations to 12 SECTION 2.1 SCHWEIGHOFER IN ROMANIA 13 SECTION 2.2: POLICY OF DESTRUCTION REVEALED expose environmental crime IN UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIONS 14 SECTION 2.3: KNOWLEDGE AT THE TOP: MANAGEMENT around the world. Intelligence BY GERALD SCHWEIGHOFER reports, documentary evidence, 16 PART 3. CASE STUDIES: ALL ROADS LEAD TO SCHWEIGHOFER 16 SECTION 3.1 BUYING ILLEGAL WOOD - SCHWEIGHOFER’S campaigning expertise and 1,000 SUPPLIERS PER YEAR 20 SECTION 3.2: STOLEN FORESTS - SCHWEIGHOFER an international advocacy AND ILLEGAL RESTITUTIONS network enable EIA to achieve 22 SECTION 3.3: BUYING FROM NATIONAL PARKS 26 PART 4. SCHWEIGHOFER’S EUROPEAN CUSTOMERS far-reaching environmental 26 SECTION 4.1: SCHWEIGHOFER’S EUROPEAN EXPORTS protection by spurring changes 28 SECTION 4.2: EUROPEAN UNION TIMBER REGULATION (EUTR) 29 SECTION 4.3: VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION: in market demand, government NO GUARANTEE FOR LEGALITY policy and enforcement related 31 PART 5. ROMANIAN POLICY CONTEXT 31 SECTION 5.1: ROMANIA’S ATTEMPTS TO REFORM FOREST GOVERNANCE to global trade in wildlife and 32 PART 6. CONCLUSION environmental products. 33 RECOMMENDATIONS 34 GLOSSARY 36 WORKS CITED ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SIDEBARS AND GRAPHICS EIA would like to thank the following funders for their support: 7 TYPES OF ILLEGAL LOGGING COMMON IN ROMANIA The Tilia Fund 8 ROMANIA’S LAND RESTITUTION LAWS Good Energies Foundation 9 THE GHICA COMANESTI ILLEGAL RESTITUTION CASE Weeden Foundation The Cox Fund 11 FOREST LOSS IN ROMANIA 2000-2014 © Environmental Investigation Agency 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption – Whistleblower Protection – Freedom of Movement – European Union
    Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: ROU35438 Country: Romania Date: 1 October 2009 Keywords: Romania – Corruption – Whistleblower protection – Freedom of movement – European Union This response was prepared by the Research & Information Services Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. This research response may not, under any circumstance, be cited in a decision or any other document. Anyone wishing to use this information may only cite the primary source material contained herein. RESPONSE 1. Deleted. 2. Deleted. 3. Deleted. 4. Deleted. 5. Deleted. 6. What steps are the Romanian authorities taking to address official corruption? Romania joined the European Union on 1 January 2007. In order to fulfil the accession requirements set by the EU, the Romanian government undertook measures throughout 2006 to eradicate corruption. Romania‟s anti-corruption efforts during this time are outlined in Freedom House‟s annual „Freedom in the World‟ report on Romania for 2008: In 2006, anticorruption agencies were reorganized and granted greater authority to investigate corruption at the highest levels, including in Parliament. The quantity and quality of high- level corruption probes increased significantly, and a number of officials, judges, and police officers were arrested and convicted. However, the June 2007 EU progress report noted a pattern of weak or suspended sentences in high-level corruption cases, blunting the effects of the stepped-up prosecutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Article
    Research Articles Special Report p. 49 → in cooperation with European Union at Risk The Judiciary under Attack in Romania By Piercamillo Falasca, Lorenzo Castellani, Radko Hokovsky Executive Summary Many of the methods used by the Communists in Romania pre-1989 to create a politicised system of justice and law enforcement are still in existence in contemporary Romania. The control of judicial institutions and the subordination of the rule of law by the Romanian executive and its agencies continues to present a major challenge to attempts at reform. In particular, the use of the justice system by the Romanian executive, and its agencies, to destroy political opponents remains a serious and ongoing problem. EU-led external pressure to separate the judiciary and politics has failed, with the executive, including the Ministry of Justice, retaining con- siderable de facto power and political instruction of judges remaining commonplace. Judicial independence came under sustained attack from 2012 on- wards with the arrival of Prime Minister Victor Ponta. His adminis- tration presided over frequent political challenges to judicial decisions, the undermining of the constitutional court, the overturning of estab- lished procedures, the removal of checks and balances, and the manip- ulation of members of the judiciary through threats and intimidation. 20 Recent years have seen the executive use the judiciary, often deploying national security legislation, to stifle free speech and harass journalists, with both domestic and international journalists targeted. The Romanian Anti-Corruption Directorate DNA has exerted height- Special ened pressure on courts to issue convictions. Romania’s domestic in- Report telligence service – first under the guise of the Securitate and later as the SRI – has been characterized by extra-judicial and often unlawful activity throughout its history.
    [Show full text]
  • Romania 2008
    Nations in Transit 2008 Romania Nations in Transit Ratings and Combined Scores 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Electoral Process 2.75 3.00 3.00 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 Civil Society 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 Independent Media 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.75 3.75 4.00 4.00 3.75 3.75 Governance 3.50 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a National Democratic n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.75 Governance Local Democratic n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Governance Judicial Framework 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.00 4.00 3.75 4.00 and Independence Corruption 4.25 4.50 4.75 4.50 4.50 4.25 4.25 4.00 4.00 Democracy Score 3.54 3.67 3.71 3.63 3.58 3.39 3.39 3.29 3.36 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Romania joined the European Union (EU) on January 1, 2007, having come a long way from Nicolae Ceauşescu’s dictatorship. Its evolution is all the more remarkable considering it was the only Eastern European country with a bloody revolution (1,000 dead in still unclear circumstances) and a transition dominated by former Communists. Ion Iliescu, a reformed apparatchik with authoritarian tendencies, enjoyed three out of the first four presidential mandates.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact-Finding Delegation of the Budgetary Control Committee to Romania 18 - 21 September 2006
    DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR COMMITTEES AND DELEGATIONS - COMMITTEE ON BUDGETARY CONTROL - Fact-finding delegation of the Budgetary Control Committee to Romania 18 - 21 September 2006 Preliminary Draft Programme, version 14 September 2006 Members of the delegation: Mr Herbert BÖSCH (PSE,Vice-Chairman), Mrs Cristina GUTIÉRREZ-CORTINEZ (EPP-ED), Mr Jan MULDER (ALDE, arriving on Tuesday), Mr°Paul van BUITENEN (Verts/ALE) CONT Secretariat Mr Christian EHLERS Staff of political groups Mr Hendrik PRUMMEL (Verts/ALE), Sylwia REMISZEWSKA (ALDE, arriving on Tuesday), Interpretaters: Mr Mihai Cristian CODREANU Ms Roxana-Cristina PETCU (team leader) Ms Corina Rodica ANGHEL Coordination in Bucharest Mr Jonathan SCHEELE, Head of Delegation Commission Delegation to Romania, Rue Jules Michelet 18-20, 010463 Bucharest tel.: 0040-21-203.54.00, fax.: 0040-21-230.24.53 [email protected], Mr Enrico D'AMBROGIO, Acting Head of Office European Parliament Information Office Strada Boteanu 1, Sector 1, 010027 Bucharest tel.: 0040-21-305.79.86, fax.: 0040-21-315.79.29 [email protected] 1 Coordination in the Embassy of Romania in Brussels: Anda SALAGEAN Marius SPIRIDON Romanian Mission to the EU Romanian Mission to the EU 12, rue Montoyer - 1000 Brussels 12, rue Montoyer - 1000 Brussels Tel.: +32-2-700 05 13 Tel: +32-2-700 03 16 Fax.: +32-2-700 06 41 Fax: +32-2-700 06 41 [email protected] Accommodation and transport in Romania InterContinental Bucharest Bv. Nicolae Balcescu 4 70122 Bucharest, Romania Tel.: Hotel Front Desk: +40-2-13102020 | Hotel Fax: +40-2-13120486 The delegation will have a minibus at its disposal for the duration of the visit.
    [Show full text]
  • Demiterea Renatei Weber Si O Concluzie: Romania
    Scris de bogdan_tiberiu.iacob pe 16 februarie 2021, 12:25 Demiterea Renatei Weber si o concluzie: Romania - condusa de habarnisti ai legii La vreme de pandemie, o problema arzatoare pe agenda noii puteri e demiterea Renatei Weber din functia de Avocat al Poporului, pe motiv de abuzuri in functie. O procedura care nu ar trebui sa constituie o problema intr- un stat democratic, cu o singura mentiune: daca se respecta legea. Iar puternicii zilei, cu Ludovic Orban in frunte, ne arata ca habar n-au de legi, necum sa le mai si respecte, lucru extrem de grav, in opinia noastra. Mai pe scurt, Orban & comp vor sa o demita pe Weber din functie printr-o procedura inexistenta in legislatie. Sa amintim, intii, citeva fapte din vremuri vechi. Prin decembrie 2007, dupa demisia lui Tudor Chiuariu, liberalul Ludovic Orban asigura romanii ca succesorul ideal ar fi fost Renate Weber, constatind cu regret ca desi ar fi fost: „un bun ministru al Justitiei, a ales sa-si indeplineasca mandatul de europarlamenmtar”. Doi ani mai tirziu, acelasi Orban ne anunta ca Renate Weber primise, alaturi de Norica Nicolai, de la PNL, sarcina extrem de importanta de a pregati desfiintarea demersului ”ilegal si imoral” al premierului Emil Boc de a modifica fara dezbateri publice Codurile penale. in martie 2010, tot Ludovic Orban, candidat la sefia partidului, prezenta cu mindrie delegatilor la Congres, lista cu propunerile sale pentru conducerea partidului: „Pe lista mea se afla oameni de valoare din PNL care, astazi, deoarece nu accepta ideea sistemului de lista, nu candideaza pe niciuna dintre liste, ma refer la Calin Popescu Tariceanu, Teodor Melescanu, Renate Weber, Eugen Nicolaescu, Dan Motreanu, Adriana Saftoiu, oameni care aduc plus valoare PNL si care trebuie sa fie pe lista oricaruia dintre noi doi, care va ajunge presedinte al PNL”, clama Orban.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Romanian Press in Reporting Political Corruption
    The Role of the Romanian Press in Reporting Political Corruption Lorela Viorica Broucher A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of Nottingham Trent University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy April, 2016 1 "This work is the intellectual property of the author. You may copy up to 5% of this work for private study, or personal, non-commercial research. Any re-use of the information contained within this document should be fully referenced, quoting the author, title, university, degree level and pagination. Queries or requests for any other use, or if a more substantial copy is required, should be directed in the owner(s) of the Intellectual Property Rights.” Supervisors: Dr. Simon Cross, Nottingham Trent University Dr. Olga Guedes Bailey, Nottingham Trent University 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Acknowledgements 7 Abstract 8 Introduction to the Thesis 9 The Importance of Romania 9 The Problem of Corruption 10 Research Questions and Aims 11 The Thesis Chapters in Brief 12 Chapter 1: Media and Democracy 14 1 Liberal Democracy and the Media 14 1.1 Liberal Democracy Vs Neoliberalism 14 1.2 Liberal Democracy 16 1.3 Freedom of Expression and Democracy 18 1.4 Media and Democracy 19 1.5 Media Holding Power to Account 21 1.6 Criticising the Liberal Model of the Media: The Critical Political Economy of Media Approach 23 1.6.1 Critical Political Economy of the Media 23 1.6.2 Critical Political Economy of the Media and the Post-Communist World 27 1.7 Keeping Media Accountable 29 2 The Post-Communist World: Romania
    [Show full text]
  • LÄNDERBERICHT Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung E.V
    LÄNDERBERICHT Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V. Official translation (original text in German) RULE OF LAW PROGRAM SOUTH EAST EUROPE DR. STEFANIE RICARDA ROOS July 9, 2008 www.kas.de/rspsoe www.kas.de The fight against corruption – The Problem Child of the Carpathians 2 Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e.V. I. Foreword RULE OF LAW PROGRAM SOUTH EAST EUROPE The “fight against corruption” has been a subject on the Romanian public agenda for many DR. STEFANIE RICARDA ROOS years already (especially post 2005). Romania’s accession to the European Union (EU) on January 1, 2007 did not lower interest in the topic whatsoever. On the contrary: post July 9, 2008 accession, the fight against corruption has been a major concern for the mass-media, WWW.KAS.DE/RSPSOE political world, business community, legal professions and for the local and international WWW.KAS.DE civil society to an unprecedented extent. For example, this is what The Economist had to say on the fight against corruption in the new EU member states, on May 22, 2008: “For corrupt officials in Central and Eastern Europe, life has seldom been better. Joining the European Union has produced temptingly large puddles of public money to steal. And the region's anti-corruption outfits are proving toothless, sidelined or simply embattled. The biggest problems are in Romania and Bulgaria, the EU's two newest members, whose apparent inability (or disinclination) to deal with high-level corruption has led to increasingly acerbic public warnings from Brussels .”1 In an article published by The Herald Tribune mid-May, Reuters resident chief correspondent for Romania, Justyna Pawlak , writes the following on the manifest opposition in the country to combating top-level corruption: “Corruption is a day-to-day concern in Romania.”2 It is, indeed, a concern for the entire country and for all its citizens.
    [Show full text]