To: 09th of January 2020
The European Commission 1049 Brussels, Belgium General Secretariat of the European Commission Honorable European Commission
Madam President, Distinguished Madam President, Distiguished ladies and gentlemen
The undersigned Nicolae Cristinel Olaneanu, Romanian citizen, on his behalf, and Gabriela Dana Olaneanu, Romanian citizen, on her behalf and as representative of two Romanian legal persons, respectively Galic Prod SRL and Prestige Trading SRL, both with their domicile in Calea Moşilor street. no. 290, sector 2, Bucharest, Romania and with the correspondence address in Romania, Voluntari City, Street Intrarea Vârtejului no.3G, Ilfov county, phone 0040.21.267.43.28, email address [email protected], pursuant to art. 20 paragraph (2) lit. d), art. 227 and 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (abbreviated TFEU) formulated the present:
COMPLAINT and PETITION
SECTION I. COMPLAINT. 1. Rights and legal provisions systemically and systematically violated. 2. The directions and investigation themes of the European Commission's investigation into the causes that determine the systemic non-observance by Romania of the fundamental rights mentioned in this document. In response to the current status of the seizure and direction of the justice and institutions of the Romanian State, through and by the information services officers and politicians we have set up the website www.coruptie-functionaripublici-ofiteri-farmec- consiliulconcurentei.ro, entitled ABOUT CORRUPTION IN ROMANIA, WHICH DESTROYS BUSINESS AND LIVES, representing sample 1 with annexes.
1. Rights and legal provisions systemically and systematically violated
1.1. Romania, a member state of the European Union, systemically violates the rights and provisions stipulated and protected by the Law of the European Union and does not respect the fundamental rights recognized to the undersigned and the subscribed companies, as citizens and legal persons of a European state, in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, through its institutions and public and judicial authorities, rights not respected, to the same extent, also Page 1 of 152
by the institutions of the European Union, the European Commission, respectively: (a) The property right enshrined in art. 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (b) The right to a fair trial enshrined in art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (c) The law regarding equality before the law, all persons are equal before the law enshrined in art. 20 of Title III Equality from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, “Equality before the law. All persons are equal before the law”, as guaranteed by the European Commission, but which in reality is a failed principle and wish. (d) Equal treatment regarding the services of the institutions must be ensured to all citizens, according to art. 1 of Annex no. 26 of the Protocol on services of general interest: "The common values of the Union with regard to services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union include in particular: a high level of quality, safety and accessibility, equal treatment and promotion of the universal access and user rights;” (e) The right to receive a response to the petitions formulated, within a term stipulated by the law, by a reasoned decision from any institution of the European Commission, as enshrined in art. 24 TFEU (ex Article 21 TEC), in accordance with art. 13 of the Treaty on European Union, with direct reference to our complaint and requests addressed to the European Commission, which are the subject of the European Commission investigation with no. CHAP 2136/2016 within DG Justice and not legally resolved so far, by MOTIVATED OPINION or reasoned decision. 1.2. The systemic violation of the fundamental rights mentioned by the judicial and public institutions mentioned in this document, arises from the non-observance of certain provisions of the Romanian law, constantly and generalized, as a result of: the lack of a coherent, efficient, precise and transparent system for randomly distributing judicial cases, introducing in the ECRIS application in preferential order the files in the courts, the directed distribution of cases to the judicial units made up randomly by judges preferred by officers from intelligence services or by one of the parties and the failure to respect the continuity of the judge in the file, keeping the cases in non-processing to the prosecutor's offices and the directed functioning of the justice and the prosecutor's offices in the sensitive cases, constant violation of fiscal norms by public officials within ANAF and of the obligations to carry out control actions regarding illegal operations with excisable products or suspected fictitious products non-observance of the legal attributions by the institutions and authorities under the direct and exclusive control of the Parliament, respectively the Competition Council, the Romanian Court of Audit, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the Romanian Intelligence Service, all having the obligation to guarantee the national security of Romania. (a) Constitution of Romania: - Art. 21 paragraph (1) “Any person can address the justice for the defense of his/her legitimate rights, liberties and interests. (3) The parties have the right to a fair trial and to the Page 2 of 152
settlement of cases within a reasonable time.” - Art. 16 paragraph (1) “Citizens are equal before the law and public authorities, without privileges and without discrimination; (2) No one is above the law.” - Art. 124 – „The execution of justice (1) Justice is done in the name of the law. (2) Justice is unique, impartial and equal for all. (3) The judges are independent and subject only to the law.” - Art. 132 - Statute of prosecutors (1) The prosecutors carry out their activity according to the principle of legality, impartiality and hierarchical control, under the authority of the Minister of Justice. (b) Code of civil procedure: - Art. 199 paragraph (2) regarding the random establishment of the panel: "After registration, the application and the accompanying documents, to which are attached, when appropriate, the evidence on how they were transmitted to the court, shall be handed over to the president of the court or person designated by the latter, who will take immediate measures to randomly establish the panel, according to the law.” (c) Code of criminal procedure: - Art. 361 paragraph (3) regarding the retrieval of the files by the president of the panel of the files randomly distributed: "For this purpose, the files distributed on panels randomly will be taken over by the president of the panel, who will take the necessary measures for the purpose of preparing the judgment, so as to ensure the prompt settlement of the cause.” - Art. 354 paragraph (2) The panel must remain the same throughout the trial of the case. When this is not possible, the whole can be changed until the debate begins. (d) Law 304/2004: - Art. 1 paragraph (1) Justice is carried out through the High Court of Cassation and Justice and through the other courts established by law. - Art. 2 paragraph (1) Justice is performed by judges in the name of the law, it is unique, impartial and equal for all. - Art. 10 „All persons have the right to a fair trial and to the settlement of cases within a reasonable time, by an impartial and independent court, constituted according to the law” - Art. 11 „The trial activity is carried out in compliance with the principles of random distribution of files and continuity, except in cases where the judge cannot participate in the trial for objective reasons.” - Art. 62 paragraph (2) and (3): „(2) The prosecutors carry out their activity according to the principles of legality, impartiality and hierarchical control, under the authority of the Minister of Justice, according to the law. (3) Prosecutors must respect the fundamental rights and liberties, the presumption of
Page 3 of 152
innocence, the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality of arms, the independence of the courts and the enforcing force of the final court decisions. In public communication, prosecutors must respect the presumption of innocence, the non-public character of the criminal prosecution and the non-discriminatory right to information.” - Art. 139 paragraph (1) ''By the Regulation of internal order of the courts, the following are established: a) the administrative organization of the courts of appeal, of the county courts, of the specialized courts and of the courts; b) the method and the criteria for the distribution of the cases by panels, in order to ensure the observance of the principles of random distribution and continuity;” (e) Law 303/2004: - Art. 2 paragraph (3) and (4): (3) '' The judges are independent and subject only to the law. The judges must be impartial, having full freedom in resolving the cases brought to trial, in accordance with the law and impartially, respecting the equality of arms and the procedural rights of the parties. Judges must make decisions without any restrictions, influences, pressures, threats or interventions, direct or indirect, from any authority, or even judicial authorities. The judgments given in the remedies do not fall under the rule of these restrictions. The purpose of the judges' independence is to guarantee every person the fundamental right to have their case examined fairly, based only on the application of the law. (4) Any person, organization, authority or institution is bound to respect the independence of the judges.” - Art. 3 (1): '' Prosecutors carry out their activity in accordance with the principle of legality, impartiality and hierarchical control, under the authority of the Minister of Justice.” - Art. 99 letter o): „It constitutes disciplinary deviations: o) failure to comply with the provisions regarding the random distribution of cases;” (f) Law 21/1996 governing the incompatibility of the president, the members of the plenum and the competition Art. 5 - (1) any agreements between companies, decisions of associations of companies and concerted practices, which have as their object or effect the hindrance, restriction or distortion of competition on the Romanian market or on a part of it are forbidden, especially those which: a) establish, directly or indirectly, purchase or sale prices or any other trading conditions; b) limit or control the production, marketing, technical development or investments; c) share markets or sources of supply; d) apply, in the relations with the commercial partners, unequal conditions to equivalent benefits, thus creating a competitive disadvantage for them; e) condition the conclusion of the contracts by the acceptance by the partners of additional benefits which, by their nature or in accordance with the commercial customs, are not related to the object of these contracts. (2) The prohibition provided in par. (1) does not apply to agreements or categories of agreements between undertakings, decisions or categories of decisions of business associations, concerted practices or categories of concerted practices, when they cumulatively fulfill the following conditions: a) contribute to the improvement of the production or distribution of goods or to the promotion of technical or economic progress, Page 4 of 152
while providing consumers with an advantage corresponding to that achieved by the parties to the respective agreement, decision or concerted practice; b) impose on the companies concerned only those restrictions which are indispensable for achieving these objectives; c) do not offer the companies the possibility to eliminate the competition from a substantial part of the market of the products in question. (3) The categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices, except by applying the provisions of para. (2), as well as the conditions and criteria for categorization, are those established in the regulations of the Council of the European Union or of the European Commission regarding the application of the provisions of art. 101 paragraph (3) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union to certain categories of agreements, decisions of associations of companies or concerted practices, called block exemption regulations, which apply accordingly (4) The agreements, decisions and concerted practices provided in par. (1), which fulfill the conditions provided in par. (2) or fall into the categories provided in par. (3), are considered legal, without having to notify them by the parties and issue a decision by the Competition Council. (5) The burden of proof of violating the provisions of par. (1) is the responsibility of the Competition Council, of the enterprise or association of enterprises that invoke the benefit of the provisions of par. (2) or (3) it is the task of proving that the conditions stipulated by these paragraphs are fulfilled. (6) Whenever the Competition Council applies the provisions of par. (1) to the agreements, decisions or concerted practices, insofar as they may affect trade between Member States, it also applies the provisions of art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Art. 6 - (1) It is forbidden to misuse by one or more companies a dominant position held on the Romanian market or on a substantial part of it. These abusive practices may consist in particular of: a) imposing, directly or indirectly, selling or buying prices or other unfair trading conditions; b) limiting production, marketing or technical development to the disadvantage of consumers; c) the application in the relations with the commercial partners of unequal conditions to equivalent benefits, thus creating a competitive disadvantage for them; d) making the conclusion of the contracts conditional on the acceptance by the partners of additional benefits which, by their nature or in accordance with commercial customs, are not related to the object of these contracts. (2) Whenever the Competition Council applies the provisions of par. (1), insofar as the misuse of the dominant position can affect the trade between the Member States, it also applies the provisions of art. 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. (3) It is presumed, until proven otherwise, that one or more companies are in a dominant position, in the situation in which the share or shares accumulated on the relevant market, recorded during the period under analysis, exceed 40%. Art. 15 (valid until now) and art. 17 (valid until June 2016) of Law 21/1996 on incompatibility: „ (6) The membership of the Competition Council is incompatible with the exercise of any other professional or consulting activity, with the participation, directly or through interposed persons, in the management or administration of public or private entities or with the holding of public functions or dignities, except for the functions and to didactic activities in higher education, scientific research and literary-artistic creation. They may not be appointed experts or arbitrators neither by the parties nor by the court or by another institution.”
Page 5 of 152
(g) The Fundamental Treaty of the European Union: - Article 101 (former article 81 TCE) (1) They are incompatible with the internal market and prohibit any agreements between undertakings, any decisions of business associations and any concerted practices that may affect trade between Member States and whose purpose or effect is to prevent, restrict or distort competition within the internal market, and in particular , those which: (a) establish, directly or indirectly, purchase or sale prices or any other trading conditions; (b) limit or control production, marketing, technical development or investments; (c) share markets or sources of supply; (d) apply, in relations with trading partners, unequal conditions for equivalent benefits, thus creating a competitive disadvantage for them; (e) make the conclusion of the contracts subject to the acceptance by the partners of additional benefits which, by their nature or in accordance with commercial practices, are not related to the object of these contracts. - Article 102 (former article 82 TCE) It is incompatible with the internal market and prohibited, in so far as it may affect trade between Member States, the misuse by one or more companies of a dominant position held in the internal market or a significant part thereof. Such abusive practices may in particular consist of: (a) imposing, directly or indirectly, selling or buying prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limit production, marketing or technical development to the disadvantage of consumers; (c) the application in the relations with the trading partners of unequal conditions to equivalent benefits, thus creating them a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of the contracts conditional on the acceptance by the partners of additional benefits which, by their nature or in accordance with commercial practices, are not related to the object of these contracts. (h) The rules for applying the fiscal code: Point 22 paragraph 34 "For the refund of excise duties, users will submit to the territorial tax authority, the request for excise duty exemption, accompanied by: c) the proof of the quantity used for the purpose for which the exemption is granted, consisting in a centralizing situation of the quantities actually used and the related documents”. (i) Tax Procedure Code - Art. 113 : „Object of the fiscal inspection (1) The fiscal inspection represents the activity whose purpose is to verify the legality and conformity of the tax declarations, the correctness and the accuracy of the fulfillment of the obligations in relation to the establishment of the fiscal obligations by the taxpayer / payer, the observance of the provisions of the fiscal and accounting legislation, the verification or the establishment, as the case may be, of the tax bases and the related facts, establishing the differences of main fiscal obligations. (2) In order to carry out the fiscal inspection, the fiscal inspection body proceeds to: b) checking the consistency between the data in the tax declarations with those in the tax and accounting records of the taxpayer / payer;
Page 6 of 152
(2) For the purpose of carrying out the fiscal inspection, the fiscal inspection body proceeds to: j) sanctioning according to the law the facts representing violations of the tax and accounting legislation found and the disposition of measures for the prevention and combating deviations from the provisions of the fiscal and accounting legislation;” Law no. 94/1992 - Art. 50 paragraph 1 letter a) : ''(1) The members of the Romanian Court of Audit are obliged to: a) fulfill their entrusted function, impartially and in compliance with the Constitution;” - Art. 3: „ (1) The Romanian Court of Audit decides autonomously on its activity program. (2) The controls of the Romanian Court of Audit are initiated ex officio and can only be stopped by the Parliament and only if the competences established by law are exceeded. (3) The decisions of the Chamber of Deputies or of the Senate, which require the Romanian Court of Audit to carry out controls, within the limits of its powers, are mandatory. No other public authority can force it.” (j) Law no. 176/2010 - Art. 15 paragraph 1, according to which: ''During the evaluation, the integrity inspector may request all the institutions and public authorities, other legal entities of public or private law, as well as the natural persons, the documents and information necessary to carry out the evaluation activity, with the obligation to maintain confidentiality.” (k) Law no. 115/1996 - Art. 10⁴: ''(1) The research commission decides by a majority of votes, within a maximum of 3 months from the date of referral, issuing a reasoned ordinance, which may order: a) sending the case for settlement to the court of appeal in the area of the domicile of the person whose wealth is subject to control, if it is established, based on the evidence provided, that the acquisition of a share of it or certain specified goods is not justified; b) classification of the case, when it finds that the origin of the goods is justified; c) suspension of control and referral of the case to the competent prosecutor's office, if in connection with the goods whose provenance is unjustified, the offense is committed. (2) The classification order shall be communicated to the parties and to the prosecutor's office near the court of appeal within the area of which the commission of inquiry operates or, as the case may be, to the prosecutor's office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice or to the fiscal bodies. (3) The control is resumed by the research commission, if: a) after the classification of the case, new elements appear that may lead to a contrary solution; b) the criminal prosecution body, after conducting the investigations, in the situation provided in par. (1) letter c), does not notify the criminal court.” The analysis of the present COMPLAINT and PETITION leads to the obvious conclusion that, in "European Romania", were created systemic mechanisms of control of the Justice, the prosecutor's offices, the intelligence services, the National Fiscal Administration Agency, the Office for the prevention and combating of money laundering, of the Competition Council, of the National Integrity Agency, of the Parliament and of the public institutions, which act in cases of personal interest in which information officers, politicians and businessmen who violate the law and the property, reality and state of affairs, that put in Page 7 of 152
danger to life and quality of life, as guaranteed and recognized by art. 22 paragraph (1) of the Romanian Constitution, according to which "The right to life as well as the right to physical and legal integrity of persons are guaranteed" and through art. 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The unequal treatment before the law, applied by the Romanian institutions to the Romanians living in Romania, caused the deterioration of the living climate, the lack of confidence in the national institutions, and, as a result, a number of 5,000,000 Romanians, the real figure with the resident, left their country because they had to seek a favorable place of life in other countries. In fact, 7,000,000 Romanians left the country, 90% forever. The source of the information is: http://www.ziare.com/diaspora/romani- strainatate/reprezentant-al-diasporei-in-realitate-aproape-7-milioane-de-romani-sunt-in- strainatate-1537250 2. The investigation directions and themes of the investigation within the European Commission, regarding the causes that determine the systemic non-observance of the mentioned rights
Description of the mechanisms regarding the systemic non-observance of the European Law and of the law by the Justice and the national institutions in Romania, which lead to the violation of the mentioned fundamental rights. Romania, systemically, does not ensure a fair trial. In Romania the property is not protected by the fair trial. European law, law and constitution are only a promise, in cases where interest groups violate the law and private property of the state.
2.1. Private property and state fraud are a practice, a state of affairs in Romania. Natural and legal persons with Romanian and foreign social capital who carry out their activity with the non-observance of the law, intentionally violate the Law, public and private property (both), because they know the organizations, the branches and the mechanism of control and domination of justice, of the systemic defeat of the fair trial and of the national institutions in Romania, respectively the "route" which must be followed by a civil or criminal case, so that within simulated processes they obtain the judicial decision, which is desired and followed from the beginning: - the formalization and maintenance of frauds, non-recovery of damages and protection of persons who intentionally violate the law and property, - the "execution" of persons, without evidence, in civil or criminal cases.
2.2. The causes that, systematically, determine the Justice in Romania not to provide the justiciable a fair trial. The Romanian state, the European state, does not ensure, as provided for in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a fair trial carried out through independent and impartial judges, who will compose the panels from randomly appointed judges, to be distributed the causes also randomly, through a computer system. According to Page 8 of 152
the law, during the trial of a case the continuity of the magistrate must be ensured in order to prevent the replacement of the titular judge, to whom the file was distributed by random distribution, with another judge preferred by one of the parties and which can thus influence the way of the trial.
2.2.1. The independence and impartiality of judges, who are directed to "sensitive" causes are vitiated, because the appointment of judges is not random. The random criterion of the designation of the judges who make up the judicial panels composed of several judges is not provided in the Law, except for art. 32 paragraph 1 of the law 255/2013, in force starting with 01.02.2014, which regulates the random composition only of the court panels composed of five judges and which stipulates that "... at the beginning of each year, five panels shall be established" and art. 32 paragraph 4 of Law 207/2018, which states that “the judges who are part of these panels are appointed by lot, in the public hearing by the president or, in his absence, by one of the two vice-presidents of the High Court of Cassation and Justice....”. The practice has shown us that in the courts the court panels are formed subjectively, as a result of the will of the head of section, of officers of intelligence services, of the magistrates involved or of the will of other persons from interest groups, certain lawyers. , businessmen, politicians, who violate the law and property.
2.2.2 The law on the random distribution of files, is not systemically respected In the courts, interest groups, through computer scientists, clerks and judges, introduce the cases in the ECRIS application in a preferential order, at the right time, when the ECRIS system is to apportion the cause of a (former) judge / judge panel preferred in order to reject the applications and not make the decision in the name of the law in that file, because, in fact, the organized interest group only pursues a court decision that favors the party that has violated the law and the Property. The ECRIS information system, constantly, does not ensure the random distribution of the cases in which officers from the Romanian Intelligence Service, politicians and / or persons belonging to influence groups are interested, directly or indirectly, and the respective files of interest are NOT introduced, in the computer system ECRIS in the order of entry and registration of cases in the general register of the court, but are introduced in the ECRIS application in a preferential order, so that different parameters of distribution are used even in the same files, knowing the order in which ECRIS distributes the files of interest to the preferred judicial units, which are made up at random, from the magistrates preferred by officers from intelligence services and from the interest groups. The provisions provided in art. 11 and 139 of the law 304/2004, regarding the random distribution of civil and criminal cases are not fulfilled during the entire duration of the trial, even though they provide that the distribution of the files to the trial panels must be done only by random distribution.
Page 9 of 152
The initial distribution to the panels of the files is made through the ECRIS information system, but this information system used in the Courts of Justice for the distribution of a civil and criminal file, by sections and to certain court cases, composed of judges, is not of a nature to ensure compliance with the random distribution of the files provided by law, because: - the president of the court and the persons involved in this activity know the cyclicality and the algorithm of functioning of the ECRIS informatics application regarding the distribution of the files on the panels - the ECRIS computer system allows the introduction of a file several times, until it is assigned to the trial court to which the president of the court wishes to be assigned the cause that is the subject of the trial, (variant well known and baptized by the officials of the Superior Council of Magistracy the name ", COVER METHOD") - the ECRIS system allows a civil servant, from any of the courts to block the distribution of files to certain panels, less the blocking of the panel composed of the judge to whom the file is to be distributed, so that the file inevitably reaches the working table of the desired magistrate - the ECRIS system allows the presidents of the Courts of Justice in Romania to contribute to the introduction in the ECRIS system of files, in a different order from the chronological order in which they are registered in the general court register, in a non- transparent way - At present, the ECRIS application allows to hold a civil or criminal file pending, and meanwhile files are entered in this computer system that entered the court after the date of entry of the file of interest, which is kept pending. The fundamental principle of random distribution, enshrined in the Romanian legislation, corresponds to the rigors imposed by art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which enshrines and guarantees the right to a fair trial: "Everyone has the right to a fair trial (...) by an independent and impartial court, established by law ...", but it is not systemically respected. The introduction of cases in the ECRIS application, the information system that distributes the judicial files, in fact, is done in a preferential, controlled order. The procedure is used so that the file that is of interest to the party wishing to influence the court solution will be introduced in the ECRIS information system only when is known the order of assigning the cases to panels, ie the order when ECRIS is to distribute the file of interest to the complete case. favored by certain officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service, who watch for "protected parties" to obtain favorable court decisions, in files of interest to these parties. The ECRIS application does not work in the urn system, the files are placed in an order and are distributed by ECRIS in the same order, to the panels, the order of introduction determining the distribution order, which makes the distribution not only predictable, but directly and easily manageable, either as a result of strict non-observance of the order in which the files were received at the competent court, or as a result of manipulating the order of their introduction in the distribution system.
Page 10 of 152
Civil or criminal cases are registered in the general court register, at a time favorable to one of the parties, they are entered in the ECRIS application in the preferential order at the right time, when the order of the ECRIS application is to apportion the cause of the preferred panel; or the file is entered several times to reach the preferred panel. The ECRIS computer system should ensure an introduction of the case in the application, a random distribution of the judicial files to the panels, immediately, in the order of entry to the court of each file, and the introduction in the ECRIS application of each case must be compulsory provided by law. The courts, accompanied / in agreement with the Judicial Inspection (resolution no. 19-1004 of 20.05.2019 signed by Mrs. Olimpia Louysse Răducu and the judge Lucian Netejoru) create the false premise that the courts "... have made the random distribution by - a single operation, and the claims regarding the distribution of the files in a different order, than the one of the registration is not justified ... " However, it is true that the practice in the courts is to carry out the distribution of files through a single operation, every 1-2 days, but, as true, it is the fact that the single distribution operation does not remove the importance and influence of the order for introducing the cases in the ECRIS application, regarding the obtained result, respectively the distribution of the “sensitive” case at the preferred panel, according to the order of the filing in ECRIS of the files. The false premise is that this is the reason why the cases do not enter the ECRIS system immediately with their entry to the court, instead are waited 1-2 days to gather more cases to be introduced in the ECRIS application in order preferential and then be distributed / directed through a single operation, each of the cases sensitive to the chosen panels and which are composed of preferred judges. In practice, the ECRIS computer system is manipulated or interest groups speculate its vulnerabilities, so that the files are not randomly / computerly distributed, according to unbiased, universal and transparent algorithms, but the files are distributed "manually", according to clearly vitiated criteria, to certain panels made up of preferred judges, because neither the Law nor the documents with normative value inferior to the law do not provide for a detailed and concrete procedure of the use of the ECRIS application, nor of the procedures of random distribution or of the verification modalities, to confer the justiciable trust, or the sanctions that result from the systemic non-observance of the procedure of random distribution. Unfortunately, random distribution is a chimera, as the system does not allow for the global introduction of cases and their random distribution. The cases are taken up one by one, in the sense that the distribution factors and the cases are manually entered in ECRIS, and the system distributes them later according to the absolute predictable (easy to predict) algorithm by the official involved in the distribution, who can predict with great precision to what completely will the new cause introduced be distributed, since he knows instantly to what panel the case has just been distributed, the same case he has previously introduced in the system. The order of the introduction in the ECRIS application of the case, the subjective determination of the value of the distribution factors and the blocking of the distribution to
Page 11 of 152
certain judgment panels determine the directing of the file of interest to a preferred judgment panel. In view of the above, it is particularly easy to influence the distribution by ECRIS of a case to a certain judgment panel. The introduction of cases in ECRIS will be carried out in such a way as to ensure the distribution of the "sensitive" case to the desired panel, without subsequently presenting the evidence of the order for the introduction of cases in ECRIS regarding the committed irregularity and without creating doubt for an unauthorized person.
2.2.4. Lack of legal provisions governing the description, operation and use of the ECRIS application under objective and transparent conditions It is assumed that through the ECRIS application the files are randomly distributed to the judgment panels consisting of one, two, three or five judges, but the ECRIS computer system is not described / regulated in the Law. At the Romanian courts, the files are not included in the ECRIS information system in the order of their registration in the general registry of the courts, and the distribution of the files to the judgment panels does not comply with the law on random distribution, since as soon as any file that enters the court of judgment and is registered in the general court register, should be entered, in the same order, in the system (ECRIS) of random distribution, preferably an automatic filmed machine, ball-type urn, respecting the chronological order in which each the file has arrived at the court, and each justiciable has access to the filming of the distribution of the file and to the introduction of the balls in the system. There are no regulatory norms regarding the correct functioning of the system and ensuring the access of the litigant to checks regarding the correct use of the ECRIS application, not even in the SCM Regulation or decisions of the governing bodies of the courts. According to an extract from the portal of the Ministry of Justice, it is mentioned that the ECRIS computer application contains five distribution parameters.: (1) file complexity with share 40%. But complexity cannot be appreciated without prejudice to the case. In these circumstances, I consider that this factor is only a pretext for evaluation, which contributes to the distribution of a cause of interest, to a certain judge or preferred judgment panel. (2) The number of new files per panel, respectively the additional complexity per court, with share 20% (3) Date of the sitting by share 20% (4) Compatibility of the whole by object and parts / participants by share 10% (5) A randomness factor with share 10%
Existence of multiple / generalized acts of fraud and manipulation of the electronic system ECRIS, by groups organized by interests
Page 12 of 152
At the entry or exit of each file that is in on the dockets of the courts, it is recorded in the general register of the court with the mention of the date and time of entry or exit. The introduction in the ECRIS system of cases is carried out, however, in a preferential order, different from the order of entry of the files in the general registry of the court, and this happens precisely to allow the introduction in the ECRIS application of the cases of interest. , in an order chosen to lead to the distribution to those "favorite" magistrates of the system. Because the situation has become notorious, and the justiciaries have begun to publicly express their doubts about the distribution of the files, the courts intentionally create a false, unrealistic image, regarding the existence of the possibility to introduce the files in ECRIS , all at once and at a certain time, which is not only illogical, but also physically impossible to happen. In order not to disclose the different order of entry in ECRIS of the files, in relation to the order of entry of cases in the general registry of the court, the presidents of the courts create a false premise, meaning that, random distribution is made for all files all at once at 14:00, but with the intentional omission to indicate the order in which the files were entered in the ECRIS system, because ECRIS distributes the files in a row, in the order in which they were introduced, even if the application allows them to be distributed at the same time more files. In conclusion, the ECRIS computer system is fraudulent, making it possible to direct the files to favorite judges, taking into account the following considerations: - the distribution factors mentioned above (point 2.2.4 of the present referral) contribute to the management of the cause of a certain judgment panel, because they are subjective and it is impossible to verify the veracity and their correct use, and the arbitrary use of any of these parameters of distribution or of others, which are not known, must bring, from a legal point of view, the invalidity of the act of distribution, and, consequently, the nullity of the decision that was ordered by the judge or the complete one to which the file was directed with failure to comply with the law on random distribution - the ECRIS computer system for the distribution of files allows the introduction in the system several times of a file by assigning another number, until the file is assigned to the preferred judgment panel; - there is the possibility of blocking several judgment panels, as it is possible to block one, so that the panel that remains in the system for distribution is only one or certain judgment panels; - some panels can be eliminated on the grounds that the "loading degree" parameter of the set would be incidental, without the litigant being able to verify, in particular, whether this parameter was really to be applied; - a period of apportionment can be chosen in relation to the "urgent nature of the case" in which there is a single judgment panel that has the hearing. in the "files of the file" which are submitted to the case file, the distribution parameters are not reflected and the art. 95 paragraph 4 of the Rules of procedure of the courts of law regarding the distribution in the order of the registration in court of the files is
Page 13 of 152
not observed, according to which: ''For the application of the random criterion in the computerized or cyclical system, the files are registered in the order of the court's arrival and are distributed in the same order by the person or persons appointed annually by the president of the court, with the opinion of the governing board.” - when solving the files having procedural incidents object, the principle of random distribution is not respected, since it is proceeded to the direct distribution at the next immediate judgment panel. With regard to the above considerations, as well as to the information and evidence presented in evidence no. 2, it can be seen that in civil and criminal cases there is no random establishment of the judgment panels composed of one or more judges and no random distribution of the files, and the complexity figures differ in the same case at the same instance, at the courts of the same degree, as well as between courts of different degrees, because the aim is to direct the file to a certain court, with the systemic non-observance of the rights provided in art. 11 of Law no. 304/2004, art. 199 paragraph 2 Code of civil procedure and art. 361 Code of criminal procedure. Romania does not ensure the right to a fair trial, but was intentionally created the framework of "executions" following the abuses of magistrates in the judicial environment, based on orders given, received and executed for the purpose of resolving some interests, in a missing judicial system of impartiality and independence. The practice of non-observance of the law regarding the random distribution of the files at once, but in the natural order of the entry of the cases at the courts is at least maintained and tolerated by the Judicial Inspection, the Superior Council of Magistracy, presidents of the courts and heads of sections, who coordinate and supervise, monitor and respond to this activity in the Courts of Justice in Romania, by administering the composition of the judgment panels, the directed distribution of the files of interest to certain preferred judges, the bringing from other courts / other localities of favorite judges, the replacement during the trials of the judges initially appointed with preferred judges, in order, with the result of obtaining the court decisions desired by the groups organized by interests. Moreover, the Superior Council of Magistracy adopted the Decision no.1375, applicable after 2015, with the result of renouncing / removing the regulation no. 83 of the Decision no. 387/2005 of the same judicial authority, by which the obligation to introduce the cases in the ECRIS application was instituted in the order of the entry of the files in the courts: “(1) For the record of the activity of the courts, the following are drawn up and kept: 1. The general register of files. In this register, all the files registered in the courts, county courts, specialized tribunals, courts of appeal or in their sections are passed in the order of entry ”, regulation which ceased after 2015. The documents presented below represent evidence revealing obvious situations of systemic non-compliance with the law, as a result of the non-random distribution of the files to court units composed unreasonably by favorite judges and the defeat of the principle of continuity of judges judging the case, all coordinated and organized by the courts. prosecuted and prosecutors, with the result of judgments favorable to people who have violated the law and property, in the absence of material liability and criminal and civil sanctions that can be appealed to the persons who contribute to the violation of the principle of random distribution of each case on throughout the civil or criminal judicial procedure. Page 14 of 152
From this perspective, there was no impartiality and independence of the judges, nor of the courts, the court decisions did not respect the law and the European Law. In addition, the persons who registered the patrimonial damages as a result of some criminal acts, not sanctioned by the intervention of the prescription or even by the "simulation" of some processes that justify the "acquittal" of the guilty ones, were subsequently injured procedurally and patrimonially as a result of the abuses of the judges, in the sense that they were unjustly obliged by the courts to pay unjustified legal costs and fees to lawyers and experts.
Evidence no. 2 contains 1) records, evidence and explanations that highlight the use of systemic mechanisms of fraud, through which the judgments are pre-determined, in "sensitive" cases, of interest to those persons, information officers, judges, clerks, lawyers and persons who thus they obtain illicit profits, as a result of the fraud of the law and the public or private property; 2) extracts from courts of the same degree or different degrees, regarding the same cause, situations in which the courts have granted the same case, different figures of complexity, with the purpose and the result of having to distribute the respective file for trial to a certain judge / panel composed of preferred judges 3) records, requests and addresses received from the courts hiding the systemic mechanism of fraud of the random distribution of the files with the result of simulating the civil and criminal justice processes in the cases of interest, respectively from the High Court of Cassation and Justice, from the Courts of Appeal Bucharest, Cluj Napoca, Craiova, Alba Iulia, Pitesti, Bucharest Court, Brasov and Dolj Court, Cluj Specialized Court, Arges, District Court 1 and 2 Bucharest 4) In probation, we present institutional confirmation of the mechanisms and practices that are used generalized in the courts of interest cases, regarding the non-observance of the random distribution and the principle of continuity, with the result of pronouncing the court decisions desired by influential persons and interest groups. , knowingly ignoring the failure to comply with the law as a result of private property fraud Therefore, 1) The documents point out the abuses of justice tolerated institutionally in Romania and lead to the only possible conclusion, namely that there is an obvious causal link between the following facts / elements / findings: 1) the introduction of the cases in the ECRIS computer application, in a preferential order compared to the order of the entry and registration of the files at the court, with the result of distributing and sharing/ directing the "sensitive" case to the judgment panels, set unreasonably and made up of preferred judges; 2) the refusal and contempt of the courts regarding the communication to the justiciable, following his requests, of the supporting documents regarding the order, date and time of the file introduction in the ECRIS computer application, as well as the order of distribution through the program of the cases of that day, the distribution / conduct of the files who entered and were registered in the general registry of the court, and the refusal of the courts to communicate with transparency the information requested at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the Cluj Court of Appeal, the Craiova Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal Arges, Alba Iulia Court of Appeal, Brasov Court of Appeal, Constanta Court of Appeal, Brasov Court, Cluj Special Court, Mehedinti Court, Satu Mare Court, Arges Specialized Court, Bucharest Court, Alba Court, District Court 2 Bucharest, regarding at the written evidence that the distribution of the case was random, f attached to the order of the causes from that day, as compared to the disposition of the law. 3) unjustified rejection of the requested evidence, although these are necessary to find the truth and for the legal and sound settlement of the case,
Page 15 of 152
4) Rejecting unjustifiably unintentional requests regarding the referral of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Court of Justice of the European Union to obtain legal opinions with value of judiciary power, with the result of blocking the issuance of a preliminary decision for the clarification / dissolution of some legal issues absolutely necessary in order to adopt a legal and truthful solution. 5) ignoring definitive court decisions with a judiciary working power, in the same legal matter and issue favorable to the undersigned, non-observance of the right to defense as a result of blocking the applicant's access to the existing evidence in the file, on the basis of which court decisions were delivered to dismiss the actions, the pronouncement of court decisions by a criminal court based on the file composed of only two volumes, although the criminal prosecution file from the prosecutor's office contains 53 volumes, 6) the prosecutor and the judge ignoring the fact that thousands of records disappeared, evidence that existed in the criminal prosecution file, 7) carrying out expertise and accepting their conclusions, under the conditions in which they were drawn up by the adverse party, without the documents requested by experts. 8) rejection of some recusal requests that show the violation of the law regarding the random distribution with the result of conducting the "sensitive" case to a certain judge validating a solution prefigured in another framework. 9) the concerted rejection and directed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which would have the role of an arbitrator with skill and prestige, of some displacement requests, which in turn were distributed only to certain judges with the non-observance of the law on random distribution. 10) the personal interest of some judges who asked to enter certain judgment panels, to judge "sensitive" cases, at the Bucharest Court of Appeal and other courts, with the result of rejecting actions, appeals and harming the legal and patrimonial interests of the applicants, by pronouncing court decisions contrary to the legal norms. 11) the promotion of some judges in management positions, in the context of the non-observance of the law by them, with the result of favoring the persons who have violated the law and the property. 12) judging the causes of interest by simulating so-called lawsuits, in the context of ignoring the law, with the willful result of rejecting the actions, of the appeals, the payment of the criminal facts that occurred with the intention and the result of the damage of the legitimate interests and the patrimonial prejudice of the property of the undersigned. 2) Excerpts regarding identical cases that received from different courts figures of different complexity, with the result that the file is distributed to a certain judge. Complaint that is the subject of the criminal file 8166/2/2018 at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the criminal department received three different complexity figures, respectively 7, 20 and 29 within 4 months, at two different courts. Thus, the complaint against the classification ordinance issued by the National Anticorruption Directorate through the prosecutor Beldie Mihaela and confirmed by the prosecutor Bulancea Marius, head of the section, was sent to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by email on 19.11.2018, and by post, being received on 22.11.2018 and registered with the court on the same day, according to the documents we received from the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The transmission by the injured party of two identical copies of the complaint, by email and by post, does not justify the formation by the court, wrongly, of two files with the same object, respectively no. 8166/2/2018 and no. 8247/2/2018, and in no case can it be an explanation (the basis) of granting different coefficients of complexity: . the complaint received a coefficient of complexity 7 in file no. 8166/2/2018, in order for it to be distributed to the judicial panel no. S1C17 formed by Mrs. Craiu Cristina, being a notorious judge preferred by Services and D.N.A. . the complaint (identical) in file 8247/2/2018, but received the coefficient of complexity 20 (?!?!), and the file was distributed to the judgment panel no. S2C5 composed of Mrs. Judge Risantea Gagescu. At the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the identical complaint that forms the subject of the file no. 8166/2/2018 received the coefficient of complexity 29, after declining the case by the Court of Appeal, due to the competence for the file to be distributed on 02.04.2018 to the judge NENITA Simona Cristina, who rejected
Page 16 of 152
the complaint against the classification solution of the National Anticorruption Directorate regarding the prosecutor Lancranjan Alexandra. 3) The petitions of the undersigned pursuant to art. 8 of the Ordinance 27/2002 regarding the obligation to send the requested documents, regarding the evidence with documents that the files indicated in the applications have been inserted in the electronic application ECRIS in the order of the entry of the cases in court and not in a preferential order that determines the distribution of the case at the panel wanted, which was made up previously by non-random judges and preferred Addresses of the courts that refused to communicate the documents requested by the petitioner. The courts create the appearance of a legality, regarding the random distribution of cases, through answers that show that the files were all distributed at the same time, but willfully and obviously refuse the answer and the evidence with documents that bring to light the order of introduction of the cases in the ECRIS application, because ECRIS is not a ballot box that mixes the cases, but distributes them to the court in the order in which they were filed, and the clerks and magistrates know the order of the files being distributed by the ECRIS application. For example, the Cluj Court of Appeal responds to the address no. 82 of 14.01.2019: “Regarding the random distribution of cases we show that it is performed in the computer system through a single operation and not individually for each file. Exceptions from this rule are the files referred to by the manual distribution for the situations expressly provided by law ”. For the edification we attached the correspondence / requests and the response addresses of the courts of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, Cluj Court of Appeal, Bucharest Court of Appeal, Craiova Court of Appeal, Pitesti Court of Appeal, Alba Iulia Court of Appeal, Cluj Special Court, Mehedinţi Court, Dolj Court, Brasov Court, Bucharest Court, Alba Court, Arges Specialized Court, Sector 1 and 2 Bucharest Court.
4) In probation, we present institutional confirmation of the mechanisms and practices that are used generalized in the courts of interest cases, regarding the non-observance of the random distribution and of the principle of continuity, with the result of pronouncing the court decisions desired by influential persons and interest groups. , knowingly ignoring the failure to comply with the law as a result of private property fraud.
(1) The report prepared by the Judicial Inspection in 2018 with work number 5488 / IJ / 1365 / DIP2018 and 5488 / IJ / 2510 / DIJ / 2018 on “Respecting the general principles governing judicial activities in the cases of competence of the National Anticorruption Directorate regarding magistrates or in relation with them ”, found the non-fulfillment of the random distribution, stipulated in the law. The Judicial Inspection, in Chapter V - conclusions cannot exclude the possibility of some deliberate actions to achieve the aim pursued, respectively the distribution of the cause of interest to a complete trial preferred by the interest groups www.inspectiajudiciara.ro
(i) Regarding the way of distributing the requests of competence of the judge of rights and freedoms (including those with object of technical supervision measures) there is no unitary practice, the verifications carried out revealing three ways in which it is proceeded ”, respectively
- "A first way is to randomly distribute the first request between at least two panels ..." - "A second method of distribution is the manual / cyclical one, at the judge / judges appointed / planned ..." - "The third way is the one that combines the random distribution between at least two panels with the manual distribution ..."
"We consider that the essence of random distribution is to include as many panels as possible, the minimum number that ensures this requirement is at least two panels, and in the analyzed matter, taking into account the provisions of art. 102 paragraph (5) ROIIJ, respecting the principle of random distribution does not lead to incompatibility situations that cannot be managed by establishing rules. "
"In addition, in the particular situation of the attributions conferred by the law to the judge of rights and freedoms, the non-observance of the principle of random distribution either by appointing a single judge or by Page 17 of 152
planning by rotation of a judge per day, makes this activity vulnerable, by creating the possibility of knowledge by prosecutor of the planned judge and the choice of the moment when the requests of his competence are formulated, according to subjective criteria ”.
(ii) As regards the conduct of the activity of random distribution under conditions of legality, "as analyzed in the corresponding section of the report, at the High Court of Cassation and Justice - Criminal Section - the parameters of distribution were not established by decision of the management college and, unlike the way in which the courts of appeal are proceeded with and the courts that were given to them, were not associated in the ECRIS application of each object, to be automatically generated. "
"As analyzed extensively in the section intended to respect the principle of random distribution, the verifications revealed that, during the reference period, there was no unique distribution parameter for each object, this parameter being variable and established every day by the section president. , which concluded in this regard a report. "
"This practice is contrary to the provisions of Decision no. 53 / 28.01.2014 of the Section for Judges of the Superior Council of Magistracy by which it was ordered the association by all the courts of the distribution parameters for each object, regardless of matter, and their introduction in the computer application, in order to generate it automatically ... "
(iii) "Another situation identified and that needs to be remedied is that of the practice of blocking from the distribution some judge's panels by the preliminary chamber, on the consideration of balancing the volume of activity ..."
"As shown in the relevant section, this way of proceeding can influence the process of distribution of cases, on the one hand, by blocking the number of panels reduces the number of panels involved in this operation and between which a case can be assigned and, on the other hand, through the numerous interventions in the application, which can generate errors (by unintentional omission of the unlocking of panels or by blocking from error certain panels) ”.
(2) The Superior Council of Magistracy, by Decision no. 1176 / 16.12.2009, approved the Report on the thematic control regarding the random distribution of cases in the ECRIS computer system, through which the Judges Section found and established, among others, that:
- ''the user's right of access to the interfaces that allow the modification of the parameters of random distribution of a file must be eliminated”; - "In order to unify the practice and eliminate the possibility of circumvention of the system, by means of the subsequent association of the parties, a modification of the ECRIS application is required in the sense of the impossibility of randomly distributing the file if certain conditions have not been met”; -''insertion of provisions in the Internal Order Regulation for the IT personnel from the courts, which regulate the authorized intervention operations in the ECRIS system; - ''Notification of the Ministry of Justice and Citizens' Freedoms regarding the modifications of the application”. - ''The verification of the mismatches between the date of registration in the system of cases, the date mentioned as being the date of registration and the date of distribution, revealed situations of non- correlation of the date of registration with the date of distribution to most of the courts, the biggest differences "being, usually, in the case that regarding the file were carried out several operations of distribution, after the hearing was deleted. The section maintains that, as long as, between the date of registration and the date of distribution of these files, operations were made for the distribution of other cases, the rule regarding the distribution of the
Page 18 of 152
files in the order of registration according to art. 95 paragraph 4 of the Regulation of the internal order of the courts was no longer complied with. Also, the relative frequency of the non-correlation situations between the date of the file formation and the date of its introduction into the system were identified, which may have as a cause either the delayed creation of the file in the computerized system, or the modification of the actual date of application submission. At the same time, situations have been found in which the date of file formation is subsequent to the date of its introduction in the computer system. The section finds that in both circumstances the random distribution is affected, the distribution interval being reported at the date of the file formation, the following technical measures being necessary: the use of the same system of hearing association, at all the courts; associating the hearing with the object of the file; modification of the default hearing associated with the object only through a report in which the necessity of this operation is described; modification of the ECRIS application so that, when changing the hearing parameter associated with a file with a certain object, on a certain day, the other files distributed on the same day with the same object, have the same associated hearing. Also, the Section finds that, after analyzing the data existing in the ECRIS system at the court level, it was identified the existence of situations in which the parties were introduced after the distribution of the file (the justification being the high volume of activity), a working way that could represent a possibility of circumvention of the random distribution system.” Although by decision no. 1176 / 16.12.2009 of the Superior Council of Magistracy were identified the possibilities by which the files are directed to certain judges and which violate the principle of the random distribution of cases, an essential component of the right to a fair trial, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and the law of the European Union, In fact, the flawed system of work, controlled by officers and politicians has not been rectified, given that so far no action has been taken to solve the structural problems identified even by the above mentioned CSM report, which fully justifies the obvious question: why it is not desired to regulate by law this area so important that constitutes the premise of the procedural guarantees of the process of the fair trial? https://www.juridice.ro/233219/repartizarea-aleatorie-intre-reglementare-si- realitate.html (3) Statement dated 08.01.2009, of Mr. Cătălin Predoiu, Minister of Justice during the period 2009- 2012, according to which the ECRIS information system from the courts is manipulated to distribute cases to certain judges: "The Minister of Justice, Cătălin Predoiu, said on Thursday that he has information that the integrated computer system from ECRIS courts, which randomly distributes the files, is being manipulated to distribute cases to certain magistrates.” https://www.mediafax.ro/social/predoiu-am-informatii-ca-sistemul-de-la-instante-care-repartizeaza-dosare- este-manipulat-3717327 Resolution of the Congress of Lawyers within the National Union of Bars of Romania, adopted at the meeting of March 29-30, 2013, by which, in order to streamline the system of random distribution of cases - guarantee of the right to a fair trial - which is not respected, was requested to "The Superior Council of Magistracy and the Ministry of Justice - as organs empowered by law to regulate the judicial activity - to take measures to respect the principle of random distribution established by the law of judicial organization, by amending and completing the Regulation of internal order of the courts regarding the following aspects: - defining the procedures used by the persons responsible for randomly distributing the files, the limits and the conditions of access in the system; - establishing the distribution parameters used by ECRIS, their mode and conditions of use, so that the random distribution mode has precise, transparent and verifiable rules; - the documents that are prepared by the personnel responsible for the random distribution shall contain all the data from which the introduction of the distribution parameters corresponding to the specific of each file will result;
Page 19 of 152
- the express establishment of sanctions for the situation in which the obligation to attach in the file of the documents attesting all the above mentioned elements is not respected; - the express establishment of the sanctions that intervene in case of non-observance of these criteria and rules that must be taken into account in the distribution: the nullity of the distribution act and the character of serious disciplinary deviation for the act of the guilty person for not complying with these provisions; - establishing the competent bodies to verify compliance with the rules of use of the information sharing system; - the provision of regular controls by external auditors (law enforcement bodies, O.N.G. etc ...) regarding the observance of the correct use of the random distribution system; - strictly applying the provisions of art. 95 paragraph (10) of the Regulation, in the aspect of submitting to the file the documents attesting to the random distribution, acts that reflect in a total transparency the distribution parameters introduced in the system. But also the requests formulated by the Congress of Lawyers regarding the random distribution of cases, were deliberately left without result. (4) The report of the Judicial Inspection prepared in 2013, at the request of the Judges Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy, "regarding the observance of the legal provisions regarding the receipt and random distribution of the documents of referral of the courts", by which serious irregularities were found, without following the adoption of the necessary measures to remove them, but from our information, was used by the "manipulators" of the ECRIS system to "refine" the methods of diverting its purpose of random distribution of cases and to eliminate "uncertainties "in the files where the manipulators have direct interests. As proof that things were not resolved, in 2016, several military judges were heard at the National Anticorruption Directorate, in the case of a complaint of the magistrates of the Military Court of Appeal of Bucharest, regarding facts of abuse related to the random distribution of the files, which might have been committed by the former president of the court Gheorghe Manea, and, in the spring of 2017, the Judicial Inspection initiated the disciplinary action against the judges Radu Stancu and Constantin Udrea, from the Military Court of Appeal of Bucharest, for the serious or repeated failure to comply with the provisions regarding random distribution of cases. "With reference to the disciplinary offense provided by art. 99 letter o) it was held that the judges by failing to fulfill their attributions and acting contrary to the decision of the court for judges of the Superior Council of Magistracy no. 622/2015, determined without justification the change of the existing practice regarding the way of constituting the divergence panels and the different application of the regulatory provisions in similar situations”. https://adevarul.ro/news/eveniment/inspectia-judiciara-deschis-actiune-disciplinara-unui-judecator-criticat- decizia-ccr-cazul-anchetei-privind-ordonanta-13-1_59958d655ab6550cb8133b51/index.html "The Judicial Inspection released on Friday, May 19, 2017, the following press release announcing the launch of the disciplinary action against the military judges col. Constantin Udrea (photo) and col. Radu Stancu, from the Military Court of Appeal, for the alleged disciplinary violations consisting of: "seriously or repeatedly breaching the provisions regarding the random distribution of cases" and "not respecting the decisions of the Constitutional Court or the decisions pronounced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in solving appeals in the interest of the law”. https://www.luju.ro/institutii/servicii-secrete/inspectia-in-plasa-dia-judecatorii-constantin-udrea-si- radu-stancu-au-fost-bagati-la-disciplinar-reactia-cutremuratoare-a-lui-udrea-s-au-facut-manopere- frauduloase-ca-cezarian-buga-sa-solutioneze-dosarul-lui-marian-hapau-seful-directiei-de-informatii-a- ar
7) The report of the National Anticorruption Directorate from 2013, prepared for the preventive arrest of judges Antonela Costache and Viorica Dinu, from the Bucharest Court, on the accusation that they received bribes from the brother of the businessman Dinel Staicu Nuţu, in which it was mentioned that the magistrates appealed to clerks for the manipulation of the computer system, in order to avoid the random distribution of the file, according to: Page 20 of 152
"Moreover, the problems reported in the ECRIS system were dealt with in 2009 and within a report of the SCM, but the solutions have not come until today. Today, the problems were revealed after the scandal that broke last week, when two judges were arrested, accused of trafficking in influence and bribery. The report of the National Anticorruption Directorate prosecutors in the case of the two judges from the Bucharest Court - Antonela Costache and Viorica Dinu, preventively arrested on the accusation that they had received bribes from the brother of the businessman Dinel Staicu Nutu - showed that the judges either solved personal files or appealed to real networks involving other judges and clerks (used to manipulate the computer system to bypass the random distribution of the file) and lawyers.” https://dragomirdaniel.ro/metoda-coperta-de-fraudare-a-repartizarii-aleatorii-a-dosarelor-cunoscuta- din-2004-si-nerezolvata-nici-acum-evz-ro/
8) Judge Daniel Gradinaru - the head of the criminal section of the High Court of Cassation and Justice reveals how the cases are directed to this court, to certain judges: "At the supreme court, the files are not distributed balanced through the ECRIS system ... to renounce the blocking of judgment panels....” http://m.luju.ro/judecatorul-gradinaru-demasca-justitia-pe-culoar-noul-presedinte-al-sectiei-penale-a-inaltei- curti-judecatorul-daniel-gradinaru-nenoroceste-binomul-si-dezvaluie-cum-se-dirijau-dosarele-la-instanta- suprema-nu-sunt-repartizate-echilibrat-cauzele-prin-ecris- (9 Judge Adrian Neascu, member of the Superior Council of Magistracy, who was suspended, explains how the ECRIS system can be "tricked", with the help of the clerks, respectively "How to get over the random distribution with the help of a clerk or operator”: "However, this method is not the only way to bypass the system and" direct "a file to a certain judgment panel. In 2009, judge Adrian Neacsu, current suspended member of the SCM, then president of the Vrancea Tribunal, explains in the publication România Libera how the ECRIS system can be tricked with the help of the clerks. The "system" starts from the service judge who receives the requests for referral gathered during the day and sends them to the operator. Normally, he should immediately assign a registration number to each file, reflecting the order in which they arrived, the procedure to be performed before the files are entered into the ECRIS system. In order to "trick" the random distribution, these registration numbers are not placed on the files from the beginning, and the operator enters the numbers not associated with a file in the ECRIS system. After the system distributes a panel judgment for each registration number, the operator assigns the files of those registration numbers that have received a "favorable" or "unfavorable" panel, depending on the interest. For this method, it is necessary the complicity of a clerk or the person who actually operates the computer system. Once this complicity is assured, things can start. According to Judge Neacsu, such a practice can be easily counteracted, wrote Romania Libera. "This happens where the service judge, who receives the sue petitions, simply sends the stack of documents to the operator. Or, he could record on each file the time he received them and thus, creating a hierarchy through which the applications are registered from the beginning, and the system operator cannot do what he wants with the distribution to the panels, "declared the judge Adrian Neacsu in 2009.” https://anticoruptie.hotnews.ro/stiri-anticoruptie-14447989-este-sistemul-repartizare-aleatorie-dosarelor- instante-cum-poate-manipulat.htm 10) Military judge Constantin Udrea confirms that persons from the Romanian Intelligence Service and STS were involved in manipulating the ECRIS system: "Following the same procedure, as is the yellow written map, red green can be done now. But the most important thing is the manipulation of the Ecris program of "random" distribution of cases. Therefore, if a particular case has to reach a certain panel for sure. But in other courts, the program can be manipulated very
Page 21 of 152
simply. The ones on the buttons are the ones from STS. Things are proven. The Judicial Inspection has the possibility to enter the Ecris program and to make necessary investigations.” "They managed to create this fear among the population, especially among the magistrates, the fear of SRI (Romanian Intelligence Service). And this is a very serious signal for society.” https://www.mediafax.ro/social/exclusiv-judecatorul-constantin-udrea-face-acuzatii-fara-precedent-privind- protocoalele-e-crima-organizata-17545314
2.2.3 The principle of continuity of the magistrate in solving a case, stipulated in art. 11 of Law no. 304/2004, it is not guaranteed, protected and respected, and this violation of the law continues with the systemic non-observance, regarding the random distribution of the case during the entire duration of the trial. The law does not provide for sanctions in case of non-compliance for non-objective reasons of the provision regarding the continuity of the judge in the file, but, even worse, does not define the limits of the objective term, so that the provisions of art. 11 of Law no. 304/2004 regarding the obligation of ensuring the continuity of the magistrate in solving a case are violated, in reality, with good knowledge, they are disregarded and treated with contempt, in a systemic way, throughout the duration of the civil or criminal process, with the purpose and the result of obtaining some unlawful but directed judgments, by order or following obscure and direct agreements with the party in favor of which the judgment is pronounced. The willful non-observance of the law on the continuity of the magistrates is outlined as a systemic practice, which is a common tool, in sensitive cases, for simulating criminal or civil cases, from the perspective that at two different time periods, at the same Court of Appeal, in files located in different sections, criminal, respectively civil, but also with different parties, during the course of the trials, the judges were replaced with the failure to comply with the law by the president of the Court of Appeal, the president of the section and with the obvious result of pronouncing court decisions that violated procedural rights.
The fact that Mrs. Savonea Lia was the person involved as president of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, both in 2010 on the occasion of the replacement of Judge Grecu Gheorghe with Judge Bulancea Magdalena Diana, and in 2016 on the occasion of replacing unlawfully, the magistrates Ninu Cristiu Luminita / Lupascu Dan with Judge Stramb Codruta / Badescu Raluca, suggests to me that the operations were conducted and had order or prosecuted in favor of the accused persons who have violated the law and the property, as well as the causal link between:
- illegal replacement of judges during the trial (without objective reasons), - pronouncing non-grounded judicial decisions that were not given in the name of the law, because obviously the criminal and civil liability of the defendants in the file was not sought, so that the previous situation was not restored and the damages were not recovered from the persons who have defrauded, which were established by the criminal case expertise 2485/300/2011 at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, as well as the non-recovery of damages that exceed 15,000,000 euros by the applicant Prestige Trading, regarding the obligation by the Court of Appeal of the Competition Council as a defendant to comply with the court decisions that were previously given by the irrevocable ICCJ decision no. 37/2006
Page 22 of 152
and because they were not fulfilled the court had to compel the Competition Council to carry out the legal investigation. - promotion in senior management positions of magistrates involved in the modification of the judgment panels with the non-observance of the law and of the Internal Order Regulation of the courts, which justifies the suspicion that the access to higher functions represents the "compensation" for fulfilling some "orders" of not to ensure that the proceedings are carried out under the conditions of the law, but under favorable conditions for a certain party and interest groups. Finally, in this context, there is evidence that the law was not obeyed voluntarily by magistrates with management positions to obtain a certain result through the court decisions that were given, and from this perspective, it is easy to predict that for future the justiciaries in Romania will not benefit from fair trials, in the sensitive cases of the interest groups, in the context in which systemic mechanisms have been created to replace the judges - with the non-observance of the law regarding the continuity and the random distribution of the cases during the entire duration of the trial. - having as purpose and result obtaining favorable judgments for organized power and influence groups. Evidence no. 3 contains examples and evidence of the failure of the magistrates from the management of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, together with the magistrates involved in solving certain files, of the legal norms regarding the continuity of the judges from the randomly appointed unit, by replacing some magistrates during the trial with the "elected" ones and willing to participate in the simulation of the respective civil or criminal process, with the result of obtaining "order" of court decisions that ignored the law, but also other court decisions, as well as the evidence in the file: (i) In the criminal file 2485/300/2011, persons from the management of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, respectively Mrs. Savonea Lia, as president of the Court, and Mrs. Ninu Cristiu Luminita, as president of the criminal section, during the trial criminal in the judgment phase of the appeal, they had modifications of the initially randomly appointed judgment panel, in violation of the provisions of art. 11 of Law no.304 / 2004 and even of the provisions of the Regulation of the internal order of the courts, for obvious subjective reasons and of nature, justified the claim that, by appointing certain judges to be part of the panel until the decision was adopted, regardless of the date of its pronouncement, in reality, was aimed at simulating the conduct of a criminal trial, the result of which was already established, namely obtaining a court decision for acquittal, even by manifestly ignoring the evidence regarding the existence of criminal facts and the guilt of their perpetrators, with the consequence of favoring theim. At the hearing of 27.05.2015, the panel formed by magistrates Ninu Cristiu Luminita and Lupascu Dan judged the appeals of the parties and remained in the ruling, which was postponed three times two weeks, but, according to art. 395 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ex officio, decided to put the case back on the roll: "in order to discuss the necessity of supplementing the probator with a specialized expertise", and subsequently ordered to perform a financial-accounting expertise, considering that it is required for the clarification of some essential circumstances for finding the truth, but without setting any objective or, at least, indicating the aspects to be clarified by the willing expertise, summarizing the admission of all the objectives proposed by the parties, without censoring their usefulness or conclusion, fact which had as sole purpose and result the delay of solving the process up to a certain "appropriate" moment for adopting a settlement solution, even against the conclusions of the expertise and the other evidence in the file. Subsequent to the resumption of the case on the dockets, the unfolding of the trial was marked by several changes in the composition of the judgment panel, all made contrary to the legal provisions regarding the random designation and ensuring the continuity of the trial during the criminal trial, as can be seen even from the document issued at dated 25.01.2019 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal - the Second Criminal Section and communicated to the undersigned in response to the information request formulated and transmitted to the president of this section on 22.01.2019, from which the following results:
Page 23 of 152
- the criminal file no. 2485/300/2011 "was registered before the Bucharest Court of Appeal - the Second Criminal Section on 20.01.2015, being randomly assigned to the C7A judgment panel, composed of Mrs. Criştiu- Ninu Luminiţa and Mr. Lupaşcu Dan.” - subsequently, “the composition of the C7A judgment panel was modified by Decision no. 249 / 11.12.2015 (trial no. 5) of the Management Board of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the new composition being provisionally insured by the judge Găgescu Risantea and the judge Nicolescu Sorin Alin” - “given the personnel fluctuations at the level of the Second Criminal Section, through Decision no. 10 / 14.01.2016 (trial no. 5) of the Board of Directors of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the ladies judge Bădescu Irina Raluca and Strâmb Codruţa were appointed to ensure the composition of the C7A judgment panel, starting with the hearing from 23.02.2016 and until the hearing since 20.06.2017” - "for administrative reasons ...... the composition of the C7A judgment panel was temporarily modified by Decision no. 180 / 24.08.2017 (trial no. 5) of the Board of Directors of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by relieving the judges judge Bădescu Irina Raluca and Strâmb Codruţa for a period of 4 months, the new composition being ensured by the judge Criştiu-Ninu Luminiţa and Mrs. Gheorghişan Corina Cornelia, starting with the hearing from 19.09.2017 and up to the hearing from 12.12.2017” - subsequently, the file "returned for settlement to the C7A judgment panel composed of judge Bădescu Irina Raluca and judge Strâmb Codruţa, as approved by the Decision no. 10 / 14.01.2016 of the Board of Directors” Analysis of the aforementioned, the content of the decisions no. 249 / 11.12.2016, 10 / 14.01.2016 and 180 / 24.08.2017, as well as the requests to change the days of participation in the court sessions in appeal panels, formulated and dated 13.01.2013 by the judges Găgescu Risantea, Nicolescu Alin Giurgiu, Strâmb Codruţa and Bădescu Irina Raluca, of the document no. 1/666 / SII / 14.01.2016 issued by the Second Criminal Section to the president of the Bucharest Court of Appeal regarding the proposals made for the modification of the C7A panel, the latter being communicated to me by the Address no. 2/5486 / C from the date of 09.05.2019 of the Cabinet of the Vice-President of CAB, following the request of the undersigned from 10.04.2019, allows the following elements to be ascertained in support of the thesis regarding the simulation of the so-called trial of the appeal in this criminal trial, the result of which was already established, namely obtaining a court decision for acquittal, even by manifestly ignoring the evidence regarding the existence of the criminal facts and the guilt of their perpetrators, with the consequence of favoring them: a) in the Decision no. 249 / 11.12.2015 no reference is made to the "provisional" modification of the composition of the C7A panel, as mentioned in the document issued on 25.01.2019 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the Second Criminal Section, and in any case , the so-called "provisional composition" of the panel is not allowed by law, especially when, following the retirement of Magistrate Lupaşcu Dan, which was an objective reason for changing the composition of the panel, Mrs. Magistrate Criştiu-Ninu Luminiţa continued the activity within the same court of appeal, so that there was no legal basis for its replacement in the C7A panel, and the designation of an entire "provisional unit". b) modification of the composition of the C7A panel by Decision no. 10 / 14.01.2016 of the Board of Directors of the Bucharest Court of Appeal did not consider "personnel fluctuations at the level of the Second Criminal Section", as stated in the document dated 25.01.2019, but was approved for reasons personally and professionally of the judges who requested to attend court sessions on a different day of the week than the one in which they were scheduled, as it results from the decision and the proposal made by the management of the Criminal Section, but also from the content of the applications formulated by the four judges (evidence no. 3) c) the requests of the judges Strâmb Codruţa and Bădescu Irina for their passing from Friday to Tuesday, in which the trial of the criminal case 2485/1285/2011 was planned, highlights the existence of personal reasons, according to the extract: „the undersigned Strâmb Codruţa and Bădescu Raluca. .. we ask for personal reasons, our move into a panel that has deadlines for the court sessions set on Tuesday” and not the existence of objective reasons!!! d) personal (except health, retirement or death) or professional reasons are not confined to the notion of "objective reasons", provided by law as the only situation where, exceptionally, during the course of a criminal trial, it can be modified the composition of a randomly appointed judgment panel, and, except for mentioning Page 24 of 152
the fact that Judge Nicolescu Alin Sorin "performs the Bucharest-Tg.Jiu shuttle" and that "he has hours set by Nicolae Titulescu University where he has the quality of university assistant professor, every Tuesday. ", No" personal reason "is invoked and indicated to justify at least the examination of the request made by the other three judges, neither in their requests to change the day of participation in court hearings, nor in the proposal made by the management of Criminal Section II. e) the four judges did not request to attend court sessions "on another day of the week", as mentioned in the proposal of the Second Criminal Section and in the ruling of the Governing Board of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, but explicitly requested the "move" in a panel appeal that has the deadlines on a certain day of the week, and, moreover, it is noted that the two applications were made on the same day, 13.01.2016, and that the requests that are drafted on a identical request format were correlated with the day on which each person's desire to participate in the trial was expressed, not in any way by the panel, but in appeal panel, a situation to which it is unacceptable and it was not understood why has not made a change of the days of the meetings of the four judges, instead of changing the composition of the legally constituted panels. f) In the context in which the officials from Farmec mentioned, during some telephone discussions intercepted with authorization in file 3164 / P / 2012, that they pay incentives for everything to be favorable to them, "personal interests" can be taken into consideration and extrajudicial reasons for taking over the case with a view to pronouncing the acquittal decision favoring the persons / civil servants who violated the law and the property, ignoring the facts that were the subject of the trial and the evidence proving their existence and the guilt of the defendants, especially as the magistrate STRAMB CODRUTA, member of the judgment panel that was appointed discretionary for the settlement of the case, it also worked at the Satu-Mare Court, the court on which there are strong indications of the influences exercised by the payment of incentives by the defendants in this case so that everything is in their favor, as it results from playing the recordings of telephone discussions, evidence in file no. 3164 / P / 2012 of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest Tribunal: „Defendant PANTEA PETRU IACOB: Well! 2003, 2004, who do you say you influenced to win at SATU MARE ....” evidence no. 5). Defendant Pântea Petru Iacob: I spoke. Do you know what lucian told me? and so they all say, and the myrrh and the other are definitely against it. She is not interested, it's not her responsibility that she took such measures, yes you understand me with such STIMULATING MEASURES, that EVERYTHING WILL BE IN OUR FAVOR”. (ii) In the file no. 27411/2/2005 of the contentious administrative section, the civil trial was simulated, with the result followed in 2011 by magistrates from the management of the Bucharest Court of Appeal rejecting the civil action in file no. 27411/2/2005 regarding the restitution of the case to the Competition Council for the opening of the investigation and the fulfillment of the judicial decision no 37/2006 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, by illegally replacing the “uncomfortable” judge Gheorghe Grecu with the judge Magdalena Bulancea, ignoring the law and Decision no. 452 / 12.03.2009 of the SCM. Violation of the principle of continuity, as a result of the passing of file 27411 from Judge Gheorghe Grecu to Judge Bulancea Magdalena Diana, although Judge Gheorghe Grecu continued to work at the Court of Appeal, had as purpose and result the rejection of conclusive evidence, the unfounded admission of the exception of interest invoked ex officio by the court and by the intervener Colgate Palmolive and the rejection on the merits of the action of the plaintiff Prestige, whose object was to oblige the court to reopen the investigation and to comply with the decision of the Court of Appeal no. 302 regarding the obligation of the defendant of the Competition Council to initiate and carry out the legal investigation on the basis of evidence, to be brought to the file, with the consequence of harming the procedural interests and the patrimonial prejudice of the subscribers by pronouncing a decision taken in a different framework than the judicial one, as effect of the replacement of the judgment panel, during the trial. The magistrates from the management of the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the new judge brought during the civil trial, with the non-observance of the law, followed and realized the rejection of the action of the Prestige subscriber, even under the conditions:
- Infringement of the right of defense of the Prestige subscriber and as a result of the fact that the plaintiff company was prevented by the judge on the dockets from being aware of the evidence with documents in the file that were approved by the judgment panel and were submitted to the file by the Competition Council, under the pretext that they are SECRET (!!??) and Page 25 of 152
- non-observance of the right of defense of the Prestige subscriber as a result of the rejection of all the requested evidence, evidence with documents, evidence with witnesses and with expertise, which violates the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the European Commission through the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 22 paragraph 1 letter c) and d) and art. 26 letter b) of the Rules of Procedure of the internal courts regulates the way in which the courts are composed and the way in which the courts can be changed, the exceptional situation in which this change is possible, as well as the need for approval by the governing board of these changes. Only that, there was not the exceptional situation that required taking over the file from Judge Gheorghe Grecu, who continued to carry out his activity in the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the distribution of the case of a new favorite judge appointed, under the condition that the latter had to take over only the files of the retired judge Carata Glodeanu, in place of which Bulancea Diana Magdalena was appointed by the decision of the SCM, according to the extract: “The distribution of the Judge Bulancea Diana Magdalena was made according to the Decision no. 452/12 March 2009 of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy, following the release from office, by retirement, of the judge Carata Glodeanu Constanta Floriana (Decree of the President of Romania no. 52/1 April 2009, published in the Official Gazette of Romania no. 226/7 April 2009).” In fact, from the Bucharest Court of Appeal, Judge Carata Glodeanu left for retirement, in place of which Diana Magdalena Bulancea was appointed, but the latter were assigned to settle the files of Judge Gheorghe Grecu, among which was the file between Prestige Trading and Competition Council regarding the Colgate Palmolive investigation, although according to the internal order regulation, the newly appointed judge had to be assigned for settlement the files of the retired judge whose vacancy took over by the above mentioned decision of the SCM. The unlawful replacement of the incumbent judge Gheorghe Grecu with the judge Magdalena Bulancea was made by magistrates from the management of the Bucharest Court of Appeal with the RESULT of rejecting my evidence in question, of violating our right to defense by invoking some writings against which we could not defend and which we are not convinced that the alleged "SECRET" writings existed in the case file. In fact, there were no records in the file regarding which the judge Magdalena Bulancea mentioned that they are "secret", this magistrate creating the appearance of "EVIDENCE" in the file to justify the delivery of a decision, which is illegal and unreasonable, because it was ordered with the violation of the right to defense and violation of the principle of orality and contradictory, respectively with non-observance of art. 14 paragraph 5 and art. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the evidence in the file could not be secret, with respect to the parties in the respective case, this being the reason for which the initially appointed judge was replaced with the violation of the law. 2.2.4 The High Court of Cassation and Justice contributed to the protection and maintenance of the systemic mechanisms of control and manipulation of justice, for the causes of interest, even if it had levers conferred by law and regulations to remove them and to ensure the fair trial framework, both at the ICCJ, as well as at all the Romanian courts. Although the Latin dictum "Fiat Justitia Pereat Mundus", which means "To do justice even if the world were to die," was blown out of the window of the ICCJ hall, the law was not respected by the highest public institution of justice. Romania, with the result of protecting the systemic mechanisms of fraud of the justice, which were created with care, for the control of the distribution of the cases of interest to the preferred courts, made up at random. Following this mechanism, the inaction tolerance of the High Court of Cassation and Justice has determined the simulation of the fair trials at the ICCJ and the courts, by interest Page 26 of 152
groups of which are presidents of courts and sections, judges, prosecutors, clerks, IT -you, lawyers, intelligence officers, businessmen who break the law, politicians. The High Court of Cassation and Justice did not apply immediately after 01.01.2014 the provisions contained in art. 32 paragraph 4 of Law 304/2004, regarding the random composition of the panels composed of five judges, according to which “the judges who are part of these panels are appointed by lot, in the public meeting by the president or, in his absence, by one of the two vice-presidents of the High Court of Cassation and Justice ”, and did not comply with these provisions after the decision of the Constitutional Court no. 685/2018, circumstance that contributed voluntarily to the vitiation and the simulation of a fair trial, the supreme court contributing by decisions of the governing board to the violation of the aforementioned provisions. The High Court of Cassation and Justice did not extend to the level of all the courts composed of several magistrates, the principle of random composition by drawing lots of panels composed of three judges. The magistrates of the High Court of Cassation and Justice knew that the order of the introduction of the cases in the ECRIS computer application has the influence in the distribution of the cause to a certain panel, and the fair trial, impartiality and independence of the judges in the "sensitive" cases are determined by this order of introduction of the cases in ECRIS, as well as the fact that this mechanism contributes to the simulation of the fair trial in such cases, through "preferred" judges, and interest groups have used these "legislative imperfections" that were created with "care" ”and represents instruments for the willful favor of one of the parties, in civil or criminal cases of interest The High Court of Cassation and Justice did not knowingly exploit the following provisions that contribute to ensuring access to the fair trial, equally of all the justifiable ones, respectively art. 27 paragraph (1) of Law 304/2004 according to which "At the end of each year, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in United Sections, establishes the cases in which it is necessary to improve the legislation and communicates them to the Minister of Justice" and art. 27 paragraph (2) of the same law, according to which “the President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice may allow the judges to inform themselves at the court premises about the aspects regarding the correct and unitary application of the law, making known the jurisprudence of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and to ascertain situations that justify proposals to improve the legislation. " Compared to the aforementioned considerations, the High Court of Cassation and Justice did NOT use the prerogatives conferred by the Law to formulate legislative proposals that contribute to the elimination of legislative deficiencies, mechanisms and instruments through which the impartiality, independence of the courts and the fair trial is simulated and to regulate specifically: - the random composition of the judiciary panels composed of several judges, by drawing lots with balls, in a transparent, filmed way, proven to the justiciable.
Page 27 of 152
- the random distribution by introducing in the electronic application ECRIS of any cause, civil or criminal, of some panels that were composed randomly, - description of the electronic application ECRIS, of the parameters that compose the application and determines the distribution of the cause to a certain panel, including the complexity number assigned to each cause and the granting of the justiciable access to this information. - the immediate introduction, in the electronic application of ECRIS, of any case arrived at the court, in the order of the entry and registration of the cases in the general register of the courts, - respecting the principle of continuity during the trial and defining the term "replacement of the magistrate for objective reasons" - the verification procedure regarding the order of the introduction in ECRIS of the cases, compared to the order of their entry and registration in the general court register, the day and the introduction of the cases in the ECRIS application, in the context in which the order of the introduction in this application and other non-transparent factors influence the panel to which the information system distributes the cause, because ECRIS does not function as an urn, and the sanction applicable in case of violation of the provisions regarding the random distribution and continuity of the complete judgment, both during the trial and after the final stay of a civil or criminal court decision. Judicial Inspection Report no. 5488 / IJ / 1365 / DIP / 2018 and 5488 / IJ / 2510 / DIJ / 2018, approved by the Decision of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy no. 225 / 15.10.2019 found the non-observance of the law regarding the non-existence of the procedure of random distribution of some criminal cases - in the sense that the files of interest bypassed the electronic application ECRIS and were distributed directly to the desired trial units - which can be understood as practice and at the level of the civil sections (i) Regarding the observance of the principle of random distribution of the files having as object "special measures of technical supervision it has resulted that both the courts of appeal and the invested courts to which direct verifications have been carried out, after the registration of the applications with this object , when generating from the ECRIS application the unique file number with the check of the elements that allow the confidentiality to be kept, from the appropriate interface of the application. " "Exception in this regard is made by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, where, from the direct verifications, they have shown that these files were not registered in the ECRIS application and they received a number from the registers specially constituted for this purpose, every year."This registration modality is contrary to the provisions of art. 109˄2 para. (2) of the Regulation on the organization and administrative functioning of the High Court of Cassation and Justice ...... "
Page 28 of 152
(ii) "Regarding the way in which the judges were appointed to solve the applications having as object special measures of technical supervision ...", by exception, "at the High Court of Cassation and Justice (between 2014-2016). . only a limited number of judges from those who actually worked in the criminal units solved such requests ... " (iii) Regarding the conduct of the random distribution activity under the conditions of legality, "as analyzed in the corresponding section of the report, at the High Court of Cassation and Justice - Criminal Section - the distribution parameters were not established by decision of the the board of directors and, unlike the way in which the courts of appeal are proceeded with and the courts that were given to them, were not associated in the ECRIS application of each object, to be automatically generated. " "As analyzed extensively in the section intended to respect the principle of random distribution, the checks revealed that, during the reference period, there was no unique distribution parameter for each object, this parameter being variable and established every day by the section president. , which concluded in this regard a report. " "This practice is contrary to the provisions of Decision no. 53 / 28.01.2014 of the Section for Judges of the Superior Council of Magistracy by which it was ordered the association by all the courts of the distribution parameters for each object, regardless of matter, and their introduction in the computer application, in order to generate it automatically ... " Magistrates from the management of the High Court of Cassation and Justice did not respect the provisions of the law contained in art. 8 of O. G. no. 27/2002 and they followed that, by the content of the writings requested by the petitioner, the non-observance of the random distribution of cases to panels composed of preferred magistrates with the result of rejecting the requests / complaints was not proved. From the perspective of the aforementioned considerations and of the attachments attached as evidence to this chapter, it can be observed that the High Court of Cassation and Justice not only that, in bad faith, did not comply with the legal provisions previously mentioned, but judges from the leadership, heads of sections they intentionally violated the provisions of art. 8 of O.G. no. 27/2002, regarding the obligation of communicating in 30 days the writings requested by the petitioner, records that would have brought to light the non-observance of the random distribution of the cases and which had resulted in the attribution of the cases to panels made up of preferred judges, with the consequence of the impartiality of the judges appointed non-arbitrarily for judging certain causes of interest and obtaining favorable court decisions to one of the parties, belonging to interest groups of which judges and magistrates belong. Compared to the circumstance that the Judicial Inspection has embraced the result of the "verifications" that the only magistrates have carried out in the management of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and which they have "performed" with the non-observance of the law themselves, we cannot accept the lack of coordination of certain intelligence officers, lawyers, judges at several public institutions, (including at the courts, judges, court and courts of appeal, see chapter 2.2.13 2.2.11 failure to comply with the law by the
Page 29 of 152
Superior Council of Magistracy and Inspection Judicial and chapter 2.5. Romanian Intelligence Service). Evidence no. 4 Documents and examples that show that magistrates with management and execution functions within the ICCJ have distributed and received cases in a directed manner, meaning that they were introduced in the ECRIS application in a preferential order over the order of the cases entering the court, in the order appropriate when ECRIS was going to distribute the cause of sensitive preferred, with the result of maintaining the law and property fraud, validation through court decisions of abuses of the courts, in the courts and courts of appeal Thus, the ICCJ, the second civil-commercial section, approved 38 requests for relocation of the undersigned before 2012, in the dispute between the undersigned, significant shareholder, and the directors of Farmec SA, regarding their frauds. Courts in the country annulled Farmec judgments in 86% of cases. The judgments of the courts created dissatisfaction with the interest groups, which improvised the solutions so that the judgments and the JUSTICE from ROMANIA will continue to be favorable to them. 1. Although the Second Civil Section of the ICCJ has the competence regarding the resolution of the requests for relocation of some commercial causes, completely outside the procedure a "report" was prepared, pretext after which a number of four relocation requests were addressed manually to section I. Three applications for relocation of the case 3414/1285/2011 were formulated by the undersigned and were rejected, and the fourth request for the relocation of the same case was made by Farmec SA, for no reason, and was admitted. The applications were distributed to the courts composed of judges Tarcea Livia and Voicheci Eugenia. Magistrate Tarcea Livia was promoted president of the ICCJ, and magistrate Voicheci Eugenia promoted the president of the second civil section of the ICCJ.
Judge Oros Voichita from the Cluj Specialized Court received from Farmec SA, the amount of 10,000 lei, after which he was assigned to judge the case 3414/1285/2011 in relation to which he rejected the evidence with writings requested by the applicant. After publicly disclosing this circumstance, Farmec submitted to the ICCJ a request for the same cause to be relocated in respect of which the undersigned previously I had submitted three other applications mentioned above, which were rejected, but this time the request for no reason, the opposing parties, for the relocation of the case, was sent by the ICCJ, with dedication, to the Arges Specialized Tribunal, the trial no. 4. From the perspective of the above considerations, I justify the suspicion that the removal of the civil file 3414/1285/2011 from the Cluj Specialized Court, in the jurisdiction of the Pitesti Court of Appeal, on 29.04.2015, by the judicial panel composed of the magistrates VOICHECI EUGENIA, MARIAN BUDA, CONSTANTIN BRÂNZAN, was performed with the result, as in the file Arges Specialized Court newly notified of the magistrates mentioned above, to reject the requests for evidence, to remove the evidence with the expertise that was being finalized regarding the discharge of management, to make favorable judgments to the company directors on actions that have repeatedly infringed the law and the property with the violation of the right to a fair trial and the right of property, the file being sent to court in Piteşti courts, which ignored their own decisions that have they were given in the file, they followed the validation at the file of an expertise that was drawn up without the accounting documents that were requested by the experts, they tolerated not being brought to the file the records that were approved as evidence in the case, rejected the action that the court that judged the merits was partially admitted, they rejected the appeal completely, including the illegality found by the first court and forced the undersigned to pay expert fees, exceeding 20,000 euros.
Sentence no 195 / 14.07.2017 of the Arges Specialized Court and decision no. 1329 / 14.11.2017 of the Pitesti Court of Appeal are contradictory with the sentence no 695 / 31.10.2018 of the Constanta Court and the decision no 542 / 04.11.2019 of the Constanta Court of Appeal given in the file no. 1514/1285/2012 which highlights that the defendant company Farmec did not present in the quorum proof the inscriptions provided in the Law ordered by the court and which were requested by experts. Excerpt sentence 695 / 31.10.2018 of the Constanta Court in file 1514/1285/2012, according to the extract: "... as already stated, the deliberate action of the members of the board of directors (of not keeping the register of actions, of not completing , according to the legal requirements, the headings of the shareholders register, not to keep the analytical accounting of the social capital accounts) determined, essentially, the impossibility of establishing certain participation in the share capital, It gave the reference date established by the convener and generated the insecurity of the procedure of expressing and centralizing the shareholders' vote. "
Page 30 of 152
File no. 1757/1/2017, the request for relocation annexed to sample 4, was distributed to the ICCJ to the panel composed of the magistrates Voicheci Eugenia, Buda Marian, Constantin Branzan with the non-observance of the provisions stipulated in art. 83 and 93 of the Decision of the SCM 387/2005 and art. 11 and 139 of the law 304/2004, from the perspective of the fact that the ICCJ did not prove with documents as a result of the petitioners of the undersigned, regarding the date of entry and introduction of the file in the ECRIS system on the same day with the date of entering the court of the four applications for removal mentioned above. Evidence no. 4 documents.
The fifth request for the relocation of the same cause for different reasons was distributed on 15.06.2017 also to the panel composed of Mrs. Voicheci Eugenia, Marian Buda, Constantin Branzan, Evidence no. 4 Mrs. Voicheci Eugenia was promoted to president of the civil-commercial section II, and subsequently the relocation requests of the undersigned were redirected to this section, with the result of the introduction in the ECRIS application in a preferential order, with the distribution of the causes to certain panels composed of preferred judges, the refusal of the communications of the writings requested in probation and the rejection of the relocation requests.
3. In 2019, the applications for the relocation of appeals in files 1021 and 442/1285/2018 from the Cluj Court of Appeal, evidence no. 4, were sent with the non-observance of the law regarding the random distribution, the panels composed of magistrates George Florescu, Rodica Dorin, Minodora Condoiu and Virginia Dumineca, Monica Duta, Roxana Popa with the result of rejecting the applications. The ICCJ violated the law of art. 8 of Ordinance 27/2002 in the context in which it did not respond to the requests of the undersigned from the applications dated 11.01 and 28.01.2019, attached to the sample no. 4 in which we requested proof with inscriptions regarding the order of introduction in ECRIS. On 05.05.2019 I sent by email at 11.47 am two requests for relocation (trial no. 4) of civil cases 271/33/2019 and 307/33/2019 from the Cluj Court of Appeal to another court of appeal in Romania. The applications have been distributed again, following the same procedure, to the judicial panel no. C3 composed of judges Marian Buda, Cornea Maria Speranta, Mirela Politeanu. Mr. Buda Marian was panel colleague with Mrs. Voicheci Eugenia - the president of the section. Although the relocation requests were sent within the same minute, they received hearings after three months (?!?!). At the hearing of June 4, 2019 in file 1425/1/2019, the court composed of Judge Buda Marian, Cornea Maria Speranta, Mirela Politeanu, ordered the suspension of the trial at the Cluj Court of Appeal in case 271/33/2019, appeal in annulment, until at the settlement of the relocation request and set a hearing of 19.09.2019 for the relocation judgment. On 06.06.2019 at the Brasov Court, Brehar Claudiu, who bears the same name with a judge from the ICCJ, one of the lawyers who received from Farmec SA over 3,200,000 lei, the equivalent of 750,000 euros, he informed me that in case 1425/1/2019 I will not benefit from the solution of temporarily suspending the judgment at the Court of Appeal, because I benefited from a favorable situation, but, the final settlement will be seen and he was right. As a result: At the hearing of 19.09.2019, the above mentioned panel rejected the request for relocation in file 1425/1/2019. The lawyer sent me, in advance, the security that he had regarding the decision to be given in the relocation file, an aspect materialized in the decision from the file 1424/1/2019 that had a hearing on the second day on 13.06.2019 at the panel composed of Dumineca Virginia, Duta Monica and Popa Roxana. The same panel also received the request for the relocation of the appeal in file 3263/1/2018 and rejected on 13.01.2019 the request for relocation of the file no. 442/1285/2017 of the Cluj Court of Appeal.
Because the lawyer Brehar C. communicated to me, in the above manner, the certainty of the court decision that was to be pronounced at the ICCJ at the panel presided over by the magistrate Dumineca (on 13.06.2019), but also information provided by the panel composed by the judges Buda Marian, Cornea Speranta, Politeanu Mirela regarding the final decision, these aspects have configured me the image of some extrajudicial discussions and contacts with judges from the courts. As a consequence, I understood that I was requesting the postponement of the trial period so that in the meantime the High Court of Cassation and Justice would communicate to me the writings that I had previously requested in probation regarding the order of the introduction in the ECRIS application of the cases that day. Although I requested the probation papers of Mrs. Voicheci Eugenia, the president of the civil section, she refused to comply with the law, to send me the requested writings in probation, to offer transparency, to provide confidence to the justice in the civil trial at the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania. Although the supporting documents were not found in the
Page 31 of 152
file we requested and which shows the order of the ECRIS filing of cases, the panel retained on 13.06.2019 that there was a random distribution. Evidence no. 4 applications and addresses received, conclusion.
Because the court rejected the request for the adjournment of the trial for the ICCJ to prove with documents the evidence of the proper introduction in the ECRIS application of the cases, I understood to recuse the panel. Obviously, the reasons in the request for recusal attached to evidence no. 4 were rejected with great speed and ease at the hearing by Dumineca Virginia, Monica Duta, Roxana Popa, and further the panel presided over by Mrs. Dumineca no longer set a new hearing, awaiting the judgment and rejecting the CANCELLATION APPLICATION from date 17.10.2019 in file 271/33/2019 at the Cluj Court of Appeal and set a hearing on 12.12.2019 for the relocation request that remained thus, at that time, without object, "omitting" even the request for suspension of judgment.
The applications for recusal in files 1424/1/2019 and 1390/1/2019 of the C7 trial panel presided over by Judge Dumineca Virginia were judged and rejected by the panel presided over by Mrs. Voicheci Eugenia, the president of the civil section; in the context in which Judge Voicheci, with the non-observance of the law, art. 8 of Ordinance 27, did not respond to the requests of the undersigned and did not communicate the writings requested by the petitioner regarding the proof of the random assignment with the requested writings, I consider that the judge violated the simulated art. 42 point 13) and art. 43 of the Code of civil procedure, because it should have been abstained, being administratively involved in the distribution of cases as section president, with the suspicion of non-compliance with the law, with the result of the distribution of the cause of certain magistrates who rejected the relocation requests. Moreover, after 01.10.2019, the date of the judgment of the appeal request, it was expected to be judged on 17.10.2019 with the solution of rejecting the appeal at the Cluj Court of Appeal, the annulment contest whose cancellation was requested and the judgment of the request fixed for 12.12.2019 . At this hearing fixed with delay was followed only the payment note of the petitioner with the amount of 7100 lei correspondingly honorary lawyers, in the context in which the request for relocation was left without object, through the care of the judges from the ICCJ, and the ICCJ practice to reject attorneys' fees according to the relocation requests. 5. Another example: Trandafir Fanel said Cimino, on behalf of the Legume-Fructe company based in Craiova, made a request for relocation, annex to evidence no.4, of file 6699/63/2015 * from the Craiova Court of Appeal which was the subject of file no. 1117/1/2019 at the ICCJ Civil Division II. In the same file ALIA SA has also formulated a connection request to the above mentioned relocation request. The request for relocation of Legume-Fructe SA was distributed to the C7 trial panel composed of the magistrates Dumineca Virginia, Ruxandra Monica and Roxana Popa, who rejected the request of ALIA SA to connect to the request for the relocation of the defendant, although both parties requested to relocate the case from Craiova Court of Appeal. Subsequently, the ICCJ rejected the relocation request of Legume-Fructe SA and submitted to the registry the request of ALIA SA for relocation, with a view to random distribution.
Subsequently, Trandafir Fanel said Cimino benefited from the distribution at the same panel made up of the judges of Dumineca Virginia, Ruxandra Monica and Roxana Popa, of the relocation request that was made by ALIA SA, which was the subject of the file 1390/1/2019. At the hearing of 13.06.2019, I requested the adjournment of the trial for the ICCJ to communicate my evidence with documents as a result of the request of ALIA SA, regarding the order of the introduction of ECRIS cases on 16.05.2019, a circumstance that contributes
Page 32 of 152
to the random distribution. The judges rejected the postponement request and held that the case was randomly distributed without the evidence being found in the file. In this context, we have formulated a request for an appeal, which, although it was rejected on 17.09.2019, no new hearing has been set in the file, because the appeal was expected on 12.11.2019 of the appeal - at the merits of the case. -, after which a new hearing was set on 29.11.2019, the date when it was already known that the request for relocation became devoid of purpose because the appeal of ALIA SA had already been tried and rejected at the Craiova Court of Appeal, to which I had requested the relocation to another Court of Appeal.
The rejection by the panel Virginia Dumineca, Ruxandra Monica and Roxana Popa of the request for connection of the petition ALIA SA, coincided with the rejection of both requests for relocation, although both parts of the file, officially, requested the relocation. The fact that the company Legume-Fructe SA opposed the relocation requested by ALIA SA, highlights the formal character of the relocation request, in reality without evidence of legitimate suspicion, but only to create the appearance that in the trial of the Craiova Court of Appeal it did not benefit from a SIMULATED trial, following the coordination of the order of introduction in the ECRIS application of the cases so that the file 6699/63/2015 * will be distributed to the panel formed by the magistrates Ciolofan Alina and Osiceanu Ionica, similar to the ICCJ procedure.
The "random" distribution to the ICCJ to the panel randomly formed by the Dumineca Virginia, Ruxandra Monica and Popa Roxana magistrates of several causes of interest for groups of which they are part and information officers, was done by the executing persons and by the ICCJ leadership and not excludes a coordination at the level of the ICCJ, but also at the courts in Bucharest and in the country, regarding the pronouncement of judgments favorable to the people who have violated the Law and the public and private property. Thus, to the above mentioned panel set were randomly assigned the following: - The request for relocation from the Cluj Court of Appeal of the appeal in file 1021/1285/2016 was the subject of file 104/1/2019 at the ICCJ and was rejected at the hearing of 29.01.2019. - the request for the relocation of the appeal for annulment from the Cluj Court of Appeal of the file 271/33/2019, which received a hearing only after the judgment of the case that was to be relocated from Cluj and thus remained without object. Although the appeal request was resolved on 01.10.2019, the court did not set an urgent hearing for the suspension of the trial. - the request for a formal relocation made by the so-called Trandafir Fanel said Cimino, annexed to evidence 4 in the file 1117/1/2019, had the role to create only the appearance that at the Craiova Court of Appeal it would not benefit from the support of the President of the Court and of the magistrates who have received cause. The solution was rejected, both at the Craiova Court of Appeal and at the ICCJ. - ALIA SA's request for the connection of the two relocation applications was unjustifiably rejected, although both official parties demanded the relocation of the case to another court of appeal - the request for the relocation of the company ALIA SA of the case 6699/63/2015 * from the Craiova Court of Appeal received hearing at the ICCJ in file 1390/1/2019 on 29.11.2019, after the date of 12.11.2019 when the cause was judged at the Dolj Court of Appeal, and the request for relocation was left without object. - The Judicial Inspection has asked the ICCJ to carry out its own verification regarding the detected slips that cause obvious abuses of the Romanian justice (being obvious that such self-control always have as consequence results lacking any relevance and confirming the "legality and correctness" of all of verified documents).
6. The same (identical) case received three different complexity figures at the Bucharest Court of Appeal and at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. Thus, the ICCJ granted in the criminal file 8166/2/2018 the complexity number 29 while the Bucharest Court of Appeal granted the complexity number 7 in the same file 8166/2/2019 and the complexity number 20 in the
Page 33 of 152
file 8247/2/2018 for the same type of application that has a complaint against the prosecutor's order, with the result that the file will be distributed to the panel no. S1C17, which rejected the undersigned's complaint, ignoring the legal reasons regarding the National Anticorruption Directorate refusal to investigate the abuse in office of the prosecutor Lancranjan Alexandra.
The distribution of the case at the panel no. C18 composed of the judge Nenita Simona Cristina with the result of rejecting the complaint. The ICCJ refused to notify me the requested documents in probation for proving the order of introduction in ECRIS of cases, including case 8166/2/2018 and extracts from ECRIS application, the only evidence in probation that contributes to proving compliance with the law regarding the random distribution of the case. - I attach the request of the undersigned in file 8166 under art. 8 of the Ordinance 27/2002 and the ICCJ notification dated 19.04.2019, which refused the communication of the inscriptions. 7. The "random" distribution from the ICCJ coincided with the distribution of the case 3060/2/2007 which has parties Colgate Palmolive Romania SRL and the Competition Council at the panel composed of the magistrates Vartires Dana Iarina, Bratu Camelia, Denes Adrian, Vartires judge being a member at that date of the American Chamber of Commerce in Romania (Body that clearly supports the interests of American investors in Romania), with the result of a rejection court ruling, favorable to Colgate Palmolive, in the context in which the Bucharest Court of Appeal previously ruled, in the same case , a solution of unfavorable admission to the company Colgate Palmolive - evidence records no. 4
8. The “random” distribution from the ICCJ of the civil case 27411/2/2005 in May 2014 to the judicial panel composed of magistrates Duican Doina, Voicu Rodica Florica and Paun Luiza Maria. The parties of the file are the Competition Council, Colgate Palmolive and the subscribed Prestige, the object being the reopening of the investigation for the fulfillment of the judgments given previously. Voicu Daniel is the husband of a female judge from the trial court, and the Voicu & Filipescu SCA Bar was designated "the team of the year in competition law" and is a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Romania, together with lawyer Tuca Florentin, a lawyer in the file and Colgate Palmolive, a member of Amcham. Obviously, the court decision was rejected. The ICCJ did not communicate to me the proof of the distribution of the case at the panel 1, requests and documents attached to the evidence no 4.
2.2.5 Preferred judges and prosecutors, collaborators, partners of some officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service constantly offer their support to hijack the purpose of ECRIS and to defeat the principle of randomly distributing the files and impartial setting up of the judgment panels. The independence and impartiality of the judges are vitiated / dominated by organized groups that, within the courts of justice, violate the law on the random distribution of files and the continuity of the magistrate, resulting in the distribution of the cases of judges who do not judge them in the name of the law, but in the interest of some persons with the power of influence in the judicial system, with the consequence of the non- recovery of the damages as a result of pronouncing court judgments favorable to the party who has defrauded the property. Institutionally organized groups direct the files of interest to some judgment panels composed of judges preferred by one of the parties or officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service, with the intention and the result of obtaining the desired judicial decision. Independence and impartiality are vitiated as a result of the fact that favorite judges and prosecutors, to whom certain files are "distributed" for solving, are collaborators, partners of some officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service and implicitly of the persons
Page 34 of 152
from the interest groups that call for their servicces, and the judicial solutions are severely influenced by a distribution directed to these judges of the causes of interest, possibly accompanied by the judicial decision that must be formally pronounced in the case. Moreover, thousands of judges were intercepted and listened to by the officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service, without a criminal prosecution file, and the information was obscured and had the impact of issuing court judgments, in files of interest. , generalized practice in violation of the imperative provision of art. 2 paragraph 4 of Law no. 303/2004, which states that: "any person, organization, authority or institution is obliged to respect the independence of judges”. The Superior Council of Magistracy, in a press release, announced that on June 26, 2019 the Commission "Legislation and inter-institutional cooperation" decided to notify the president of the Council with the proposal to start requests to the Romanian Intelligence Service and the General Prosecutor's Office near the High Court of Cassation and Justice for declassifying the 19 annexes of the Report of the Judicial Inspection regarding the protocol concluded in 2009 between the Romanian Intelligence Service and the Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation, and, on June 27, 2019, the president of the Superior Council of Magistracy, as a result of the requests of some members of the Council, as well as of the National Union of Judges in Romania, the Association of Magistrates of Romania and the mass-media submitted a request to the Romanian Intelligence Service and the General Prosecutor's Office for the declassification of the annexes of the Judicial Inspection Report in order to clarify the various statements regarding existing the entrance of some magistrates (prosecutors and judges) collaborating with the Romanian Intelligence Service. Intimidation, pressure and possible blackmail on some prosecutors and judges, actions exercised by opening criminal investigations and keeping in criminal proceedings filed against some magistrates. The Judicial Inspection of the Superior Council of Magistracy, in connection with the thematic control regarding the observance of the general principles governing the activity of the judicial authority in the cases of competence of the National Anticorruption Directorate regarding magistrates or in connection with them, through a press release, made the following details regarding the data transmitted by the National Anticorruption Directorate on 24.08.2018: - between 01.01.2014 - 30.07.2018, the National Anticorruption Directorate solved a number of 1,965 cases regarding 3420 magistrates (2,193 judges and 1,227 prosecutors) - on 30.07.2018, at the National Anticorruption Directorate a number of 415 cases were pending for 475 judges and 346 prosecutors The fact that the National Anticorruption Directorate and the Judicial Inspection did not disclose how many of these criminal investigations were started on the basis of actual evidence, what the average length of time was required for each criminal investigation, if evidence was administered during the criminal prosecution, as well as how many acts of notification of the courts were drafted against the magistrates, creates the suspicion and the justified question if these judicial activities did not have, in real plan, the control of some interest groups on the professional activity of some magistrates judges and prosecutors, and
Page 35 of 152
not the investigation of real corruption facts or assimilated to them. The order signed by Mrs. Laura Codruta Kovesi, the former chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, was made public in March 2019, and, for public opinion, served as a secret document. The only objective pursued was to create a pressure instrument, which led to the establishment, within the the National Anticorruption Directorate, of a section for the investigation of magistrates, which was of repressive type, resulting in serious damage to the independence of judges and prosecutors, at the same time with the protection of anti-corruption prosecutors from the National Anticorruption Directorate, on the principle "crow to crow does not remove its eyes”. At the end of last year, at high speed, the traces could be covered by ranking one third of these files, some of them over 5 years old, including during the time when the files should have been sent to the newly established crime investigation department from justice, to which only about 1,400 cases were transmitted in connection with prosecutors and judges who started with National Anticorruption Directorate. It is obvious to everyone that at least that third, representing over 1000 files on magistrates, which have been classified, is evidence of a massive operation of intimidation of judges and prosecutors. Sursa: http://www.corectnews.com/politics/capcan-pentru-judec-tori-i-procurori 2.2.6 The law protects from the criminal and civil (material) liability those judges, clerks and informants, who do not comply with the rules regarding the random distribution of the files, limiting to simple disciplinary violations these violations of law, and thus, implicitly, they protect the practices of the persons who violate the law and property. This protection is wanted by magistrates and politicians, because, even in the conditions of recent changes brought to Law no. 303/2004, the provisions of art. 99 point o) of this normative act limits the possibilities of sanctioning the violation of the regulations regarding the random distribution of cases, framing these serious facts, which may influence the act of justice in favor of a party in an organized group of interests, in the category of some simple disciplinary violations, which can be found and sanctioned only by the Judicial Inspection within the SCM, whose vocation / habit and practice is to classify the received notifications regarding the violation of the law. The law protects the judges on attracting criminal liability for the act of abuse in the service provided in art. 297 of the Criminal code in cases in which the legal norms regarding the random distribution of cases are violated, or, in the absence of a criminal and civil sanction, it is allowed to deliberately divert the meaning of a judicial process from its origin, respectively the document of referral to the court. Thus, the fact that the non-observance of the provisions of the law regarding the random distribution of the files constitutes only a disciplinary deviation of the judges, on the one hand, creates the possibility to disguise / formalize possible facts based on a financial interest and determines acts of corruption within organized groups. , consisting of computer scientists, clerks, judges, presidents of sections and courts and former or current officers of the information services, persons who violate the law and property, and, on the other hand, prefigure the institutional framework of SIMULATED TRIALS, but guaranteed by the groups organized by persons belonging to the professional categories mentioned above.
Page 36 of 152
In relation to this state of law and the numerous factual situations in which the norms that obligate the random distribution of the files, throughout the judicial process, were not respected, I consider that it is necessary to remove the provisions provided in art. 99 pt. O) of Law 303/2004, as well as, on the one hand, the assurance of the precise legal framework regarding the procedure of random distribution of cases, and, on the other hand, in case of non-observance of these norms, the adoption of legal provisions as well as precise for attracting the criminal liability provided in art. 297 of the Penal code, the act of abuse in the service, because the random distribution represents the security measure of the litigant, which, delimits the Equitable Trial by SIMULATING the Trial, the latter representing a practice in Romania. Evidence no. 5 highlights, on the one hand, information, notifications, requests for evidence, criminal complaints to the National Anticorruption Directorate and to other Prosecutor's Offices, criminal cases that were intentionally held in default in order to maintain and promote fraud and persons who have participated in their realization, as well as to avoid the possibility of recovering significant damages caused to the state budget and private heritage, and, on the other hand, notifications, complaints, denunciations and evidence regarding possible related facts or assimilated to corruption committed by officials public and even magistrates, which were sent to the National Anticorruption Directorate - Central structure and which were not registered as files with indicative number "P", so as not to carry out criminal investigations, as well as information and examples on criminal cases not registered voluntarily with indicative "P" or kept in non-working at the National Anti- corruption Directorate, including delaying the big files and adopting solutions without carrying out any act of criminal prosecution: http://coruptie-functionaripublici-ofiteri-farmec-consiliulconcurentei.ro/wp/capitolul- 5/#cap5.8.3: Examples of criminal cases at the prosecutor's offices and kept inactive for not being solved: (1) The National Anticorruption Directorate, for a period of several years, did not give a number with "P" sign, to several notifications, with the intention and the result of protecting the persons who have defrauded the property, of not carrying out criminal investigations, ignoring the facts and the evidence presented including in reports of the Court of Accounts or in the notifications of the General Anti-corruption Directorate of the Ministry of Interior registered with no. 780549 / 30.03.2016, but also the notifications or complaints of the undersigned, which we registered during 2016-2018 and which were aimed at possible acts of corruption, abuse of service in order to obtain useful materials unfair to themselves or for others or to favor the perpetrator, facts of some prosecutors / judges and civil servants, protected by the system and officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service, but either they were not registered as files with indicative "P" in order not to carry out a criminal investigation, either the criminal prosecution did not begun or the formal investigations have begun, but no specific and compulsory activities have been carried out in a criminal investigation. (i) Criminal file no. 418 / P / 2018 was registered with the National Anticorruption Directorate in the record of the criminal cases with indicative "P", only after three years since the submission of the notification of the undersigned regarding facts of the competence of National Anticorruption Directorate committed by public officials, police and prosecutor Lăncrănjan Alexandra Carmen, who, in the period in which she was a prosecutor at the Prosecutor's Office attached to the District Court 2 and delegated to the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest Court, although, following the requests to complete the file with the evidence (thousands of documents) that were on file and disappeared , had the representation that an incomplete criminal prosecution was carried out, in violation of the law, pronounced the classification solution in the file no. 3164 / P / 2012 of the Prosecutor's Office next to the Bucharest Tribunal, by order dated 13.01.2015. Prosecutor Beldie Mihaela from the National Anti-Corruption Directorate, a friend and, at present, a colleague within the same section with Lancranjan Alexandra Carmen, expressed interest and sought to favor her, because: - kept the undersigned notifying the defendant and 5 days after its registration as a criminal file with “P” sign, by ordinance of 16.07.2018, ordered the commencement of the criminal prosecution “in rem, only for the offense of abuse in service,“ if the official the public has obtained for himself or for another an undue use ”, prev. and ped. of art. 297 paragraph (1) of the Penal Code., associated to art. 13/2 of the Law no.78 / 2000,
Page 37 of 152
exclusively in terms of the fact of the Lancranjan prosecutor Alexandra Carmen, to adopt the classification solution by the ordinance of 13.01.2015. - did not carry out any criminal prosecution document regarding the offense of abuse in service contained in the ordinance of 16.07.2018, and, after a month of days, by the ordinance of 21.08.2018, adopted the solution of classifying the case, ignoring the evidence that we had attached to the notification and by subsequent requests, but also without taking into consideration and carrying out research regarding the other criminal facts that we have notified, namely the act of abuse in service of the civil servants who participated in tax evasion activities by restoring excise duties for 10 years, without the economic agent presenting the documents stipulated in the law regarding the actual consumption in the manufacture, acts of misappropriation, fraudulent management, favor of the perpetrator, as well as acts of corruption arising from suspected fictitious services. More seriously, prosecutor Beldie Mihaela and the chief prosecutor of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate section Bulancea Marius classified the file by means of ordinances issued after the date of 23.07.2018, the date when Law 207/2018 for the modification of Law 304/2004 came into force and regulated the establishment of the Section special for the investigation of crimes in Justice, only because it was intended that this section should not investigate the facts of the prosecutor Lăncrănjan Alexandra Carmen, who were confined to the crime of abuse in service, provided by art. 297 of the Penal Code. (ii) Criminal files concerning the activity of the President of the Competition Council, Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, for example no.500 / P / 2013, no.73 / P / 2012 and a file from 2017, which are kept in non- processing, under the conditions where, within one of these files, the criminal investigation “in rem”, respectively regarding the investigated criminal act, was started and the way in which a number of companies, including Teamnet International and Siveco, are investigated by the Competition Council, and the National Anti- Corruption Directorate prosecutors also carried out searches at the headquarters of this institution, in the office of President Bogdan Chiritoiu, as well as in the office of the Director of the Bidding Department, following the identification and collection of documents related to the Teamnet consortium - SIVECO (company belonging to the criminally convicted businessman Irina Socol). The National Anti-Corruption Directorate investigation aimed at the question "why the Competition Council has been investigating for 4 years the involvement of the consortium in an IT auction worth 12 million euros, which took place in APIA (Agriculture Payments and Intervention Agency) in 2008?", and the investigation and the links between Irina Socol and Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, following some allegations made by the owner of the company SIVECO, what are the reasons of interest that contribute to the commencement of criminal investigations in force and then, until now, to the keeping of cases in non-work? https://evz.ro/actiune-dna-nume-gareu.html ; https://www.luju.ro/magistrati/dna/descindere-la-consiliul- concurentei-procurorii-dna-au-navalit-la-biroul-presedintelui-bogdan-chiritoiu-pentru-a-ridica-documente- legate-de-investigatiile-consiliului-concurentei-despre-licitatia-teamnet-siveco-apia-functionari-din-consiliu-au- sesizat-guve (iii) The criminal file concerning frauds produced by the group of companies "Murfatlar" / Euroavipo, opened by the National Anticorruption Directorate for several years and not completed so far, although, at the time of the initiation of the investigation, it was publicly announced that "During 2010-2014, four companies with activity of production and sale of alcoholic beverages, owned or controlled by Ivănescu George, Bucura Cătălin and others, produced a total damage of 597,218,168.76 lei (approximately 132 million euros) to the state budget by subtracting from payment of tax obligations. The criminal activity was carried out under the conditions in which the civil servants from the competent fiscal and customs authorities either did not perform the acts to which they were obliged by the duties of the service, or they performed such defective acts ”, being suspected five senior officials within the ANAF-National Agency of Fiscal Administration of acts of abuse in service by which they supported the "Murfatlar" group to avoid paying debts to the state budget. http://cetateanul.net/articol-principal/legaturile-ministrului-ionut-misa-cu-grupul-murfatlar-care-a-pagubit- statul-cu-600-de-milioane-de-lei/ https://octavpelin.wordpress.com/2017/07/06/sahul-pentru-toti-legaturile-lui-ionut-misa-cu- evaziunea-de-la-murflatar/ LEGATURILE LUI IONUT MISA CU EVAZIUNEA DE LA MURFLATAR!
Page 38 of 152
Ionuț Mișa left in 2013 from the management of Finance in Constanța and reached a position that is also related to the verification of Murfatlar Romania business. On February 13, 2013, Mișa became general director at the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, where he had responsibilities regarding the coordination and organization of the fiscal control activity and the fiscal administration activity. At the National Anticorruption Directorate, the Murfatlar file was not in operation, although the National Anticorruption Directorate prosecutors declared that: "the facts of the Murfatlar bosses would have been carried out under the conditions in which the civil servants from the competent fiscal and customs authorities either did not fulfill the acts to which they were obliged by the attributions of service. , or they have performed such defective acts ”, so they protect fraud and people: https://romanialibera.ro/investigatii/esecul-murfatlar-dosarul-dna-desfiintat-partial-de-judecatori- 701200
(2) Similarly, other prosecutor's offices have proceded, such as the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Cluj County Court, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Pitesti Court, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the District Court of Bucharest 2, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Buftea Court, where the criminal files are I keep for long periods of time, even after the commencement of the criminal investigation "in rem", in violation of art. 5 paragraph 1, art. 99 and art. 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the obligation of the criminal investigation bodies to administer the evidence necessary to find out the truth regarding all the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as on the person of the suspects or the defendants, within a reasonable time, is not fulfilled, in order to respect the right to a fair trial. For example: (i) In the file no, 297 / P / 2016 of the Prosecutor's Office next to the Cluj Tribunal, by the ordinance dated 16.06.2016, "it was ordered to start the criminal prosecution" in rem "(for the deed) for the tax evasion offenses, provided by article 9 paragraph 1 letter b and c of Law no. 241/2005 and abuse in service, provided by article 297 paragraph 1 of the Penal Code, with application of article 5 C.pen. ", Retaining my quality of the injured person, and, by the ordinance of 07.12.2017 it was ordered "Extension of the criminal prosecution regarding the commission of the offenses of money laundering – provided by art. 29 paragraph (1) letter (a) and (c) of Law 656/2002, respectively, the delapidation - provided by article 295 paragraph (1) PC. " and fraudulent management However, for more than three years, it was not ordered to continue the criminal prosecution of any of the persons who committed the acts of tax evasion, abuse in office, money laundering and delapidation, I was not called for hearings and for the exercise of the trial rights of the injured person, delaying the criminal prosecution in a permissible way, with the consequence of favoring the persons concerned by the criminal investigation and of the continuation of the fraudulent activities similar to the facts that form the object of the criminal prosecution. (ii) In the file no. 3680 / P / 2017 of the Prosecutor's Office next to the Pitesti Court, instrumented by the Pitesti Police, by the ordinance with the same number dated 29.06.2017 "the criminal prosecution regarding the commission of the offense provided for in article 273 paragraph 2 C. of the Penal Code was ordered ", respectively for the crime of lying testimony committed by the experts Pintea Mirela, Vulpoi Marcel and Culda Ioan by drawing up the expert report in the file no. 3414/1285/2011 in the role of the Arges Specialized Court. In this case I was heard as an injured person, I made a request for the administration of the evidence with records, admitted by the prosecutor's order dated 08.11.2017, which, however, was not brought to fulfillment by the criminal prosecution body, and , following the complaint regarding this violation of the criminal procedural rules, the prosecutor issued the ordinance from 06.03.2018 rejecting it as unfounded, "with the mention that the urgency of solving the case will be considered in relation to the reasons invoked". However, not only was the "urgency of resolving the case "not taken into account, but I was not aware that the requested evidence had been administered to the file and that it was approved by the prosecutor's ordinance and that no criminal prosecution had been ordered against the persons who committed the crime of lying testimony by drawing up an expert report in the conditions of not presenting all the documents requested Page 39 of 152
by experts, a report that was the basis for the adoption of a final illegal and non-judicial decision, with the consequence of perpetuating the undersigned interests and the patrimonial prejudice. (iii) The prosecutor's office next to the Buftea and Ilfov police station kept not processed the criminal file no. 4354 / P / 2009 having as object: - the criminal notification of the Financial Guard - the General Commissariat, regarding the activity of SC Artima SA which, after the merger by absorption by Carrefour Romania SA, recorded in the account a number of 126 invoices for products that were delivered by the subscribed Prestige Trading and which , on the occasion of the control of the Financial Guard, they were not recognized as being registered in accounting by Artima SA - after the merger with Carrefour Romania SA -, with the willful result of the non-payment of the invoices and the elimination from the contract of the Prestige Trading company, although the subscriber paid previously shelf fees and to sell the products in the Carrefour and Artima stores (became after the Carrefour Expres merger) in value exceeding the equivalent of 600,000 Euros, for a number of approximately 170 products. - the criminal complaint dated 19.04.2010 made by the subscribed Prestige Trading regarding the same state of affairs Regarding both complaints, the criminal investigation was not carried out in the file, I did not received any solution nor any communication so far, but only the police warning that Carrefour company is a powerful company and I understand that I should give up the complaint , which highlights that the file has been in the works for a period of 10 years in favor of Carrefour company which merged by absorption with Artima SA, (iv) Criminal file no. 12052 / P / 2016 of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the District Court 2 of Bucharest, located at the Directorate of Economic Crime Investigations (DICE) within the IGPR – has been in the process of not working for three years, a circumstance that favors those who have violated the law and property. In the file I was not heard, but in reality, the criminal facts have not been under investigation for ten years, in the context in which the aforementioned file was disjointed from the file 14382 / P / 2010 of the same prosecutor's office, under the supervision of the same prosecutor, as it results from the Ordinance dated 19.10.2016, by which the prosecutor Petrescu Adrian ordered the dismantling and sending of a part of the file to the IGPR, specifying also the facts to be investigated, namely the falsification of the shareholders' payments and the shareholder situation, File Expertise Report 3164 / P / 2012 inappropriate, falsification of special powers of attorney, use in the GMS of some situations regarding the payments and the registers of the forged shareholders, complaints from 2011 registered under no. 433 / P / 2011, the complaint registered under no. 13137 / P / 2011 from 09.09.2011, complaints from 2008-2011 registered under no. 1441 / P / 2011. The police and the Prosecutor's Office notified me the classification order dated 19.06.2019 without being heard and without administering the evidence in the file, and this situation regarding the non-processing of the above mentioned criminal file does not exclude a certain causal link between the non-compliance with the law by the policemen within the Directorate of Investigation of Economic Crime and their promotion in management positions in the structures of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Public Finance - the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, considering that the classified criminal file aims, among others, violations of the law by civil servants within National Agency for Fiscal Administration, who favored the practice of fraud with excisable products, the persons who have defrauded and the recovery of damages. Moreover, it is certain that, while the file no. 3164 / P / 2012 is under investigation at the Directorate of Investigation of Economic Crime, thousands of evidence disappeared in that file supervised by the prosecutor Lancranjan Alexandra, and these evidence were not brought to the file, the police officers Dobre Aurel, Popescu Alexandru and Ciongaru Catalin, as well as the prosecutor Lancranjan Alexandra, the case prosecutor, deliberately ignored the repeated notifications and the request to complete the file. (v) criminal file no. 10384/63/2017 / a2, which was returned to the Prosecutor's Office next to the Dolj Court, after the judge canceled evidence and had not been processed on this prosecutor's office for over a year, and the first prosecutor replaced the case prosecutor with another prosecutor , the same situation of non-processing being stated in another file at the Prosecutor's Office near the Olt Court and aiming the son of Trandafir Fanel said Cimino, in the conditions in which, it aims similar acts committed in the criminal group organized by facts of violence and aggression against security agents. The owner of the security company Safety Security from Caracal, Remus, mentioned on a TV station “that the police had intervened 57 minutes after the call to 112, an excessive time, and the evidence disappeared during Page 40 of 152
this period.” . Source: adev.ro/pq770k https://adevarul.ro/locale/slatina/filmul-bataii-sabii-membrii-clanului-cimino-agentii-paza-unui-club-caracal- Seful-politiei-caracal-cercetat-disciplinar-1_5cb968e9445219c57eb5c4f7/index.html (vi) Judicial Inspection Report no. 5488 / IJ / 1365 / DIP / 2018 and 5488 / IJ / 2510 / DIJ / 2018, approved by the Decision of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy no. 225 / 15.10.2019 highlights the same non- observance of the legal provisions by the National Anticorruption Directorate, regarding the non-registration in the Public Prosecutor's Office, with "P" indicative of the criminal cases of interest, with the result of the non- processing, measures of the National Anticorruption Directorate in the cases with magistrates, which can constitute in a pressure factor on the judges invested with solving some "sensitive" cases, conclusions of the judicial inspection regarding the criminal investigation activity in cases of competence of the National Anticorruption Directorate regarding persons having the capacity of magistrate (judges and prosecutors) - "The existence of some situations was established, in which cases finalized by non-submission solutions in court were resolved after large periods of time from the date of registration of the notification to National Anticorruption Directorate (territorial departments / services) without identifying objective causes that justify these delays. , as it results from the factual findings, highlighted in Chapter III of this report. ” - “Also, it was found that in works registered at the indicative <…> of the Nomenclature of criminal works and files, although the notifications (of natural persons / ex officio) were aimed at committing offenses, the registration was not made in the criminal register (R4), and the verifications of the aspects notified were carried out by means specific to the criminal procedure, although the criminal character of the work was not established. ” - "It was also found that there were situations in which the criminal files were registered after 2 years from the registration of the notification to the indicative ..." (respectively the indicative "P", to which we referred in the present complaint). “There were highlighted situations of requesting from the courts the civil / criminal files that were on the dockets of the courts, regardless of the stage of settlement, in order to carry out criminal prosecution in the cases regarding magistrates, which can be a potential pressure factor on the judges invested with solving the respective files. " - “There were found situations in which by establishing new files aiming, in essence, the same facts investigated in a previous file, was requested by the prosecutor and technical supervision mandates were obtained regarding magistrates, exceeding the legal duration in the matter of the measures of technical supervision ” - "In the situations identified in Chapter III of this report, the information obtained from the exploitation of the technical supervision measures in the cases with magistrates, were transmitted, as main beneficiaries, as secondary beneficiaries and to some military units within the Romanian Intelligence Service. " "The practice of the National Anticorruption Directorate, which, after ceasing the measures of technical supervision of the judges, either did not inform the supervised persons or ordered the postponement of this information, must be emphasized." - "The request for the processing of a criminal case by the National Anticorruption Directorate Central Structure has been identified, in relation to the way the judge resolved some requests for extension of the mandates of technical supervision for other magistrates, which may be a potential pressure factor on the judge concerned. " (3) The Directorate for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism Offenses (TERRORISM AND ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT ) was notified through the documents that were transmitted on 17.10.2017 and 10.10.2018 and which, according to art. 289 and 290 criminal code, highlights the constituent elements of some criminal acts, facts whose investigation falls within the competence of this prosecutor's unit, including the fact of setting up an organized criminal group, provided by art. 367 Criminal code, group formed to act in a coordinated manner for a period of time of more than 10 years, in order to commit crimes, respectively false, use of false, misappropriation, tax evasion, money laundering, but no criminal case was established to be registered with the “P” sign, so, implicitly, no criminal investigation into the respective facts was started. (4) The criminal cases constituted as a result of the criminal notifications of the Court of Accounts are in the process of being prosecuted, given that the Judicial Inspection within the SCM has found that hundreds of notifications and findings of the Court of Accounts regarding frauds with public money are delayed by prosecutors of the National Anticorruption Directorate: "The files have registered extensions of the length of the proceedings unjustifiably ... the causes are: delaying the investigations by the prosecutors, especially in the Page 41 of 152
case of National Anticorruption Directorate structures", and one of the proposals of the Judicial Inspection was: "... . Performing with the necessary rhythm, by the prosecutors, the criminal prosecution documents in the old files that concern notifications of the Court of Accounts of Romania ... " In this context it is worth mentioning the excerpt from the Romanian Court of Audit report for 2016, which shows that the robbery made in Romania by public authorities is, in a single year, of 9.3 billion euros, as well as the fact that likewise, the National Anticorruption Directorate prosecutor's offices, the Cluj Tribunal Prosecutor's Office, TERRORISM AND ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT , were notified, but without criminal investigations, in relation to the finding of the Romanian Court of Audit, in the 2013 report, that the National Fiscal Agency returns the excises to Farmec SA, respectively 1,000 Euros per hectolitre, corresponding to large quantities of alcohol, without Farmec SA presenting the documents provided by law. The section for investigating criminal offenses in justice was established by Law no. 207/2018, having the exclusive competence to carry out the criminal prosecution for offenses committed by judges and prosecutors, and, according to the Government Ordinance no. 90/2018, the section became operational as of 23.10.2018.
The Criminal Justice Investigation Section did not investigate court facts that circumscribe the systemic mechanisms for detention of criminal cases, which is particularly serious, as it results in the favor of the offenders, the failure to respect the random distribution of cases and the continuity of the magistrate during the trial and non-observance of the law and the procedures, because magistrates from the management of the courts repeatedly violated the law and together with judges to which civil or criminal cases were assigned, they sought to reject the applications and to make certain judgments. The establishment of this prosecutor's office was considered necessary and useful in order to remove the magistrates from the sphere of National Anticorruption Directorate prosecutors' abuses, which, under the direct or indirect threat, forced the judges to give sentencing decisions in all the requisitions that were drawn up by this direction and sent in judged in the absence of evidence or based on evidence produced by the anti-corruption prosecutors, while, the same institution intended that certain persons who violated the law and property should not be investigated or sent to trial, in order to protect the interests of the same organized groups and of influence. Source http://www.inspectiajudiciara.ro/Pages.aspx?IdPage=118
In the context in which Romania has not ensured, through appropriate legislative measures, an effective and real functioning of the Judicial Inspection and of the Superior Council of Magistracy, to watch over the elimination of abuses in justice, it is legitimate to doubt that the newly created Special Prosecutor's Section for the investigation magistrates will be able to act as an independent and impartial authority, investigating and resolving all cases, in a reasonable and equidistant time, but, on the contrary, will be a new judicial structure of force, controlled in a similar way by the National Anticorruption Directorate, other politicians and other officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service or other information structures. 2.2.7 The law does not provide for the random distribution of criminal cases neither to the police nor to the prosecutor's offices, which allows, in the phase of criminal prosecution, the files to be ordered to order, according to the personal interest of some officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service, policemen, prosecutors or of influence groups in the country and abroad.
Page 42 of 152
The criminal trial begins with the notification filed with the police or the prosecutor's office, and the criminal cases and the reports are distributed to the investigating police and to the prosecutors for the supervision of the investigation, without a regulation provided in the law of random distribution, which allows, according to the interest regarding each criminal case, the notifications to be distributed to preferred prosecutors, who will supervise the activity of certain police units. Depending on the interest in each file of the persons who direct the activity of the prosecutor's offices, the case prosecutors are replaced or not, with the non-observance of art. 64 paragraph 4 Law 304/2004, which provides: "The works assigned to one prosecutor may be passed to another prosecutor in the following situations: c) leaving the case unjustified for more than 30 days” Officers from the Romanian Intelligence Service make joint teams with police, prosecutors and tax inspectors from ANAF, within which the desired orders are transmitted in certain files, and, depending on the interest of each file, either cases are kept in default until the intervention of the prescription, either the criminal investigation is carried out with priority and the competent court is notified.
The law does not provide: a) – provisions and sanctions against the investigating bodies in relation to the non- processing of the files, failure to administer the evidence in accordance with the provisions of art.99 and art.100 Criminal Procedure Code, and not adopting a solution within a reasonable time b) – provisions and sanctions regarding the observance of the principle of continuity of the instrumental body of a criminal prosecution file (policeman or prosecutor) c) – provisions of a nature to ensure the right of the litigant to address a court, in case of non-observance of the law by not recording the notifications regarding criminal facts in files with indicative number "P” The non-processing of criminal cases, even up to the termination of the criminal process as a result of the intervention of the prescription of criminal liability, coincides with the purpose pursued by the interest groups and with the result of favoring the perpetrators, maintaining the frauds and not recovering the damages that were produced, but the law does not provide a procedure, terms and conditions to be fulfilled by prosecutors / police during the criminal prosecution and in relation to which disciplinary, civil or criminal liability can be drawn for delaying the resolution of some cases and favoring the guilty persons for committing some criminal acts. At the prosecutor's offices, during the criminal proceedings, the "sensitive" files are passed to a preferred prosecutor, by taking over from the prosecutor who does not fulfill the orders regarding the activities to be executed in the case concerned, according to the interest of some groups organized by people, and, according to of their interest in each file, the objective of prosecutors and intelligence officers who are directly involved in the activity of prosecutors is: - either the delay in resolving the criminal case, as an effect of not processing until the criminal proceedings cease due to the intervention of the prescription, including by not Page 43 of 152
registering the complaints or notifications as files with an indicative number "P", although art. 110, art. 119 and art. 129 of the regulation of the National Anticorruption Directorate explicitly regulates that: "The registration number will be accompanied by the indicative" P "(criminal)", but these provisions are not respected because they have no legal character, and in the light of the decision of the Constitutional Court no. 405/2016 the criminal liability of those who do not comply with the mentioned provisions, judicial control or even preventive arrest cannot be drawn. - or the urgency of finalizing the criminal trial, in the absence of the necessary evidence, taking preventive measures and directing the file to the courts, to certain judges, who will pronounce, in a record time, the solution of convicting the aimed persons. The principle of continuity of the investigative body of the case (the police officer or the case prosecutor) is not explicitly provided for in the law, but no measures are taken, if the criminal case of interest is kept in non-processing for more than 30 days, as stipulates the provision from art. 64 paragraph 4 Law 304/2004. The consequence of these practices found in the activity of the National Anticorruption Directorate and of other prosecutor's offices in Romania is the favor of some persons or groups of Romanians and foreigners who have violated the law and the public and private property, with the result of the damage of the state, of the private persons and of the Romanian consumers, prejudices which can represent a sum of billions of euros and which have not been recovered. 2.2.8 The random distribution of the files, expressly provided by law, is not even respected at the level of the Judicial Inspection of the Superior Council of Magistracy, in the cases regarding the notifications in relation to the abuses of judges and prosecutors, with the classification practice; The Superior Council of Magistracy disregards the legal provisions regarding the procedure on the occupation of the post of chief inspector. 1) The Superior Council of Magistracy does not fulfill its mission to ensure that justice is carried out in the name of the law, by impartial magistrates, because even the Judicial Inspection does not respect the law on the random distribution of the notifications received regarding serious facts of some magistrates, considering that, although art. 69 paragraph (1) letter d) of Law 317 / 01.07.2004 states that: “The chief inspector fulfills, mainly, the following tasks: d) takes measures for the random distribution of the files within the Judicial Inspection;”, did not prove that the notices that were submitted by the undersigned at the Judicial Inspection were randomly distributed to inspectors, prosecutors or judges. The judicial inspection violated the law, respectively the provisions provided in art. 8 paragraph 1 of the Ordinance no. 27/2002, because he did not respond within 30 days to the petition dated 29.11.2018 regarding the communication of the evidence with documents that the notifications submitted by the undersigned were randomly distributed and, moreover, it did not solve the complaints registered under no. 45092/19.05.2017, 63168/15.07.2017, 7671/24.10.2017, 7672/IJ/24.10.2017, 1/27253/11.12.2014, 1/07252/11.12.2014. It follows from these considerations that a true habit of the Judicial Inspection was created not to carry out verifications or to carry out formal investigations of the petitions and notifications received from the justices, including by ignoring the evidence submitted by Page 44 of 152
them, following only the desired result, respectively adopting a classification solution, a common way of controlling the law on the non-observance of the law by magistrates who contribute to the toleration and protection of abuses of prosecutors and judges in Romania. The practice of the Judicial Inspection to reject the notifications of the justiciaries and to protect the abuses of prosecutors and judges is confirmed by the clear disproportion between what the people have complained (6,823 notifications) and the cases in which the notifications have been admitted (51 notifications), which represents a percentage of only 0.71%, so there is no doubt that the Superior Council of Magistracy obstinately refuses to judge its own skids, while, in cases of interest, the Judicial Inspection carries out checks that constitute means of pressure on the prosecutor / the judge to obtain a certain result. This practice and the institutional attitude of the Chief Inspector of the Judicial Inspection, manifested by the non-observance of the principle of random distribution of the files within this institution and by rejecting the appeals made by the justices against the resolutions of classification of the notifications, adopted by the inspectors without carrying out any verification, accepting themselves as "VERIFICATIONS", easily and unjustifiably the points of view transmitted by the courts subject to the control of the Judicial Inspection, proves the willful violation of the provisions of art. 2 of the Regulation for the operation of the Judicial Inspection, according to which "the judicial inspection contributes to improving the quality of the justice act of the efficiency and effectiveness of the activity of the courts and prosecutor's offices by means of independent verifications under the Law and to ensure its compliance". However, compared to the concerted refusal of some courts to present the requested documents regarding the order of the introduction in the ECRIS application of the cases, as well as maintaining a false premise, accompanied and maintained by the Judicial Inspection, that “the distribution is done through a single operation ", given that the activity of control of the Judicial Inspection was formal regarding the compliance by the courts, in fact, of the principle of" random distribution ", stipulated in the Law, it is fully justified the claim that there is a coordination evident of the factors involved in the act of justice for the promotion of a deceptive, non-transparent and unforeseen mechanism in the Law, but which contributes to the simulation of the fair trial, in the cases of interest, in which a court decision is desired, which ignores the law and the fraud of public property and private, this conclusion being based on the following arguments: (1) The Judicial Inspection does not respect in accordance with the provisions of the law, the random distribution of the notifications regarding the abuses of justice, as soon as they are registered with the Judicial Inspection, precisely so that persons from the interest group have control of the checks that, as the case may be, maintain abuses of justice, or to sanction those magistrates who do not comply with the orders received.
Page 45 of 152
(2) The judicial inspection embraced the phrase used in the courts, respectively "unique operation of distribution of cases in the computer application ECRIS", or, this "unique operation" that is not provided in the Law, was invented, initiated and coordinated by persons with power of influence and interference that have the interest to block any access of the litigant to checks based on the writings of the order of the introduction of the cases in ECRIS, orders that influence the distribution of the case of the desired / preferred panel, made up at random, to which the case is sent for settlement. (3) As a consequence, one can observe the coordination that arises from the practice of Judicial Inspection, on the one hand it is common to the court and embraced by the court, and on the other hand the judicial inspection requires "checks" to the courts which it acquiesces them without requesting the evidence, ignoring the law accepts any opinion that is transmitted by the courts as a result of the verifications, by them. Modification of the regulation of the Superior Council of Magistracy, precisely by renouncing the above regulation "I receive number from the application of ECRIS in the order of receipt", which although it does not have the power of law and should not set the limits and the process of the trial has been modified just to hide these imperfections of the process and to be used in an obscure setting in cases of interest, and these discrete mechanisms of fraud constitute the essential levers of simulating the fair trial, and breaking the impartiality and independence of the judges and the court.
It is only assumed that, through the ECRIS application, the files are randomly distributed to the panels composed of one, two, three or five judges, but in fact the ECRIS computer system is not described / regulated in the Law, as it works in relation to all actions / appeals. / the cases that enter a court during a working day, the work program and the order of the introduction and distribution of each case. From the perspective in which the order of introduction in the ECRIS application influences the panel to which the cause is distributed, and at the Romanian courts, the files are not introduced in the ECRIS computer system in the order of their registration in the general court register, it cannot be accepted that there is random distribution of files and that the law is respected, regarding the random distribution of cases. The distribution of the files to the panels does not comply with the law regarding the "random distribution", since as soon as any file enters the court and is registered in the general court register, it should immediately be entered in the ECRIS system, in the same order as the order of entry to court; preferably an automatic filmed machine, ball type urn, respecting the chronological order in which each file arrived at the court, and each justiciable to have access to the filming of the distribution of the file and the introduction of balls into the system.
Page 46 of 152
In conclusion, the Judicial Inspection did not contribute to removing the slippages of the Prosecutor's Office also from the perspective of the following reasons, which determined the following results: (i) The judicial inspection does not have the practice of randomly distributing the notifications regarding the abuses of justice and prosecutor's offices based on a credible system of transparent random distribution, that would meet the law's requirement and confer on the petitioners trust that the distribution of the notifications is not distributed to elected inspectors who, in order to follow the result of the classification of the notifications, which they received in the work. The only illusion of random distribution of the works is the manual distribution in the order of arrival of the notifications, which, in turn, is vitiated, by waiting for the works until the desired inspector turns or replaces it and passes to the preferred inspector's work.
(ii) The judicial inspection does not carry out (real) verifications and readily accepts the opinion of the judicial institutions, which are suspected of having violated the legal provisions, which regulate the fair trial, respectively courts of justice, prosecutor's offices, with the result of pronouncing disposition documents or judicial decisions which, deliberately, directed were not taken in the name of the law, and following an objective analysis it can be observed that they are not grounded. However, the perspective of the above considerations suggests the coordination by influential interest groups, intelligence officers, civil servants, persons who violate the law and public and private property, as well as maintaining the mechanisms and instruments of fraud of the Justice. The judicial inspection did not have a competition organized by the Superior Council of Magistracy in order to have a real competition, and the function of chief inspector of the judicial inspection to be occupied by an independent person, against the interests of the interest groups and to show his impartiality concerning the attributions of service regarding the organization of the judicial inspection activity.
2) The Superior Council of Magistracy did not organize and encourage magistrates with professional experience and probity to participate in a real competition for the position of chief inspector at the Judicial Inspection, in which to register several candidates who have equal chances, according to a regulation for the conduct of the consortium, and which will ensure a real and non-formal evaluation of the candidates. The contest organized by the Superior Council of Magistracy regarding the appointment of the chief inspector of the Judicial Inspection was vitiated, formally carried out for the appointment on the basis of a certain person, tacitly discriminating against other participants in the contest for occupying the position, according to G4Media.ro, a source of information according to which the chief interim of the Judicial Inspection, Judge Netejoru L., was declared admitted with a maximum score of 100 points for the definitive appointment on the post of chief of the Judicial Inspection by the competition commission Page 47 of 152
of the SCM, formed by the President of the Council, Lia Savonea, Judge Evelina Oprina, the representative of the civil society Victor Alistar, the judge Andrea Chiş and the prosecutor Florin Deac. From the same perspective, the decision no. 573 adopted by the Superior Council of Magistracy on 10.04.2019, according to which, in article 15, paragraph 5, it is mentioned that the results of the project support are definitive and cannot be challenged, being clearly illegal a decision that cannot be challenged a test of an exam !!! The fact that the Superior Council of Magistracy is made up only of judges and prosecutors, which changes every two years by rotating with other judges and prosecutors, and only one position out of 19 members of the plenary is occupied by a civil society lawyer created the habit that The Judicial Inspection and the SCM do not sanction the slippages and abuses of prosecutors and judges in cases where persons who break the law are part of notorious interest groups. A balanced report on the composition of the members of the SCM plenary should require that 50% of the members be from the civil society and 50% members from the judges and prosecutors, and the post of president of the Superior Council of Magistracy be filled by a lawyer from the civil society, so that in reality the justiciaries are protected from the abuses of the judges and prosecutors in Romania and, at the same time, there is a balanced report of the members of the plenary of the Superior Council of Magistracy that come from the civil society and from the ranks of judges and prosecutors. ''The European Commission has stated in the Report of 13.11.2018 to the European Parliament and the Council of Europe: “The Superior Council of Magistracy was not able to act as an effective control and balance factor to defend the independence of the judicial institutions under pressure, an important constitutional role, highlighted in the report from January 2017. The divisions of the Superior Council of Magistracy, evident in its meetings with the services of the Commission, have made it increasingly difficult for the Superior Council of Magistracy to be effective as a spokesman for the judicial system - in particular when consulted on the legislation and as administrator of the judicial system ...... ”; "... Also for the appointment of a new management of the Judicial Inspection, the Superior Council of Magistracy did not organize a contest, although the mandate of the management team expired at the end of August 2018...... ” Taking into consideration the aspects mentioned in this chapter, it can be observed that members of the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Judicial Inspection within this institution have pursued and continue to pursue only the maintenance of certain persons (magistrates) preferred by certain interest groups in management positions at the Judicial Inspection or at the courts and prosecutor's offices, thus protecting the personal interests of these groups, interests that presuppose the fraud of the law, by no means do not seek to ensure the independence and impartiality of the courts, as provided by art. 2 of the law 303/2004, to ensure the execution of the act of justice while respecting the fundamental rights of every ordinary citizen, from Romania. Although, the Judicial Inspection Report no. 5488 / IJ / 1365 / DIP / 2018 and 5488 / IJ / 2510 / DIJ / 2018, approved by the Decision of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy no. 225 / 15.10.2019 found the non-observance of the Law by the National Anticorruption Directorate, the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the courts regarding the non- Page 48 of 152
existence of random distribution of some cases of interest with the result of creating a potential pressure on the judges and the possibility of deliberate actions to reach the purpose pursued regarding the court decision to be made. Evidence no. 6 – highlights the fact that the Judicial Inspection does not comply with the special provisions of Law 317/2004, which stipulate the obligation of the chief inspector to ensure the random distribution of the notifications within the Judicial Inspection, violates the principle of transparency, reacts arbitrarily, because it does not provide the evidence of the random distribution of the notifications in relation to the abuses of prosecutors and judges, with the result of formal controls, does not respect art. 8 of the Ordinance no. 27/2002, which provides for the communication in 30 days of the requests of the petitioners, as well as the practice of carrying out some formal checks or not carrying out any verification, with the result of adopting solutions for classifying the notifications regarding serious deviations of some magistrates, of which we exemplify: Petition and referral of 13.02.2019 regarding the violation of the law at seven courts of law in relation to the provisions governing the random distribution of cases and the continuity of judges in the designated units to solve a file, completed on 19.02.2019, the evidence attached to them and the request for carrying out a control at certain courts were clearly ignored by the Judicial Inspection, which refused to request the opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy for thematic control at the indicated courts, respectively at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Court of Bucharest Appeal, Cluj Court of Appeal and Craiova Court of Appeal, Dolj Court, Mehedinti Court, Brasov Court, Cluj and Arges Specialized Court; so I directly requested both the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Judicial Inspection to carry out thematic control at the courts mentioned in the complaint, which I also show to the European Commission. This notification of the Judicial Inspection regarding the non-observance of the law by several courts in Romania in relation to seven criminal and civil cases, respectively magistrates who did not obey the law, circumstance which suggests that the trial of the cases was not followed within the limits and in the name of the law. , but favoring the persons who have defrauded the law and the property, the procedural injury and the patrimonial prejudice of the undersigned, was classified by the Resolution no. 19-1004 / 15.05.2019, and the appeal against this classification solution, formulated by the complaint dated 14.06.2019 addressed to the Chief Inspector Netejoru Lucian, was rejected by him by the resolution of 02.07.2019, so I asked directly, both the Superior Council of Magistracy and the Judicial Inspection to carry out a check at the courts mentioned in the complaint, which I also show to the European Commission. From the analysis of the notification of the undersigned, as it was completed, and of the contents of Resolution no. 19-1004 / 20.05.2019 of the Judicial Inspection, it does not mean that the judge judicial inspector Louyssa Olivia Raducu would have carried out the necessary verifications, ignoring the information and the written records that show the non-observance of the law regarding the random distribution of cases and the continuity of the magistrate throughout the duration of the settlement to a file, validating these violations of the law in several cases, thus: (i) regarding the criminal file no. 2485/300/2011 of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, the inspecting judge notes that "the modification of the composition of the invested judgmen panel took place for objective reasons, as provided by the aforementioned legal norm", referring to art. 19 paragraph 1 letter j) of the Regulation of the internal order of the courts, according to which the management board exceptionally approves the change of the members of the judgment panels in cases where, for objective reasons, this is required, and that the "objective reasons" would be represented of "the fluctuation of personnel within the Second Criminal Section and of the necessity to balance the volume of activity of the judges of the section", or in the aforementioned file: - the decision of the governing board of the Bucharest Court of Appeal contravenes the provisions of art. 11 of Law no. 304/2004 and even the provisions of the Internal Order Regulation, which, however, is not a norm equivalent to a legal norm, considering that the principle of random distribution of files and continuity must be respected, except in cases where the judge cannot participate for objective reasons - the changes brought to the panel during the appeal and the circumstances in which they were made reveal the absence of objective reasons provided by art. 11 of Law no. 304/2004, respectively the impossibility of a judge to participate in the trial, which, in fact, were not respected in the case, with the consequence of violating the principle of random distribution of files and continuity, considering the following aspects, ignored Page 49 of 152
by the judicial inspector: . criminal file no. 2485/300/2011 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal was initially assigned to the judgment panel composed of magistrates Lupaşcu Dan and Ninu Luminiţa, who, as a result of the retirement of Judge Lupaşcu Dan (objective reason - the impossibility to participate in the trial), was completely modified, although Mrs. Ninu Luminiţa continued to perform her activity as a magistrate within the same criminal sections of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, so the legal condition, namely the impossibility of this judge (Ninu) to participate in the trial, was not fulfilled. . the legally investee panel was replaced, on criteria lacking any transparency, with a panel made up of judges Găgescu Risantea and Nicolescu Sorin, but, after one month, on 13.01.2016, judges Stramb Codruta and Badescu Irina, „judges preferred ”by the interest group Farmec SA, made a request to enter the court set scheduled on Tuesday, for“ personal reasons ”, the day in which the panel no. S2C7 was carriying its activity, which had to solve the calls declared in the criminal file no. 2485/300/2011; for example, the request of the judges to be passed in the judgment panel on Tuesday, for "personal reasons", the appeal, the expertise, the written conclusions notes that resulted in the decision to pay the date of 18.04.2019. Concerning the so-called "personal reasons" of the judges Stramb Codruţa and Badescu Irina, who asked to judge in a planned panel on each Tuesday of the week, the mention of the judicial inspector judge on page 2 of the Resolution no. 1510 is clearly not according to the reality, in the sense that: “Later, given the fluctuations of personnel of the section, the component of the panel was ensured, between 23.02.2016- 20.06.2017, by the judges Badescu Irina Raluca and Strimb Codruta ....”, by this validating the violation of art. 11 of Law 304/2004, as it is evident that the principle of continuity of the magistrate in the file no. 2485/300/2011. (ii) regarding the file no. 1021/1285/2016 of the Cluj Court of Appeal, the inspecting judge willfully omits and leaves unresolved aspects of illegality mentioned in the complaint and petition, such as, for example, that Motu Flavius, as president of the Cluj Tribunal, but also of marriage godfather of Ani Cristian, director at Farmec SA. violated the law, respectively waited a day to introduce the file in a preferential order, for the distribution of this case to Judge Costea R., brought by delegation, with the result of pronouncing a solution favorable to the people who have violated the law and the property. (iii) regarding the file no. 6699/63/2015 * of the Mehedinţi Tribunal, the inspecting judge omits the fact that Mr. Popescu Norel, as president of this Court, directed the case to the panel of his wife, Mrs. Popescu Clara, in the sense that he contributed to the file's introduction in a preferential order for it to be distributed to the respective panel, and his wife, contrary to the evidence in the file, held that OCPI Dolj holds the original topographic sketch that was the basis for issuing the certificate attesting the property of Legume Fructe SA, our adversary in the respective case. , with the result of favoring the natural and legal persons who have violated the law and the property, and the so-called Trandafir Fanel, said "Cimino". In this context, without any verification, the judge of the Judicial Inspection introduces in the classification resolution the "false premise" that the order of the files' introduction in the ECRIS computer application would be irrelevant - an order that may influence the distribution of a case "sensitive to a specific preferred panel - motivating under the mistaken pretext in reality, that the files are distributed through a "single operation", according to the extract:
However, it is obvious the essential distinction between the order of the introduction of cases in the ECRIS application, relative to the order of the entry and registration of the files in the General Registry of the court, on the one hand, and the distribution of the files by ECRIS through a "unique operation", on the other hand. (2) Statement of defense and documents filed by the Judicial Inspection in the civil case 4806/2/2019, which is Page 50 of 152
in on the dockets of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in the pre-trial procedure, which has as its object an action to annul the classification resolution of 02.07.2019, adopted by the inspecting judge regarding the petition and the notification of 13.02.2019, documents sent to the undersigned on 19.11.2019 and which highlight the following relevant aspects:
In the statement of defense, signed by the Chief Inspector, it is not specified the procedure and the elements by which a "random distribution" of the files is carried out within the Judicial Inspection and in the courts, but, moreover, regarding the system of file distribution through the informatic program ECRIS, induces the false premise that, in the courts, the distribution of cases "is made in relation to random elements, which have no correspondence with the order of registration or distribution of files", leaving to be understood that the distribution of the cause to a certain panel is not influenced by the order of the introduction of the files in the ECRIS system, because it is done through a "unique operation".
Thus, regarding the distribution of cases to the courts, the Chief Inspector Netejoru mentions (p. 8/10): “On the other hand, we ask the court to note that the distribution system through the ECRIS software program is made in relation to random elements, which have no correspondence with the order of registration or distribution of files.
Also with reference to the ECRIS system for randomly distributing files, it is important to emphasize that the "list of files to be distributed" is a document automatically generated by the software, and the courts to which the applicant specifically invoked the order of the files listed in this document, in the report on the date of registration (Mehedinți Court, Cluj Specialized Court) they performed random distribution through a single operation, so that the claims regarding the distribution of the files in a different order than the registration were truly removed by the judicial inspector ”.
The chief inspector, although he mentions that the distribution of the case through the ECRIS computer program is done in relation to random elements, did not specify which are the elements that contribute to the "random distribution" provided in the law, provided that the order for the introduction of cases in the ECRIS computer system influences the number of the panel to which the case is finally distributed, because the computer application does not function as a ballot box, in which all the cases are introduced, then they are mixed, and the ballot box would randomly assign them one by one.
(ii) The document called the distribution sheet and the addresses of the Judicial Inspection to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, as well as the ICCJ reply address, attached to the meeting submitted by the Judicial Inspection in file no. 4806/2/2019, are capable of proving the non-observance of the principle of random distribution of the files, both in the courts, and in the Judicial Inspection, as well as the purely formal activity of the inspectors regarding the notifications regarding violations of the legal norms by the judges :
The document called the distribution sheet, attached to the statement of defense, does not prove the random distribution of the petition and the submission of the undersigned, but only highlights that the paper which entered on Wednesday, 13.02.2019, according to the proof of receipt at the Judicial Inspection, was registered in on 14.02.2019, at the Directorate for Inspection for Judges, and was distributed, on 15.02.2019, by the legal adviser Mîrlogeanu Andreea, first to the inspector Iancu Daniela Valeria, and then to the inspector Răducu Olimpia Louysse, and it does not result from its content a criterion according to which that was the basis of the distribution of the notification of a particular inspector and the randomness of this distribution.
The interval of two days, between the date of registration of the petition at the Judicial Inspection (13.02.2019) and the date of distribution within the Judicial Inspection Directorate (15.02.2019), justifies the reasonable suspicion that it is the means by which the paper is distributed to a specific i "preferred" judge inspector for solving it by classification, in the conditions in which there was no real activity of control in relation to the non- observance of the law in the courts mentioned in the referral, respectively the High Court of Cassation and
Page 51 of 152
Justice, the Cluj Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal Bucharest Appeal, Craiova Court of Appeal and Mehedinți Court.
- From the contents of the addresses of the Judicial Inspection to the ICCJ and of the reply address of the supreme court, it can be observed that the Judicial Inspection did not request the High Court of Marriages and Justice with documentary evidence regarding the random distribution of the files, but requested that a verification be carried out by the court subject to control, whose "result" was accepted and was the basis for the adoption of the Resolution of classification of the complaint.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice did not repeatedly respect the provisions of art. 8 of the Ordinance no. 27/2002, which stipulate the obligation of communicating the petitioner with the answer and the requested documents, within 30 days from the request, since he did not communicate any of the requested documents in proving the order of introduction of cases in the ECRIS application, which, in proof, are of nature to prove the non-observance of the norms, the respect regarding the random distribution of the cases, provided in art. 11 of Law no. 304/2004.
However, the Judicial Inspection did not find that the High Court of Cassation and Justice did not comply with art. 8 of Ordinance 27/2002 regarding the transmission of the requested documents regarding the files no. 3263/1/2018 and no. 104/1/2019, having as object requests for relocation of the appeals from the Cluj Court of Appeal, in the files no. 442/1285/2017 and no. 1021/1285/2016, a circumstance that coincides with the toleration by the Judicial Inspection that the courts do not communicate the documents that show that the order of the introduction in ECRIS of the cases does not prove "random distribution" and which rejects the false hypothesis of a "unique operation" "file distribution.
The acceptance by the Judicial Inspectorate of the ICCJ's motivation for not sending me the requested documents because "the cases were pending, which excludes any interference with the activity of the court", is obviously biased, because I requested documents, in copy, and not other verifications that could have vitiated the trial, and, although art. 8 of the Ordinance no. 27/2002 obliges the settlement of a petition within 30 days and, in this case, the communication of the requested documents was mandatory within this period, in fact they were never communicated, even after the completion of the trial. The Court of Appeal and the Special Court of Cluj, the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeal of Craiova (...), in order to hide the evidence of the introduction of the cases in a preferential order, did not communicate the documents requested in the probation or they mentioned that "all the files registered in the same day are randomly distributed in the computer system through a single operation and not individually ”, which proves a practice of the courts accepted by the Judicial Inspection.
(3) from the website http://www.sroscas.ro/site/2017/05/07/instanta-care-refuza-sa-judece/, according to which “In 2016, there were 6,823 notifications. Of these, 4,762 against some judges, and 2,061 against some prosecutors. However, they were admitted by the CSM only, keep well in the chair, 51. That is 0.71% of the notifications. All the others were simply declared inadmissible. As if over 99% of the dissatisfied people were hit by the anger of the persecution. What I think is impossible .... ";
(4) The source G4Media.ro, according to which the Competition Regulation has been established by the CSM since December 3, 2018 and provided that the 5 members of the Commission can award maximum 100 points, but, in order to be admitted, the candidate cannot obtain more less than 70 points, as an arithmetic average of the points awarded by each member of the commission, but, on the morning of the interview, respectively on March 27, 2019, the trio Savonea - Oprina - Alistar would have modified the competition rules, respectively the scoring scale, so be sure that the three can validate the candidacy and the admission of the appointment of Lucian Netejoru in any situation.
Page 52 of 152
2.3 Involvement of the Romanian Intelligence Service in a discrete way, with obscure character, through its officers, the willful inaction of this institution, in the cases of interest of some groups organized by influence, formed by politicians, businessmen, persons with management positions in public institutions, creates the framework of the administration of Justice, Prosecutors, Police, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the Competition Council, the National Integrity Agency, the Parliament and other institutions, in breach of the laws and European Law. 2.3.1 Involvement of officers with military degrees from the management of the Information Services through actions regarding judgments of justice, the activity of the National Anticorruption Directorate, other prosecutor's offices, the Police and other institutions. Mainly, Romania does not have independent institutions, because the institutional activity is not governed by Law and European Law, in view of the fact that officers from the information services have created systemic mechanisms of action and control, because in the cases of interest, in justice , to the prosecutor's offices or to the national institutions to obtain the ordered desired result, in order to favor interest groups made up of politicians, officers (former or current) from the information services and Romanian or foreign businessmen, who carry out commercial operations with failure to comply with the law. In sensitive cases, where officers of the intelligence services have personal interest, the judicial system is controlled, the files are distributed directed to certain favorite judges / collaborators, and, as the case may be, during the civil or criminal trial, it is carried out the replacement of undesirable judges with judges that they were chosen to reject the applications and to deliver court decisions according to orders.
Taking into consideration this reality, the "rule of law" in Romania is not based on independent institutions, operating within the limits and under the aegis of the guarantees offered by European Law, but is run by interest groups formed by persons who hold financial power, together with persons holding high positions in the state, political leaders in Romania or in Brussels, intelligence officers, judges, prosecutors, experts, lawyers, police officers, heads of law enforcement agencies. Officers with first rank positions within the Romanian Intelligence Service used the information that came from the hearings, which were carried out illegally or even legally, and intervened in prosecutor's offices, courts and public institutions to obtain the desired result, violating the independence and the impartiality of justice and public institutions, civil servants, including judges and prosecutors, principles of law enshrined in and recognized by the provisions of art. 124 of the Constitution, art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union and art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights because based on the information held about the officials from different authorities or institutions of the state, they determined them and the officials from different corporations to carry out activities in the personal interest of these interest groups. Page 53 of 152
The Romanian Intelligence Service concluded PROTOCOLS in collaboration with 60 state institutions, including the National Anti-Corruption Directorate, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the courts, prosecutor's offices, the Competition Council, the Court of Accounts, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the Office for Combating and Preventing Money Laundering, the National Integrity Agency and so on, and through them the framework was established for Romanian Intelligence Service officers to participate directly through mixed teams in criminal investigations, in activities of control and checks carried out by the institutions, to intervene with the civil servants, prosecutors, judges, police, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the National Integrity Agency, as the case may be, to create pressure and blackmail in order to obtain the result sought in each situation of interest for the organized groups.
In relation to the legal and compulsory provisions and the CSAT decisions, I consider that the activity of the Service on carrying out criminal notices and Informative Notes on circumstances that affect and violate national security, could have been carried out institutionally without the need to sign protocols between The Romanian Intelligence Service and the national institutions, and the interference that has vitiated the independence of the institutions by the management of the Romanian Intelligence Service and other services has manifested and continues to manifest itself today, regardless of whether or not there are protocols.
The influences and pressures of some officers in the management of the SERVICE continue and still dominate the activity of the Justice, prosecutors and national institutions, in which as a currency of exchange and security to appoint in public positions of management or execution officers, collaborators or favorites of the Service , to form mixed teams, through which persons from the management of the Romanian Intelligence Service have control and dominate the national institutions, so that the civil servants of the national institutions are subject to the information officers, being well-known, the obedience relationship of the civil servants brought in public management positions vis-à-vis those officers in the management of the Service who suggest to these politicians appointments. The Romanian Intelligence Service posted a number of 250 officers to the Directorates of the National Tax Administration Agency, and the tax anti-fraud departments worked in mixed teams on their orders, continuous criminal complaints, to those who were targeted, but most of the time the complaints were not confirmed or the checks proved to be superficial. Source https://www.activenews.ro/stiri/ANAF-ca-arma-a-Serviciului-Roman-de-Informatii.- Federatia-Sindicatelor-din-Finante-Ofiterii-SRI-veneau-in-institutii-cu- directions-of-action- trasate.-a-group, small-to-influential politicians-the-decided-to-and-create-a-tool-very- strong-for-blackmail-154 996
Page 54 of 152
Direct intervention and influences exerted by the Romanian Intelligence Service, through officers and departments in its management, including the use of “Informative Notes”, in the current activity of some public institutions and authorities, even in the case of judicial bodies, actions that may affect seriously their independence, with the purpose of obtaining certain results in personal or group interest, are confirmed by the Report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate for exercising parliamentary control over the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service regarding the involvement in the activity of the National Integrity Agency of this information structure and the former director, George Maior, from which the following relevant elements result:
- S.R.I. sent to the National Integrity Agency a number of 71 "Information Notes" regarding almost 600 persons, most of them with important functions in the central and local administration, as well as in public institutions and authorities; - During the checks on the structures of the Romanian Intelligence Service, it was found that all the "Informative Notes" to the beneficiaries passed on to the Legal Department, except those transmitted to the National Integrity Agency, although, in their content, reference was made to the legal classification of which the person targeted by the Romanian Intelligence Service information would be guilty.
- the collaboration between the Romanian Intelligence Service and the National Integrity Agency implied the transmission of a “Informative Note” in a single copy, following the latter, after completing the investigation, “to return to the Romanian Intelligence Service, with the respective note, mentions regarding the utility for capitalizing on the information transmitted ", the Commission appreciating that" the former director of the Romanian Intelligence Service, George Maior, was fully aware of the content of the Notes ".
- The Commission found that "during the hearings there were suspicions that the former director of the Romanian Intelligence Service was interested in the status of certain files both within the National Integrity Agency, as well as on the evolution of some files in court, interfering. with the activity of the institution, as well as by influencing other decision makers regarding ongoing investigations ”. - The Commission notes that, according to "Sorin Blejnar, the head of the National Tax Administration Agency at that time, Mr. George Maior tried to influence the actions of the National Tax Administration Agency regarding the suspicion regarding the sponsorship modalities of the rally team from which was part Mr. Victor Viorel Ponta ”, former prime minister of Romania,“ asking him to delay the file in which Victor Ponta was involved ”.
- according to the Commission, “there are indications that George Maior as director of S.R.I. has exerted pressure on Horia Georgescu to request that the court term be advanced ”for“ 33 cases on the dockets of the ICCJ, including that of the President of Romania, Klaus Werner Iohannis.
Page 55 of 152
2.3.2 The willful inaction of the Romanian Intelligence Service, even if the provisions of the law and decisions of the CSAT stipulate to send to the competent institutions criminal notices, regarding illicit facts and practices, as well as informative notes, as a result of collecting information or notifications received regarding actions of likely to affect national security
Neither for the Romanian Intelligence Service nor for the officers of this institution delegated to ANAF did present interest for the notices of the undersigned to the Romanian Intelligence Service and ANAF, from 2014-2019, regarding the mechanisms of fraud of the property and of the public finances, with the consequence of some damages of billions of euros. After the withdrawal of the 250 Romanian Intelligence Service officers' delegation, dozens of people remained at the National Agency for Fiscal Administration.
In the period between 2012-2018, in which several governments succeeded and there were several political parties in their composition, Mișa Ionuț enjoyed the necessary support and held important positions, respectively general director of the General Directorate for the Administration of the High Taxpayers from the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the Minister of Public Finance, the president of ANAF, period during which systemic mechanisms of fraud of public finances have been initiated within the National Agency for Tax Administration, which continue today.
The inaction of the Romanian Intelligence Service is due to the fact that interested persons have determined the formation of systemic mechanisms to direct the decision-making activity of the Justice, Prosecutors and Police, the National Fiscal Agency, the Parliament and the public institutions in Romania, with the purpose and the result that the groups of interests to easily achieve their desired goals. Although the Romanian law permanently obliged the Romanian Intelligence Service to prepare Notes and criminal notices accompanied by evidence to the prosecutor's offices and the competent institutions, either in connection with the unlawful acts that violate the criminal law, or in relation to legal issues, facts and serious circumstances, which it vulnerable and undermine the national security and significantly impair the quality of life, the Romanian Intelligence Service acts selectively or formally.
1) The inaction, the discretionary action of the Romanian Intelligence Service, regarding the systemic mechanisms of fraud of public finances, in relation to which the Romanian Intelligence Service was notified, as well as the National Agency for Fiscal Administration and Prosecutors, suggest the personal interest of some officers of senior management who either refused to investigate or keep files on fraud mechanisms arising from: a) the registration in the accounting of large companies, on deductible expenses, of large amounts of money representing suspicious fictitious services, which diminishes the taxable profit, the tax due to public finances, but also the patrimony of the joint-stock company, in violation of the Directive no. 1624 of the Council of Europe, transfers of money to companies Page 56 of 152
from Romania or to companies with off-shore tax regime, which can often represent financial links with intelligence officers, civil servants or politicians, which can reward the security of maintaining and continuing the illegal practices; b) illegal refunds of excise duties on products that have already been excised by the General Directorate of Customs, with the non-observance of the law, without the beneficiary companies presenting to the ANAF representatives the documents provided in point 22 paragraph. (34) of the Fiscal Code regarding the actual consumption in the manufacturing process, according to the extract: “… c) the proof of the quantity used for the purpose for which the exemption is granted, consisting in a centralizing situation of the quantities actually used and the related documents…”; c) tax inspections that do not find that the law is not being complied with on the occasion of requests for restitution, as provided by art. 113 of the Fiscal Procedure Code, does not sanction, accept, tolerate and protect these illegal refunds of excises due to the state budget. d) illicit business of criminal groups that are known by the Romanian Intelligence Service and protected at the competent public institutions.
The practice of illegal excise refunds was initiated at ANAF - General Directorate of Customs during the period when Ardelean Virgil - Quaestor had the head of the Information Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Diaconu Gelu was director at the Customs Directorate, and Vorniceanu Marius exerted the position of director at the Directorate of Fiscal Control or the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, both in the National Agency for Fiscal Administration.
In this respect, the newspaper articles published in the Ziua newspaper are noted, in which it is highlighted that General Ardelean Virgil protects "Transylvanian businessmen, prosecutors or officers". and "Although he no longer holds an official quality, Mr. Virgil Ardelean met President Klaus Iohannis during his move to Cluj", significant elements in the context in which Farmec SA transferred the amount of 800,000 lei / RON to SC Ten Transilvania Energy SRI in the period when this company was controlled by the son of Ardelean Virgil.
In addition, there are data showing that on 17.09.2019, Ardelean Virgil, together with Vorniceanu Marius, participated in the celebration of the birthday of Cojocaru Cătălin (Vorniceanu's son), coordinating director of the Fiscal Inspection within the Directorate General Administration of the High Taxpayers of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, which formally carries out fiscal control at Farmec SA, an aspect that does not exclude the causal link between these personal relationships and the fact that the Tax Control Directorate and other directions within ANAF have performed superficially, for the second time, an apparent fiscal inspection of the mentioned company, without observing the provisions provided by law and in order to maintain the existing fraud mechanisms and carried out on the basis of extra-institutional interests.
Page 57 of 152
2) The inaction of the Romanian Intelligence Service to comply with the provisions of the law in all cases that required its involvement for the defense of national security, as well as - the selective action to make criminal notices to prosecutors'offices regarding the unlawful facts in relation to which he collected information or received notices and evidence, but also - the inaction of S.R.I. to make informative notes regarding the entry into legality of the competent institutions regarding systemic mechanisms of non-compliance with the law that vitiates and weakens to national security, appreciably deprives the living climate and has as a consequence the departure of Romania by over five million citizens, who - they left the country in search of a living climate in which they are respected and protected by national institutions.
The Romanian Intelligence Service knew from the notices of the undersigned (transmitted to this institution on the dates of 24.06.2014, 15.10.2014, 26.02.2015, 26.05.2015, 27.10.2017 and 20.10.2018) or from the press and television programs about non-compliance with the law by interest groups, through acts of corruption and fraud of a high gravity, with the consequence of the damage of public and private property, as well as of the interference mechanisms in the institutional act, but, in some cases, it has not fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the provisions of Law no. 14/1992 and of art. 1, 9, 10 and 14 of Law no. 51/1991, although it was obliged to collect additional information and to draw up minutes, representing acts of notification of the criminal prosecution body, in accordance with art. 198 para. (2) thesis II, in conjunction with art. 61 paragraph (1) point c) Code of criminal procedure, according to which "Whenever there is a reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of a crime" the finding bodies "are obliged to draw up a report on the circumstances found" obligation that also have "the bodies of public order and national security, for the offenses found during the exercise of the powers provided by law."
The inaction of the Romanian Intelligence Service regarding the lack of criminal notifications to the TERRORISM AND ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT or National Anticorruption Directorate prosecutor's offices in relation to criminal groups, which through illegal acts and practices have damaged the public and private patrimony, can only be understood in the context in which, officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service have had and have a direct personal interest in ensuring the protection of these interest groups, by influencing local or central public institutions, including judicial authorities, in order to obtain the desired results by the criminal groups and the interest groups that support them.
The protection within the institutional framework from which benefit the Romanian clans
The non-performance of the institutional obligations, by the Romanian Intelligence Service, with the same measure, is highlighted, significantly, by the "lack of interest" or the existence of a "certain interest" of some officers within this institution regarding the "business" of Trandafir. Fănel, said "CIMINO" and of the clans in Craiova, provided they were aware of Page 58 of 152
numerous public information, data and evidence from which result not only the criminal activities carried out, but also the protection that these clans benefit from the public institutions and authorities, and also from the judicial bodies at local and central level, with the consequence of ignoring some acts of establishment drawn up institutionally regarding the repeated non-observance of the law, tolerating this situation and obtaining favorable solutions from the judicial bodies, adopted contrary to the evidence in the files.
(1) Failure to comply with the law by the City Hall and the Local Police Department of Craiova municipality regarding the situation of the barracks in Hortensiei street no. 4, owned and leased to companies by Trandafir Fănel, for which there are no building permits, and some of them are located on the public / private domain of Craiova municipality, because they exceed the area mentioned in the certificate of attestation of the property held by him, regarding the legality for which judicial investigations are carried out (photo sample no. 7), respectively of the provisions of art. 33 of the Law no. 50/1991, republished, according to which “the constructions executed without building authorization on lands belonging to the public or private domain of the state, as well as the constructions, works and temporary arrangements executed on lands belonging to the public or private domain of the counties , to the municipalities, cities and municipalities may be abolished by administrative authority by the public administration authority within the radius of the administrative-territorial unit where the construction is located, without issuing a decommissioning authorization, without notifying the courts and at the expense of the offender. "
Moreover, according to art. 8 of Law 155/2010 "Local police officers have responsibilities in the field of construction discipline, including the carrying out of controls for: identification of construction works executed without building or dismantling authorization, as the case may be, including provisional constructions;"
However, the town hall and the local police tolerate the abusive occupation, without legal right, of a public / private area of the administrative-territorial unit Craiova, given that, according to the procedure, the local authority should have intervened directly and removed the raised barracks. without a building permit, but also to ask the court to lift the constructions without a building permit for the land that exceeds the property certificate held by Trandafir Fănel, said "Cimino" (annex sketch sample no. 7), but so far no measures have been taken.The protection enjoyed by Trandafir Fănel is all the more evident as him not complying with the Law no. 50/1991, republished, has been officially recognized by local authorities since 2014, as follows:
(i) address no. A279 / 27.06.2014 of the Heritage Directorate of the Craiova City Hall, issued by the signing by the executive director, Ionuț Cristian Gilea, and mayor LIA-Olguța Vasilescu, current vice-president of the Social Democratic Party, according to which "as a result of those notified by you, a a commission made up of representatives of the City Hall of Craiova and the Local Police of Craiova, moved to the land in question, where the necessary checks Page 59 of 152
were made. It was found that part of the existing constructions in which several companies operate, is on the public domain of Craiova Municipality ”, sample no. 7.
(ii) address no. A279 / 27.06.2014 of Craiova City Hall and no. 11085 / 17.06.2014 of the Local Police of Craiova Municipality, in which it is stated that “following the verifications it was found the existence of constructions, with the destination of commercial spaces, realized in the extension of the spaces belonging to SC Legume Fructe SA, constructions for which the company in question does not have a building permit " (2) Criminal files that also concern Trandafir Fănel, said "Cimino", not resolved until now or solved under conditions that suggest a certain control within the judicial institutions at the local level, taking into account the following situations:
(i) the criminal file no. 37279/3/2014, in the role of the Dolj Tribunal, has as object facts of organized criminal group, tax evasion, money laundering, the bad faith use of the corporate credit, offenses which also concern Trandafir Fănel, also called "Cimino", and the fact that ANAF notified the prosecutor's office in 2006 and only in 2014 did the prosecutor notify the court, which has not solved the case so far. (ii) the criminal file no. 10384/63/2017 was returned by the judge Veselin Florin Cristian from the Dolj Tribunal to the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Dolj Tribunal, after canceling evidence in the file regarding seven group acts organized in Craiova city, targeting him and Trandafir Fănel said Cimino, and the file is kept in non-processing at the prosecutor's office.
(iii) the criminal file no. 9065 / P / 2014 of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Craiova District Court, whose object was the destruction in the BIG Craiovița shopping complex of some shelves by Trandafir Fănel, said “Cimino”, with the consequence of the injury of a person, in which the police have twice reported termination of the criminal prosecution with the proposal to notify the court for the offense of destruction provided in art. 253 criminal code, but the case resulted with the ordinance of renouncing the criminal prosecution, a measure adopted by prosecutor Rogoveanu Emilia from the Craiova Prosecutor's Office (see video file attached to evidence no. 7). (3) Failure to comply with the legal provisions regarding the random distribution of cases, determined by the influences exercised in favor of Trandafir Fănel zis Cimino, with the result of obtaining favorable solutions to him, respectively the company owned by him, contrary to the facts and the evidence in the file:
(i) Civil file no. 6699/63/2015 * on the dockets of the Mehedinți Tribunal, was assigned by Judge Popescu Norel, as president of the court, to his wife Popescu Clara, due to the fact that in the court, the cases were not entered in the order of entry at court, but in the favorable order for ECRIS to apportion the case to the wife of the president of the court, although the order of the introduction of the cases in the ECRIS electronic application
Page 60 of 152
influences and determines the distribution of the case by the system to a certain panel, which does not represent a random distribution.
Regarding the evidence in the file, judge Popescu Clara held in the conclusion and sentence, not in accordance with the fact that the Land Registry Office Dolj county holds the topographic sketch in the original, contrary to the address of this institution, favoring the defendant Legume Fructe SA by adopting a judgment rejecting the action of the company ALIA SA, context in which the possibility of the judge's decision being influenced by the incidence of extrajudicial elements, as a result of the file being directed by the President of the Court to a certain judge, respectively the wife, with the intention of finding the optimal way to create an appearance of legality.
(ii) Following the same model of “random distribution” of cases, the Craiova Court of Appeal filed in the ECRIS application the file 6699/63/2015 * in an order different from the order of its entry to the Court on 05.02.2019, thus that the case be assigned to the panel no. C3A, made up by Osiceanu Ionica and Ceolofan Alina magistrates, in the context in which it is notorious that the judge Ceolofan Alina is a family friend with the lawyer Sauleanu Lucian, engaged in numerous defense cases of Trandafir Fănel and his companies, the circumstance that vitiates the impartiality and independence of the panel in pronouncing the judgment, but also the confidence of the justice seeker in the fair trial.
The panel set up of judges Osiceanu and Ceolofan did not abstain, although I warned publicly to the President of the Court and I attached the request for relocation to the file about the notoriety of the connection, one of the lawyers of the opposing party (Trandafir Fanel said Cimino), respectively the lawyer Sauleanu Lucian. In this context the panel continued to judge, omitted the grounds of appeal and ignored the evidence in the file and the grounds of appeal, made an obvious confusion and will between the non-existence of the right of origin on the land and the real right on a portion of a wall, at the ground floor of the building, in the context in which the building has several entrances. The Craiova Court of Appeal ignored the irrevocable decision no. 321 / R / 03.05.2016 of the Ilfov Tribunal, given between the two parties “at this moment the applicant (it is about Legume-Fructe SA - SN) not having a property right on the land, can theoretically obtain only a debt right consisting of compensation, as a result of finding the quality of good faith builder ”.
The simulation of the fair trial at the High Court of Cassation and Justice is described in chapter 2.2.4. from this document, regarding the unsuccessful and directed attempt to relocate the case 6699/63/2015 * at other equal courts.
The judges mentioned above had the obligation to check the legality of the evidence / records that were administered on file from the Land Registry Office and the statement of the defendant party regarding the removal / non-recognition of the topographic sketch, the
Page 61 of 152
evidence in the file, which was the basis for issuing the certificate attesting the right of property.
Failure to comply with the legal provisions of the documents, namely stamps, signatures and lack of opinions of some architects, cadastral engineers, as provided by the law, were overlooked during the investigation of the second court of judicial control with the result of rejecting the appeal and favoring the party that benefits from property fraud as a result of acts that, although they do not meet the requirements of the law, are superficially investigated by magistrates.
The refusal of the President of the Court of Appeal and of the section presidents, persons from the management of the court, to communicate my requested information and records, coincides with the concealment of the evidence that contributes to the proof of the introduction in ECRIS of the cases in a preferential order with the result of the distribution of ds 6699/63 / 2015 * to the panel consisting of judges Osiceanu Ionica and Ceolofan Alina.
They were notified both by the applicant company and by the Judicial Inspection in relation to the introduction of civil case 6699/63/2015 * in the ECRIS application in a directed order, so that the file should be distributed to the C3A panel, with the result of favoring the named Trandafir Fanel. Although the management of the Craiova Court of Appeal had the obligation to organize the random distribution of the files and not just the introduction in ECRIS of the cases in a chosen order, in fact, the state of irregularity was tolerated. The management of the Craiova Court of Appeal did not comply with the provisions of art. 8 of GEO 27/2002 regarding the obligation to send the inscriptions that ALIA SA has requested through requests, annexes requests and addresses answered in the sample no. 7.
(iii) The High Court of Cassation and Justice was notified with the request to relocate the civil case no. 6699/63/2015 * from the Court of Appeal Craiova by Legume Fructe SA, forming file no. 1117/1/2019, in which, for real reasons of concern, ALIA SA filed a request for the connection of its own relocation request regarding the same file, in relation to which both parties requested the relocation of the case to another court of appeal. The panel composed of judges Duminecă Virginia, Duţă Monica, Roxana Popa, whom was randomly assigned the request for relocation of Fructe-Legume S.A, rejected the request for connection without reason, judged the request for relocation filed by the defendant Legume and rejected it, and again, later, it mentions at the conclusion that sent to the registry the request of ALIA SA for relocation, which, after the "random" distribution was transmitted to the same panel no. 7, made up not randomly by the magistrates Duminecă Virginia, Duţă Monica, Roxana Popa, both applications attached to the evidence no. 7.
Although the company ALIA SA has made requests requesting the evidence in writing of the introduction of the cases in order in the ECRIS application, a circumstance that can prove the observance of the principle of random distribution, the president of the civil section II
Page 62 of 152
Voicheci Eugenia refused the request mentioning: "Following of the verifications undertaken, it was found that this case is being resolved, so that the issues notified cannot be subject to administrative verification and, in this context, by the resolution of 05.07.2019 of the section president it was stipulated that the petition filed be attached to the file, the aspects that you have invoked to be debated in front of the panel ", (according to the request of ALIA under article 8 of the Ordinance 27/2002 and the ICCJ reply address).
The action of influencing the public institutions is coordinated by service officers, civil servants with influence power, including judicial institutions, respectively courts, prosecutors, police, the interference in their decision-making act, with the result of pronouncing the desired decisions, with the non-observance of art. 2 of Law 303/2004: "(3)" The judges are independent and subject only to the law. The judges must be impartial, having full freedom in resolving the cases deduced from the judgment, in accordance with the law and impartially, respecting the equality of arms and the procedural rights of the parties ..... ”and art. 2 of Law 304/2004: “paragraph (1) Justice is performed by judges in the name of the law, it is unique, impartial and equal for all”.
In contrast, the Romanian Intelligence Service transmitted a large number of criminal notifications to the Prosecutors for minor acts, of minor gravity, and, in some cases, the Justice did not confirm the information presented by the Romanian Intelligence Service or found that the evidence was wrong, circumstance suggests that, in cases of personal interest, officers from the Romanian Intelligence Service leadership pursued a certain result, because they had misinformed information that was not confirmed.
2.3.3 Involvement of the Romanian Intelligence Service, of officers with important functions from this institution in the privatization of state-owned companies, the development of personal business with these multinational companies, the protection of the interests at the Competition Council, the Prosecutor's Office, the courts, the National Integrity Agency
In recent years, neither the current management of the Romanian Intelligence Service composed of the directors Hellvig Eduard and the generals Ionescu Răzvan, first deputy of the director Bizadea Romeo Cristian, deputy director, Ciocârlan Adrian deputy director, George Voinescu, Rog Anton, Mărgărit Florin , Adrian Radu, as well as the general gentlemen Coldea Florian, Cocoru Dumitru, Grosu Ion, Dumbravă Dumitru, Ciobanu Florea (...) who succeeded before the management of the Romanian Intelligence Service did not make "Informative notes", according to the provisions of art. 9 and 14 of Law 14/1992 on the functioning of the Romanian Intelligence Service, to the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the General Directorate of Customs, the Romanian Court of Audit, aiming at remedial measures and entry into legality, recovery of damages, as well as criminal notifications to National Anticorruption Directorate prosecutors' offices or Terrorism and Organized Crime Investigation Department regarding the violation of the criminal law, in a Page 63 of 152
continuous form and for a long period of time.
The transmission by the Romanian Intelligence Service of "Informative Notes" to public authorities, courts / certain judges, of informal / unofficial character, only for reading and informing, to be devoid of probative value and not to be known by the persons involved, represents the usual way of influencing some public institutions or authorities, since by means of these Notes the measures / decisions that must be adopted in cases of interest regarding certain circumstances and groups of persons are suggested in a compulsory manner.
The practice of transmitting, in an obscure way, some INFORMATION NOTES to persons and to the institutions to which they belong, in order not to be used as evidence, but through which precise orders are transmitted from the Romanian Intelligence Service in relation to cases or persons may also be the consequence of the absence of legal provisions regarding the form and the probative value of these documents, as compared to the decisions to be taken in the institution as an effect of the NOTE, and of the lack of precise norms with power of law, which will lead by avoiding the transmission of untrue information, they may be capable of permanently or temporarily affecting the legitimate rights or legal interests of some persons, contrary to the actual factual situation and with irreparable consequences. In addition, access to the Informative Notes is limited only to persons holding the ORNISS certificate, and the notice for obtaining this certificate is issued by the Romanian Intelligence Service, without motivating any rejection and without the person concerned being able to challenge the measure of rejection, by administrative or judicial means.
The security certificates for access to classified information are granted only on the basis of the notices issued by the Romanian Intelligence Service, within the limiting procedure provided in GD 585/2002, and this fact may, in certain cases, constitute an instrument for the selection and control of persons who hold public management or execution functions, in order to obtain from the public official the desired result, respectively regarding his / her measures and decisions and of the institution they represent. The discretionary granting of the ORNIS certificates allows Romanian Intelligence Service officers to control the subjectively selected persons, whom give their approval for obtaining the security certificates without which they cannot hold certain public functions and cannot participate in the verification and resolution of certain cases.
This mode of action created the premise that, in connection with the running of the businesses generating high profits, of which they are interested for obtaining illegal benefits, officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service will follow the solution / non-resolution of some civil and criminal judicial cases and the necessary decisions will be made , even in conditions of non-compliance with the law, the appointment of certain persons in public Page 64 of 152
positions of management or execution, the reward of the people who accept the orders regarding a certain cause of interest by appointing in the boards of directors of some state companies (CEC, EXIM BANK , Transgaz, RomGaz, Tarom, etc.), and obtaining allowances between 20,000 lei - 30,000 lei a month, ignoring willingly even the incompatibility with the public function held by the rewarded persons, as well as maintaining in the state apparatus a system formed of civil servants obedient to those information officers that suggested to the decision-makers, that they should hold public positions in Romania and Brussels.
Simultaneously holding a position within a public authority and participating in the appointment of a member of a Board of Directors to a state-owned trading company can lead to a conflict of interest, but it is also the way to obtain allowances of thousands of euro monthly, which, in reality, may be additional rewards, in exchange for both present and previous activities, carried out in favor of individuals or interest groups.
In this context, it is explicable the involvement of the Romanian Intelligence Service, through its officers, in the privatization of some state companies under non-transparent conditions, such as, for example, the sale of the assets of the company Dero SA to Unilever, under the conditions in which this operation was carried out through the Romanian Intelligence Service colonel Dociu Răzvan, whose son owns the company Aquila, followed by the promotion with exclusive status of the Acvila business in the Unilever South Central Europe, violation of the law by the latter company in relations with the subscriber Galic Prod, by abusively removing from the contract and the prejudicial damage of the subscriber and, subsequently, the protection of the interests of the Unilever company at the Competition Council, the general prosecutor's office and the courts, the non-observance of the right to defense and the procedural rights recognized by Law and European Law (see details in evidence no. 7 )
Also, it is notorious the case of Hexi Pharma, on which the Romanian Intelligence Service has declared to the Parliament, and it has easily accepted, that the facts regarding the provision to approximately 350 hospitals of solutions with concentrations that do not comply with the legal norms, which makethe object of the Hexi Pharma business, is not a case of national security, although the long-term fraud of the law on faking tenders and the supply of inefficient disinfectants, which have created the consequence of nosocomial infections in hospitals, is an important public health and national security problem, which should have led to the obligation of the Romanian Intelligence Service to notify the Terrorism and Organized Crime Investigation Department or National Anticorruption Directorate prosecutor's offices,obligation which was not fulfilled.
The Romanian Intelligence Service knew the custom of multinational companies, which are active in Romania, to intervene in the activity of judicial and competition institutions through persons from the embassies in Bucharest, representing the interests of companies that have broken the law and influencing the achievement of a certain followed result.
Page 65 of 152
2.3.4 The inaction or the selective or formal action of the Romanian Intelligence Service, depending on group or personal interests, contributed to maintaining a high level of corruption, especially in the sphere of the activity of civil servants holding leadership positions.
The public functions with decisional impact in obtaining and protecting certain results are accessed by certain persons, who are willing to contribute to measures to maintain / protect some profit-generating practices based on illegal actions, following the appointments by politicians and with the involvement of some. officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service.
Corruption affects the national security, weakens the financial power of the state and the efficiency of the institutions, allowing the presence in public positions of people willing to pursue personal interests and profits or of groups in Romania or outside Romania.
Corruption undermines the decision-making act of public institutions and, implicitly, public stability and well-being, but also endangers the credibility of Romania in its relations with the international and business community. From this perspective, CORRUPTION is a state of affairs and constitutes a threat to NATIONAL SECURITY by impairing the quality of life, non-observance of the Law, European Law and the damage of public and private heritage, and the Romanian Intelligence Service knows that its officers are involved with personal interests. , which is why they did not carry out the necessary diligence in the exercise of the duties stipulated in the law.
Mainly, CORRUPTION is not a short-term event, but it is based on mechanisms, known to the Romanian Intelligence Service and to the competent institutions, even judicial, of fraud of the law, of the European Law and of the national institutions and implies intention and prejudice brought to the citizens individually, unequally, but also to the entire public space, it generates damages to civil society, victims among ordinary citizens and persons, who benefit from them. Corruption determines the manipulation of the politicians and the rules of the procedure with the result of their abuse, by the power they have, of the state's wealth, of public property, forests, waters, oil, gold, ores, state companies, but also of private property.
Within the European Commission it has been recognized that NATIONAL SECURITY is flawed, severely affected by the institutional CORRUPTION mechanisms. Corruption also exists in cases where an intelligence officer asks a magistrate (judge or prosecutor) what decision to order, and these situations are possible only in the absence of clear and precise legal provisions, which establish the attraction of material and criminal liability of of the magistrate (judge and prosecutor), legal norms that determine the refusal of obscure judicial transactions and which equally remove the abuses of justice and of the officers of the intelligence services.
Page 66 of 152
Romania does not ensure the safety of the quality of life, but neither does the safety of life because both the magistrates and the litigans live in a mutually equitable and comfortable climate, in the absence of a clear and precise law on the criminal and material liability of the magistrate, a law that creates the framework for holding the magistrates accountable and to remove the discrete understandings regarding the magistrate's act as well as the pressures, blackmail and willful ignorance of the law, a defective framework in which the Justice is currently functioning. From the perspective of the reality of Romania, highlighted briefly in this document, the Romanian Intelligence Service is the first and only institution that, through transparency, informative notes and criminal notices to the competent institutions, can determine each of the national institutions to play their role actively, within the limits of the laws.
However, in the context in which the Romanian Intelligence Service has known these violations of the law, some of which represent crimes, without exercising the attributions provided in the law, the premise that the Romanian Intelligence Service through the personal interest of some of its officers, is outlined involved by appointments / promotions of persons in public positions, because it was intended that fraud continue to exist, the damages will not be recovered, and the persons involved will continue to promote in public functions of the highest importance.
Evidence no. 7- documents, information and explanations that highlight systemic procedures of the Romanian Intelligence Service regarding:
- the deliberate inaction for making notifications to prosecutors and other competent national institutions, as a result of the information collected by this service and of the information received through notifications in relation to illicit facts, practices, mechanisms and circumstances that violate national security and - interference, discreet involvement of intelligence services, through current or reserve officers, regarding the suggestion, validation, appointment of persons / officers / informants in public positions in Romania or in Brussels, unjustified removal from public positions held by persons who do not execute the orders received, in order to protect the illegal practices, with the consequence of significant damage to the private public patrimony.
(1) The notification registered with ANAF with no. 904300 from 04.07.2019 to the ANAF president, describing the systemic mechanisms of fraud (2) The report of the Parliament of Romania prepared by the Supervisory Commission of the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service regarding the use of S.R.I. for personal purposes - extracted from the website of the Permanent Joint Commission. (3) Public information given and records regarding the inaction of the Romanian Intelligence Service to gather information and formulate complaints in relation to criminal groups that by illegal acts and practices have damaged the public heritage and the influence of public institutions, with the consequence of ensuring protection at local and central level in the part of public institutions and authorities, including judicial bodies: - the documentary about the new mafia in Romania and the reorganized crime in Eastern Europe, which started to spread to the west of the continent, enriching the heads of gangs in Russia, Romania and other countries, presented by Mihai Gâdea in the show "Synthesis of the day" TV station Antena 3 source: https://www.antena3.ro/actualitate/dezvaluiri-despre-clanurile-mafiote-din-romania-425811.html - the attached file, which presents information, writings and videos about the activity of the so-called Trandafir Fănel, said Cimino, who, together with other people, formed an alliance called "the Brotherhood" respectively
Page 67 of 152
about its criminal activities, including cybercrimes, "business "With cards, the new mafia in Europe. Source https://b1.ro/şti/politica/dosar-de-politician-craiova-fratia-politicienilor-cu-militieni-si-interlopi-video- 162552.html
"The Electronic College in Craiova is very well known, and during the communism it prepared many IT engineers, many of whom are unemployed today. Craiova is also infamous for crime. It is nicknamed "Palermo of Romania". Arrests over arrests, custom executions between interlopers and gangs of card-makers. This operation is conducted openly by a handful of "godfathers" who actually run the city. They formed an alliance, known as the "Brotherhood". Cimino, Gigioc, Kayak, Mavrichie, Rosianu and Măgaru. All were charged with trafficking in weapons, blackmail, money laundering and other financial fraud. ”
- The national newspaper Cotidianul, which highlights the influence of judges, prosecutors and police at the institutions in Craiova, under the title: “Romania, the country of the interlopers. The criminality of the clans in Craiova, supported by the Police, Court, Prosecutor's Office, City Hall ”; The centralizer with aspects that highlight the practice in Dolj county, that the named Trandafir Fănel said Cimino to benefit at the national and local institutions solutions that favored him. - The centralizer with the files at the prosecutor's offices, at the court, at the mayor's office, at the local police in connection with Trandafir Fănel said Cimino, respectively: ALIA memory of 06.06.2014 addressed to Craiova Mayor Lia Olguța Vasilescu; the addresses no. A279 / 27.06.2014, 10819 / 27.06.2014 of the City Hall and the local police of Craiova Municipality.
- The video recording of the destruction of some shelves in a commercial complex by Trandafir Fănel said Cimino, the hit of a person, and the prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office ordered the renunciation of the criminal act, although the police proposed twice to notify the court.
(3) The letter of Radu Adrian, former officer of the Romanian Intelligence Service, addressed to the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, in which he points out the existence of a great question mark regarding the real functioning of the rule of law and the parliamentary control over the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service whose name it is improper, because the Romanian Intelligence Service controls the members of the Parliamentary Commission and not vice versa: “There were cases when certain individuals from the Romanian Intelligence Service, without rationally thinking and with an incredible dose of professional immaturity and life, acted illegally and subjectively, motivated by personal interest. and of pernicious group, completely out of the professional deontology and the rigors of the rule of law, so that, at one point, they revealed everything against this military structure and its efficiency as a whole. The cases have been reported in the press (Hexi Pharma, the stake of the Black Cube scandal that stands on those 20,000 hectares that would have gone to Coldea, the first deputy Romanian Intelligence Service is accused no more, no less that he had stolen NATO money and of the Americans .....). ”Source: https://www.flux24.ro/exclusiv-un-fost-ofiter-sri-ii-dezvaluie-lui-iohannis- mizeriile-din-serviciul-secret-condus- de-Hellvig-and-cold /
(4) Romanian Intelligence Service brigadier general Dumitru Dumbravă, head of unit UM019 Bucharest, has concluded several minutes of notifying the prosecutor's office, of which we mention the case of the Romanian Intelligence Service being notified against a doctor. In the content of the report concluded by the Romanian Intelligence Service it can be observed that the damage estimated by the Romanian Intelligence Service is 5,000,000 lei and the involvement of an organized group made up of doctors and pharmacists. But the prosecutor's office after the investigations retained only part of the information as true, and the Constanta court that judged the case ordered the settlement without prejudice, and the Constanța Court of Appeal upheld the court's ruling, retained the deed, rejected the existence of the prejudice and ordered the excessive sanction for the act of forgery at one year imprisonment with execution. Source https://www.luju.ro/dezvaluiri/anchete/medic-aranjat-la-sesizare-l-sumbrava-generalul-sri-dumitru-dumbrava- le-a-facut-dosarul-procilorilor-piccj-parchetul-general -a-copied almost word-by-word-of-minutes-the-grove-of- the-press-on-send-the-court-of-a-doctor
Page 68 of 152
(5) The Special Telecommunications Service gets involved in elections, in collecting, processing and adjusting election results. In this context, where the secret services in Romania have a causal connection with the election of certain parties / politicians with the result of accessing places regarding the management of public money and national institutions, it becomes obvious that the observance of European Law and the quality of life of the citizens living in Romania is not a priority. , for the interest groups that lead the country on the path of systemic non-observance of the law and democratic principles, of public or private property. Source: https://octavpelin.wordpress.com/2019/06/19/secrets-secrets-decid-castigatorii-alegerilorni-electorato-voto- romanilor-not-account-atata-time-cat-sri-manipulate-navies-of- on-Facebooks-instigadiasporasi-sts-where-is- stockholder-and-bogd /.
(6) Daniel Dragomir (r) colonel of the Romanian Intelligence Service stated that 90% of the "undercover" companies come from contracts with the state in the area of excise goods, alcohol, media, oil or IT, these companies, in which officers of the Service have interest, are protected by the state institutions, situations prevailing as presence and value, on which the Law, the Constitution and the European Law are systemically violated regarding equality before the law, the protection of public or private property through a fair process, and not its simulation, source: https://octavpelin.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/ofiterul-sri-daniel-dragomir-de- fostele-gospodarii-de-partid-controlate-de-security- in-time-regime-ceausescu90-in-number-of-business-to- covered companies-comes-of-contract-by-state /
(7) Răzvan Dociu - lieutenant colonel (r) in the Romanian Intelligence Service, during the period when he acted as an officer within this institution and was posted from the Central Structure to the Prahova Section, he carried out activities that also included "supervision"of the privatization of state-owned companies DERO SA, ROVIT SA, GFR, Vinalcool Valea Călugărească SA, and after the privatization, all these companies, with headquarters in Prahova county, have entered the patrimony of some legal and natural persons, respectively: the DERO SA factory became the property of the company Unilever Limited Europa, Vinalcol Valea Călugărească was taken over by British investors, the new name being Cramele Halewood, the Romanian Railway Group (GFR) the most valuable company in the group of companies GRAMPET SA is owned by Gruia Stoica, the former IAS Valea Călugărească became SC ROVIT SA.
At the same time as the entry of the company Dero SA into the patrimony of Unilever Group, the following conditions were imposed by the Romanian Intelligence Service colonel, Dociu Răzvan, on a “package”: (a) The company Aquila Part Prod Com to receive exclusivity for the transport, logistics, sale and distribution of the non-food and food products Knorr, Rama, etc. of the company Unilever, in Romania and to the countries of the region, delivered by Unilever to Acvila a few percent extra than the company Galic Prod which performed the same services, and, concurrently / simultaneously, the abusive exclusion from the contract with Unilever of the petitioner Galic P. and other companies, with Unilever's failure to comply with the Competition Law and the contract between Unilever, Galic P. and the other distributors. (b) the appointment of Alexandru Suciu as director for the sale of Unilever products, subsequently being supported to occupy the position of commercial director in the organizational chart of Unilever Group, a function in which "to watch" and to develop the exclusive character of the business between the companies Aquila Part Prod Com and Unilever Group.
The shareholders of the company Aquila Part Prod Com are Cătălin Vasile and Alin Dociu whose father is Răzvan Dociu, lieutenant colonel at the Romanian Intelligence Service, which was empowered and delegated by the Romanian Intelligence Service, with the supervision of the privatization of the company DERO SA and the transfer of its ownership to the company Unilever Group in Romania and in the region, when the subscribed company Galic Prod was already under contract for a few years with Dero SA and sold detergent in the amount of about 10,000 tonnes per year.
The complaint of the petitioner Galic Prod SRL to the Competition Council (highlighted in sample no. 7) was not investigated by the Competition Council, which refused to link the complaint to the investigation with the same Page 69 of 152
object that was opened in the Unilever case, and subsequently, President Bogdan Marius Chirițoiu replaced the rapporteur Dragoş Popescu, ignoring the content of the Note that was prepared by him regarding the indications regarding the possible violation of art. 5 of the law by SC UNILEVER SOUTH CENTRAL EUROPE SRL and by the clients and competitors of this company, after which closed the investigation without the agreement of the Competition Council plenary.
However, as a result of anti-competitive practices and agreements of Colgate Palmolive Romania, Kraft Foods and Unilever South Central Europe, prohibited by Competition Law no. 21/1996, the contracts ceased, with the consequence of the recording of huge financial losses by the companies Prestige and Galic, under the conditions in which their exclusion from the respective contracts was anti-competitive, with the intended result of the favoring of some economic agents and of the deterioration of the competition, this " model ”being similar to the way in which the contracts between the Prestige and the companies Orkla Foods and GlaxoSmithKline, Carrefour Romania, Billa Romania, Kaufland Romania and the contracts between Unilver South Central Europe, Galic, its customers and partners (...) were carried out. (8) The Romanian Intelligence Service knew the financial involvement of SC Farmec SA in big money transfers, suspicious fictitious services representing possible facts of corruption:
(i) Farmec SA transferred amounts of money to Ten Energy, when it was controlled by the son of the Quaestor Ardelean Virgil, the former head of the information service of the Ministry of Interior, and the company Energy Power & Gas, controlled by the son of the same Quaestor, and ECG-Control Europa Gas Limited, offshore from Cyprus, benefited from a contract with Hidroelectrica worth 263 million euros. (ii) Farmec SA transferred over 600,000 lei, through the companies Chapter Four Communication and Chapter 4 Communication, to companies related to Felix Tătaru, the person who managed the election campaign of the former President of Romania, Traian Basescu.
(iii) Farmec SA transferred over 3,800,000 lei, the equivalent of 900,000 euros, representing the value of suspected fictitious services, to Alpiq Industries, the company that was related to Nicolae Bogdan Buzăianu, a person whom Elena Udrea mentioned in the press that he was a close friend of the National Anticorruption Directorate and Terrorism and Organized Crime Investigation Department prosecutors: "Buzăianu spent holidays, a few years ago, maybe even now, on the Azur Coast with prosecutors from the Terrorism and Organized Crime Investigation Department and National Anticorruption Directorate. When will be the case I will have some names .... At the table or during the holidays of Mr. Buzăianu on the Azur Coast, prosecutors also participated. Whether they were friends or simply in Mr. Buzăianu's entourage, because of the problems he has, it remains to be seen. "
(iv) Farmec transferred over 14,000,000 lei / ron, the equivalent of three million euros, to SPOON MEDIA SRL (dissolved company), with headquarters in Bucharest Sector 1, MODROGAN Boulevard, No. 18, Apartment 3 / 1A.
(v) Farmec transferred over 7,500,000 euros, the equivalent of 32,000,000 million lei / ron, to the companies STARCOM and PUBLICIS, based in Bucharest, sector 1, Str. Nicolae Iorga, no. 13, body A, which have a common shareholder, in the person of Iordache Stefan, and the shareholder legal entity PUBLICIS GROUPE HOLDINGS B.V., with registered office in the Netherlands, 1183 DJ AMSTELVEEN, PROF. W.H. KEESOMLAAN, No. 12.
(vi) Farmec SA transferred the company NET BRINEL, with headquarters in Cluj, owned by Borodi Marcel, over 5,200,000 lei / ron, the equivalent of 1,100,000 euros, and his brother, through the company "Register Miorita", took over the registers of shareholders and shares of Farmec.
Between 2011-2016, the Net Brinel company was involved in carrying out 179 contracts with 50 public authorities, worth 64 million lei / ron, the equivalent of about 13 million euros, and subsequently, the amounts
Page 70 of 152
increased and the company owned by Borodi Marcel enjoyed money transfers received from state institutions, in the last period of time, their value being of 157 million lei, over 32 million euros, including from information services such as the Romanian Intelligence Service, the Institute for Technologies Advanced, Romanian Military Ministry, Military Unit 0215, External Intelligence Service, Permanent Electoral Authority, Ministry of Justice, Financial Supervision Authority. Source Jurnalul.ro https://jurnalul.antena3.ro/special- jurnalul/anchete/afaceristul-de-casa-al-lui-emil-boc-157-milioane-de-lei-contracte-cu-statul-713236. html
The relationship between Borodi Marcel, the owner of Net Brinel company, Boc Emil, the mayor of Cluj, the former prime minister of Romania, and the Quaestor Ardelean Virgil, former director of the Secret Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is notorious.
Borodi Marcel is originally from Bistriţa, the same city from which Ardelean Virgil comes from, and the connections with Boc Emil are current, considering the fact that it was decided by the Local Council of Cluj Napoca, by decision no. 430, the establishment of the Cluj IT Association, together with the Net Brinel company and other economic agents in the county, and the mayor Emil Boc was mandated to complete the formalities necessary for Romania's accession to this organization, while Borodi's company was enjoying money transfers. Cluj City Hall and Cluj County Council exceeding 7.5 million lei.The City Hall of Cluj, energy and water companies of the Municipality, Universities of Cluj, concluded contracts and transferred to Borodi Marcel, through his companies, over 35,255,227 lei / ron, the equivalent of over 7 million euros. Source Jurnalul.ro https://jurnalul.antena3.ro/special-jurnalul/anchete/afaceristul-de-casa-al-lui-emil-boc-157-milioane-de-lei- contracte-cu-statul-713236. html.
Financial ties with Farmec SA of Mr. Ardelean Virgil and the financial empire acquired by the former head of the Secret Service of the Ministry of Interior. In association with Mr. Dunca Dan, the former head of the Secret Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is channeling his financial resources in the development of residential and commercial blocks in the city of Cluj: https://www.cotidianul.ro/vulpea-isi-face-barlog-la-poalele -feleacului / (vii) Large transfers of money from Farmec SA to preferred lawyers, known in the judicial environment and who have also benefited from contracts concluded with state companies:
- although Farmec SA has legal employees, the lawyer Brehar Claudiu, received from this company amounts of money in excess of 3,200,000 lei, equivalent to 700,000 Euro, and lawyer Ziadin Denis, both lawyers from Cluj Napoca Bar, also a defender of Farmec SA, received the amount of over 700,000 lei; - discrepancy between the fees of the two lawyers, who equally share the effort to represent Farmec SA in court, suggests that the lawyer Brehar (who bears, not coincidentally, the same name as that of a judge of the High Court of Cassation and Justice) it has other "merits" than those related to the lawyer's performance; - Claudiu Brehar's lawyer, seconded by lawyer Denis Ziadin, managed to record the remarkable success of convincing the judges and experts, named in the files, to ignore and to violate the legal provisions governing the conduct of the fair trial and even their own provisions of the courts given in the respective files;
- Claudiu Brehar's lawyer benefited from the amount of 1,700,000 lei from Cluj International AIRPORT, although this public institution has legal assistance from several legal advisers, with a permanent employment contract; - the civil society of lawyers "Biriş Goran" had the status of lawyer of Farmec SA in the file 12283/3/2016 against ANAF, in the conditions in which Biriş Goran also fulfilled the position of secretary minister within the Ministry of Public Finance, and the joint stock company Farmec transferred over 2,500,000 lei / ron to the companies controlled by Mr. Biriş;
(9) Information and data from the public space, which result in significant elements regarding the involvement of some officers within the Romanian intelligence services in relation to businesses that have resulted in
Page 71 of 152
damages of over one billion euros, as well as the lack of an appropriate reaction from the National Anti- Corruption Directorate in the investigation of criminal cases regarding these business. (i) officers from the Romanian Intelligence Service and the Romanian Foreign Intelligence Service determined the unwarranted secrecy of the contracts between Romania and the MICROSOFT - EADS companies, in reality, by this method, following the information hiding, paying very high amounts of money (through Romanian Intelligence Service and SIE officers), while the Romanian Intelligence Service should, according to the law, have collected information and evidence and notify the prosecutor's office, according to the following sources:
- https://www.luju.ro/dezvaluiri/anchete/dna-sta-pe-o-bomba-lumeajustitiei-ro-publica-lista-tutorilor-all- significant-the-dna-in-facerea-microsoft -eads-damage-exceeds-1-billion-euro-and-bribe-were-given-including- by-way-of-officers-in-sri-and-sie-spoil-the-first-in-2002 -su "... the list of heavy names denounced to National Anticorruption Directorate in the business" Microsoft-EADS ", the damage of over one billion euros and the ,,bribes'' were given even through some Romanian Intelligence Service and SIE officers, the robbery started in 2002 under the Nastase government and continued until 2013, under the Băsescu regime ... ”from 06.10.2015. - http://www.secundatv.ro/anchete/basescu-afacerea-microsoft-este-o-afacere-profund-acoperita-de-statul- roman-96679.html/, according to which the EADS business extended for nine years in during the mandate of seven interior ministers, and the agreement with this company was de-secreted by the minister Vasile Blaga, after which, in 2007, it was again secreted. http://www.secundatv.ro/anchete/dna-a-clasat-pe-furis-dosarul-eads-afacerea-de-750-de-milioane-de-euro- ingropata-128373.html/, according to which: "It is a business deeply covered by the Romanian state that does not want to go further," said former President Traian Basescu. Traian Băsescu was the president of Romania between 2004 - 2014. The Microsoft fraud started in 2004 under the Nastase Government and ended in 2014 under the Ponta Government, passing through the Tariceanu and Boc governments! According to primary information, Romania was robbed of about 400 million euros, money that arrived in the pockets of Romanian crooks but also in the accounts of some heads of Microsoft. 9 ministers were involved in this scam: Ecaterina Andronescu, Mihai Tănăsescu, Şerban (Miki Șpagă) Mihăilescu, Dan Nica, Silvia Ţicău, Daniel Funeriu, Gabriel Sandu, Alexandru Athanasiu and Elena Udrea. Former President Basescu also told us that Romanian prosecutors - with direct reference to National Anticorruption Directorate chief Laura Codruţa Kovesi - protect Americans from Microsoft's leadership.
- http://www.secundatv.ro/anchete/dna-a-clasat-pe-furis-dosarul-eads-afacerea-de-750-de-milioane-de-euro- ingropata-128373.html/, according to which "What is outrageous is that no one says where the money was coming from. We need to know if it is $ 200 or $ 400 million, to know from where came the money, who gave the bribe. National Anticorruption Directorate prosecutors secretly filed the EADS file at the beginning of November 2018. For 4 years, SECUNDĂ published 13 episodes of FRAUD EADS! Through two SCHEMES and dozens of OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, we demonstrated how over 750 million euros were stolen from public money.Moraru-Iorga and Kovesi prosecutors did everything they could to not prosecute Nastase, Russian, Săniuță, Blaga, Nita, Major, Țiriac, Harnagea, Marian, Talpeș, Cico Dumitrescu, etc., and from Germany, Gerhard Schröder. , Otto Schily, Wolfgang Schanble, Thomas de Maizière, Hans-Peter Friedrich and the heads of EADS-AIRBUS!
- https://www.luju.ro/dna-sta-cu-curul-pe-dosarul-lui-gitenstein-iata-denuntul-bomba-depus-la-dna-care-ar- putea-fi-detonat-in-razboiul-trump-biden-ex-ministrul-comunicatiilor-gabriel-sandu-il-acuza-pe-fostul- ambasador-sua-mark-gitenstein-ca-l-ar-fi-constrans-sa-plateasca-ilega according to excerpts from 07.10.2019: " The National Anticorruption Directorate STAYS ON THE GITENSTEIN'S FILE - Here's the denunciation bomb submitted on the National Anticorruption Directorate that could be detonated in the Trump-Biden war ...."
Page 72 of 152
"... Dinu Pescariu, Dragoş Stan and Thomas Heinischell were the main 'collecting bins' of the money obtained from the spoil of the Romanian state through the offshore controlled by them, both for the 'Microsoft business' which harmed the Romanian state with $ 400,000,000 but and for the "SEI business" - with a loss of $ 125,000,000 and "the EADS business" - with a loss of $ 1,000,000,000. The mentioned persons made sure of the protection of some people from the secret services, including with lawyers made available to defend them. They had to ensure, based on the protection granted, the relationship with people who had influence on some members of the Government and to ensure the opening of accounts abroad from which payments to decision- makers and any other persons could be made. "
".... The prejudice caused by the multinational company Microsoft Corporation USA, to the government between 2004 and 2009 has the following component parts, consisting exclusively of products not included in the Microsoft licenses purchased, services not delivered and consulting hours not performed, but for which FSC and Microsoft they have obtained the certificate of acceptance as if they were delivered by Microsoft via FSC to the General Secretariat of the Government of Romania. ”
(ii) the business with MICROSOFT licenses extended over a period of 15 years and caused the Romanian state a loss of about 1 billion euros, and the National Anticorruption Directorate dissolved the MICROSOFT file for reasons that were not explained and succeeded, practically, to prove only a loss of about 15 million euros, although those involved stated that they misappropriated over 500 million euros only in the first 5 years of business, respectively between 2000 and 2005. EADS FRAUD. In order to join the Schengen Area, it is mandatory to have the borders secured according to EU rules. In 2004, under the orders of Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Nastase and German Chancellor Gerhard Fritz Kurt Schröder a security contract was signed with the multinational company EADS-AIRBUS. Although the famous FEASIBILITY STUDY defined a cost of about 540 million euros, the contract was signed under the eyes of Nastase and Schröder for the sum of 650 million euros because, it was extended for the amount of 750 million euros by the minister Dan Nica. Nica is now a member of the European Parliament and the EU has refused to lift her immunity to be investigated by the National Anticorruption Directorate - and, finally, the Romanian state has made payments totaling 1.53 billion euros. At the time of publication of this material, the borders of Romania are not secured throughout the perimeter and we have been not received in the Schengen Area.
(iii) Crapaci Clan - apparatus of generals and secret services. The tomi family owned 144 historic houses. All were acquired after 1989, with the help of notaries and judges. The buildings were bought with contentious titles. Among these are two hospitals, the oncology and maternity hospitals, which were administered by swords, Catholic nuns during the interwar period. (iv) The inaction of the Romanian Intelligence Service towards certain doubtful, suspicious cases and with the consequence of the prejudice of the Romanian state: - In eight years, 11 months and 20 days, the Romanian state transferred to the accounts of the American company BECHTEL 2 billion euros to build 415 kilometers of motorway. BECHTEL built only 52 kilometers, the National Anticorruption Directorate did not carry out any criminal investigation for the recovery of money, and the contract with the American company became the biggest fraud in the history of modern Romania;
- the method "feasibility studies", procedure of stealing public money practiced by senior state officials on all industrial levels, for which, according to a report (which ????), in Romania were spent about 50 billion euros , and the feasibility studies paid with this huge amount have never been used, one of the reasons being the short term of validity, respectively of only 1-2 years. - the manipulation by IT systems, respectively the way in which the companies SIVECO and ASISOFT, alone or in consortia, have won all the tenders regarding the software of counting the votes in elections and the transmission of the data corresponding to their results; Source http://www.secundatv.ro/
Page 73 of 152
- The Romanian Intelligence Service did not make criminal reports, together with the National Office for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering, although it knew that from Romania the big companies transfer large amounts of money outside the country, to areas with tax regime OFFSHORE, and register in accounting these amounts in the form of deductible expenses, a circumstance that violates the provisions of the directive no. 1164 of 2016 of the Council of Europe, and a number of 12 banks out of the 46 active in Romania declare that they have no profit, which allowed the estimation that Romania lost over 10 (ten) billion euros unpaid taxes as a result of these transfers of money, suspicious fictitious services or amounts based on illicit operations. Source: https://www.bursa.ro/exclusivitate-27-de-banci-nu-profit-nu-impozit-07468230 (v) the American audit firm KPMG has been involved in Microsoft's case, respectively, to delete the money trace between Government - FSC / D Con Net - Microsoft and the network of offshoring created by KPMG, according to the following sources: - https://www.realitatea.net/kpmg-implicat-intr-un-scandal-de-evaziune_2225846.html: "Without the authority, the reputation and the support of the KPMG it would not have been possible to make this channel to delete the trace of money between the Government - FSC / D-Con.Net - Microsoft and the offshore network created by KPMG.
- https://www.luju.ro/dna-sta-cu-curul-pe-dosarul-lui-gitenstein-iata-denuntul-bomba-depus-la-dna-care-ar- putea-fi-detonat-in-razboiul-trump-biden-ex-ministrul-comunicatiilor-gabriel-sandu-il-acuza-pe-fostul- ambasador-sua-mark-gitenstein-ca-l-ar-fi-constrans-sa-plateasca-ilega "KPMG, involved in an evasion scandal ... the CBC television station is devouring an offshore scheme on the Isle of Man. The party involved was the consulting firm KPMG, and Canadian businessmen could "rob" slices of $ 5 million each. The KPMG commission was, according to CBC journalists, $ 100,000 for each installment. According to official records, KPMG Romania SRL is 100% controlled by a company from Cyprus, KPMG CEE Holdings Limited. Then, together or separately, these two entities - KPMG Romania SRL and KPMG CEE Holdings Limited - have four other companies under control: KPMG Audit SRL, KPMG Tax SRL, KPMG Business Tax Service SRL and KPMG Moldova. " The same company KMPG also performed in the audit of Farmec SA, which paid this company over 350,000 euros, representing about 40,000 euros annually, although it was recommended an audit firm with Romanian capital, which requested 5,000 euros per year for the same service delivery. audit, considerations accordin to which we cannot exclude that the Farmec - KPMG solution was imposed by an officer of the Romanian Intelligence Service.
(10) The Romanian Intelligence Service by inaction, tolerates / encourages the exploitation, illegal logging of forests in Romania, for export to protected companies, with the price of numerous forests killed or attacked by wood thieves, and has acted selectively in the cases regarding retrocessions illegal of buildings and very large areas of land and forests. i) The Schweighefer company acquired 1700 hectares of forest in the area of Lotrului, which were illegally assigned by the courts, to persons without rights, in relation to which the Romanian Intelligence Service did not notify the illegalities at the time of the retrocession procedure. , and, subsequently, the National Anti- Corruption Directorate announced that the retrocession was illegal, the Romanian state being prejudiced by 300 million euros, according to the Source https://www.gandul.info/financiar/marele-jaf-din-padurile- romanesti-dna-face-public-primul-mare-dosar-in-care-ancheteaza-mafia-padurilor-cat-s-a-taiat-ilegal- 13391712 ; https://ziarulunirea.ro/firma-schweighofer-susceptibila-de-evaziune-fiscala-gerald-a-cumparat-de- 2-ori-si-si-a-vandut-o-data-3-munti-retrocedati-ilegal-326013/
(ii) HOLZINDUSTRIE SCHWEIGHOFER SRL, with its registered office in Sebeş Alba, registered sales of 17 billion lei, with a net profit of 2.2 BILLION LEI for "Forest killers" in Romania, according to the source: - https://www.profit.ro/stiri/economie/holzindustrie-schweighofer-a-ramas-in-2016-liderul-pietei-de- prelucrare-a-lemnului-cu-afaceri-de-433-milioane-euro-17067414
Page 74 of 152
- Hundreds of people protest on Friday in front of the Vienna Ministry of Environment, against the cutting of forests in Romania. The organizers marched on the streets of the Austrian capital with the message "Save Romanian Primary Forests". They say that "a number of Austrian companies chop millions of trees in Romania every year and should be held accountable." Source: https://www.mediafax.ro/externe/protest-in-fata- ministerului-mediului-din-viena-fata-de-taierea-padurilor-din-romania-ce-le-cer-oamenii-companiilor- austriece-video-18632502
(iii) over 650 forests, technicians and forest engineers suffered violence, serious bodily injury, destruction of property by wood thieves, according to the following sources: - https://www.green-report.ro/185-de-padurari-agresati-de-hotii-de-lemne-in-ultimii-cinci-ani/; - https://www.antena3.ro/actualitate/documentar-exploziv-la-antena-3-padurari-ucisi-de-mafia-lemnului- 538366.html; - https://lmar2010.blogspot.com/2019/10/state-paralel-al-lemnului-mafia.html - “Hundreds of people protest on Friday in front of the Vienna Ministry of Environment, against the cutting of forests in Romania. The organizers marched on the streets of the Austrian capital with the message "Save Romanian Primary Forests". They say that "a number of Austrian companies chop millions of trees annually in Romania and should be held accountable Source: https://www.mediafax.ro/externe/protest-in-fata-ministerului-mediului-din-viena-fata-de-taierea- padurilor-din-romania-ce-le-cer-oamenii-companiilor-austriece-video-18632502
(iv) of the largest areas relocated from Romania benefited persons who did not have a legal right of ownership over the respective buildings, for example the land in the area of Dămăroaia of the capital of Bucharest and an area of 200 hectares in other areas of the country, which were taken over by the "real estate sharks", the real heirs being removed, according to the source https://evz.ro/tunuri-imobiliare-in-inima-capitalei-952839.html
(11) In the absence of the collection of information and repeated criminal notifications, by the Romanian Intelligence Service, Romania has become in recent years the paradise of kidnappings and traffickers of live meat, which act almost unhindered
According to the National Agency against trafficking in human beings, 869 women out of which 440 minors were victims of human trafficking networks between 2017-2018. In the same period, 290 men had the same fate of which 112 are children. As of August 1, 2019, there were 2613 missing persons in the IGPR database, of which 481 are minors. Out of 3,000 victims, 2600 people continue to be missing. Beneficiaries of personal services / pleasures, abducted women and children, are prostitution networks in the country and abroad, persons in the judiciary and politicians in Romania. Other victims were exploited by foreign / western citizens, either in Romania or in Western European countries. Criminal sentence 30 / 07.07.2013 of the Olt Court notes that among the clients the kidnappers brought to minors for prostitution were Austrian and American citizens seconded in connection with the service in the area of the Caracal and Deveselu minions of Olt County. However, the lack of reaction of the Romanian authorities has recently been highlighted by television - cases of the kidnappings from Caracal. Although there have been investigations in the area for kidnappings and prostitution, girls and children are still being exploited in Romania and in western countries. Source: https://www.facebook.com/Libertate.Egalitate.Fraternitate/posts/2145384812250562/
(12) Shocking disclosures! How S.R.I. acted at ANAF: "They coordinated everything, nobody commented ..."https://www.cotidianul.ro/dezvaluiri-socante-cum-actiona-sri-la-anaf-coordonau-tot-nu-comenta-nimeni/
(13) The appointment, promotion or maintenance of public functions in Romania or in Brussels does not exclude interest / support links with the information service or persons within it. Persons with important public functions, decision makers in the exercise of the function participated or knew and tolerated systemic irregularities or illegalities. From this perspective, the promotion and / or the maintenance in public positions, Page 75 of 152
was recommended by the interest of some persons in relation to which there are indications / evidence that the law was previously violated. (14) "Militarization" of some public management or execution functions from public institutions of the highest importance, through officers from the Romanian Intelligence Service or its "collaborators", with the result of the concerted control of the decision-making activity of these institutions.
The president of the National Integrity Agency, Bogdan Stan is an information officer, see the Parliament report and chapter 2.6, the systemic non-observance of the law by the National Integrity Agency. After the withdrawal of the delegation from ANAF, a number of dozens of officers from the Romanian Intelligence Service continued their activity at ANAF. For example, Colonel Stefanescu Marian was appointed general director of the General Directorate of Integrity of ANAF, colonel Tatu Elena Carmen, general inspector of the General Anti-Fraud Tax Directorate, Ion Aurica deputy general inspector at the Anti-Fraud Tax Directorate - the relationship with other institutions, Stoica Adrian - was passed from the General Direction of Administration of the Great Taxpayers that manages and returns the excise duties as president to the commissions for examining the civil servants and taking up the management functions in ANAF, see chapter 2.4 non-observance of the law by the National Agency for Fiscal Administration.
In the police, Dobre Aurel was titled Director of the Investigation Department for economic crime in the Romanian Police after holding the position of chief services for crimes with excisable products. In 2012, in file 14382 / P / 2010 the police again requested from Farmec SA records - evidence, which coincides with the accounting records of fiscal statement 101, deteriorated and destroyed raw materials, including excise goods that received a refund. of excise duties from ANAF - DGAMC, non-deductible expenses, centralizing situations, invoices issued and not collected, canceled, canceled, reversed, passed on provisions - sample no. 7. Subsequently, Farmec SA did not present the required evidence, and the police officers filed the case, after discussing the solution with the case prosecutor, with the non-observance of art. 321, 323 from the Code of Civil Procedure. Enachescu Alexandru promoted deputy director within the Directorate of Economic Crime Investigations, after in the file 14382 / P / 2010 he asked for evidence and he went to pick them up from Farmec SA, and the records - the means of proof that were requested are not found in the file.
(15) https://www.luju.ro/plicul-galben-de-la-sri-informarile-sri-cu-care-dna-a-omorat-zeci-de-firme-romanesti- sunt-tinute-la-secret-sri-refuza-sa-desecretizeze-adresele-din-dosarul-cnas-inculpatii-sunt-judecati-pe- informatii-la-care-nu-au-acces-apreciem-inoportuna-declasificarea
YELLOW ENVELOPE from the Romanian Intelligence Service - Romanian Intelligence Service information with which National Anticorruption Directorate has killed dozens of Romanian companies are kept secret ... The defendants are judged on information they do not have access to ... "therefore the informative notes / the yellow envelope that is transmitted to the courts or public institutions, to be typed containing series, to be registered in the unique register of entries at each court and in the unique register of exits of the Romanian Intelligence Service and, to remain a copy in probation at public institutions ; the notes to the courts to be attached to the case file for each reasoned case. In this context, on the one hand, any suspicion regarding the obscure nature of the informative notes, the violation of fundamental rights and provisions may be removed in the future, and on the other hand, deputies and senators will be able to exercise parliamentary control through regular checks if these informative notes correspond both to the issuing institution and to the beneficiary institution of the information received, as well as whether the contents of the informative notes could be interpreted as an interference not permitted in the institution's activity or represent motivated information based on evidence
2.4 Failure to comply with the law by the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the competent public authority for finding, establishing and bringing to account the persons
Page 76 of 152
guilty of fraud of public finances and the damage of the private patrimony, as a result of: - the protection provided by the persons with management positions in this institution - the willful inaction of the judicial bodies of investigation and establishment of the criminal acts of some civil servants and - the protection provided, real and discreet, by officers from information structures
2.4.1. Mechanisms of fraud of public and private property, as well as their institutional protection. Frauds caused by public and private assets.
From 2008 until now, we have addressed to the National Agency for Fiscal Administration and the general directorates of its structure numerous complaints and petitions, containing evidence presented and indicated to be administered within the specific controls of each department. Public money fraud continues.
The petitions were deliberately ignored or classified, following formal checks and controls, because officers of information services and officials of ANAF together with business people, who violate the law and property, have a personal interest in protecting these mechanisms of systemic fraud. of public and private property, consisting of: - ANAF's decisions on illegal excise refunds, without the beneficiaries of these refunds presenting the centralizer and the related documents, which prove the actual consumption in the manufacture for products containing non-excise alcohol, - the willing acceptance by ANAF for the protected companies to record on non-deductible expenses transfers of large amounts of money, corresponding to suspected fictitious services, with the consequence of the artificial diminution of the taxable profit and the value of the legal tax due.
Some of these money transfers may represent, directly or through interposed, means of co- interest and rewards of persons in public positions, who do not comply with the legal norms in exchange for the protection provided for carrying out illicit operations.
The institutional protection of the mechanisms that, over time, have resulted in the fraud with billions of Euros of public and private heritage consists of:
- the lack of any fiscal control, the illegal endorsement of excise refunds, refund decisions that should not have been issued, - Fiscal inspections carried out and subsequently approved by the same executing and management persons, without noting the non-compliance with the Law, arising from the complete absence of the documents proving the consumption in the manufacture of the excise alcohol, for which the refund was requested, respectively the list of finished products that used the excised product, but also the non-excisable isopropyl alcohol, manufacturing recipes / product sheet with the quantity of alcohol used per product, production use sheets
Page 77 of 152
and invoices for leaving the management of the finished products, but also for non-excisable alcohol isopropyl that was purchased and used for real use.
- formal fiscal inspections, with the non-observance of art. 113 from the Code of Fiscal Procedure that regulates the checks that must be carried out during the fiscal inspection, because the same persons who validated the illegal excise refunds validated the tax inspection reports, actions that are confined to possible criminal facts in connection with the exercise of the service duties. - the passing of the decisions to return the excise duties, starting with 2016, from D.G. Customs at D.G. The administration of the Great Taxpayers, the same direction and the same persons who approve both the illegal excise refunds and the formal tax inspections, was made during the mandate of ANAF president, Mişa Ionuţ, so that the illicit refunds through DGAMC decisions and inspections to be kept "under control" by public officials in the same direction.
- promoting at the management of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration of the same persons who have ordered illegal excise refunds, and, subsequently, the same group of persons have notified fiscal inspection reports that, in breach of the law, did not reveal the irregularity and non-compliance with the law of the declarations 321, respectively requests for refunds of excise duties, and the unreality of the tax operations highlighted in the declarations 101, the unreality of the provisions and the non-deductible expenses, which conceal suspected fictitious operations.
- civil servants who participated in the conclusion of control minutes, issuing decisions to restore excise duties and drawing up control reports in violation of the Court of Auditors' report contained in the 2013 Report, according to which the officials who perform the fiscal control must be from another regional ANAF than the one in which the controlled company has its headquarters, a situation that continues by carrying out excise duties and fiscal inspections at the economic agent Farmec SA in Cluj-Napoca, by ANAF officials residing in the same city.
- civil servants who have drawn up control reports and issued illegal decisions to return the excise duties are the same persons who formally carried out the fiscal inspection and drafted the Tax Inspection Report of 15.12.2014, which created the appearance of checks and established unjustified payment obligations, with the consequence of canceling the inspection report by the sentence no. 46/2016 of the Cluj Court of Appeal, maintained by the High Court of Cassation and Justice by decision 3921 / 14.11.2018.
- civil servants, for example Adrian Cătălin Cojocaru, Ionuţ Misa, Mirela Călugăreanu ..., who have approved the illegal restitution of excise duties without the documents provided in point 22 paragraph 34 of the Methodological Norms for applying the Fiscal Code and without any verification, only on based on an explanatory note taken to the representative of the
Page 78 of 152
requesting company, where it is mentioned that the whole quantity of excise alcohol (ethyl alcohol with a concentration of 96.6%) was used in the production, were maintained, promoted and restored to high positions of the ANAF management, respectively the Ministry of Finance.
Although these illegalities were found both by the Romanian Court of Audit, as an external auditor, and by the General Integrity Directorate of ANAF, through the internal control report of 22.06.2018, as well as the violation of the law for a long time, the persons with management function and those with control attributions within ANAF did not make any notification to the judicial bodies of investigation, prosecutors and police, not complying with the legal obligation deriving from the provisions of the Criminal Code, they did not make any notification to the judicial bodies of investigation, prosecutor's office and police, in violation of the legal obligation deriving from the provisions of the Criminal Code.
2.4.2 Maintaining the mechanisms for the return of excise duties without the documents required by law, the registration in the accounting of companies, on deductible expenses of large amounts of money paid for suspected fictitious services, the recording in accounting of provisions and non-deductible expenses suspected non-real, create damage to the public and private patrimony
The lack of reaction of the fiscal authority regarding such situations coincides with the promotion of a group of persons in management positions from the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the Ministry of Finance or other public institutions. The same persons in the group also signed the illegal excise refunds, as well as the formal tax inspections, which do not reflect the reality of the documents attached to the refund applications nor of the suspected fictitious records from the accounts of some protected companies. The lack of checks and transparency of the institutional act stems precisely from the tacit assurance of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the National Anticorruption Directorate that all the officials who do not comply with the law are above the law and protected, in order to favor the persons participating in the fraud, within organized groups, including civil servants who validate illegal operations and essentially contribute to their continuity and non- recovery of damages.
Analyzing the mechanisms of restitution for a longer period of time, the control minutes regarding the excise refunds, which were concluded by the civil servants within the General
Page 79 of 152
Directorate of the Great Taxpayers, were endorsed and signed by Vorniceanu Marius as general director and deputy director, Mişa Ionuţ, as general director, Călugăreanu Mirela, as deputy director, Cojocaru Adrian Cătălin, as deputy director.
Therefore,
Mişa Ionuţ promoted one at a time as director general of DG Large Taxpayers Administration, Minister of Finance and president of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, and in 2018, through a holographic ticket, he rejected the proposal of The General Directorate of Integrity within the ANAF for notifying the judicial bodies regarding the criminal facts ascertained following the internal control:
In November 2019, after the PSD government replacement, he was re-appointed as General Manager at D.G. Large Taxpayer Administration from ANAF.
2. Călugăreanu Mirela was twice promoted to the position of president of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, and during the whole period of exercising this function no findings were made regarding the mechanisms of fraud of the state budget, which were evidenced by evidence, within the Notice registered with no. 904300 from 04.07.2019 (Thesis 1 and Thesis 2) addressed to the president of this institution, as well as in previous notifications. By the decision of the Prime Minister of the Liberal Government, confirmed by the Romanian Parliament, registered in the Official Gazette of Romania with no. 09440 from 25.11.2019, the vice-presidents of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration were replaced, but in the position of president was maintained Călugăreanu Mirela.
Vorniceanu Marius, between 1998-2017, held the position of deputy director at the General Directorate of Financial Control and the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, participated in the approval of tax inspections in relation to excise refunds that did not meet the law's requirements. later, in the period 2008-2014, he headed the department of the Romanian Court of Audit that carries out the external audit of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, a position in which he became aware of the findings of this institution, regarding the violation of the law on excise refunds, which would not be had to be approved, by the Report of 2013, but did not notify the prosecutor's office, a circumstance that allowed the continuation of the illegalities. Currently, Mr. Vorniceanu Marius holds one of the five decision functions in the plenary of the Office for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering, a public institution that also supervises the illicit
Page 80 of 152
transfers of money, in connection with the fictitious services and the illegal excise refunds by ANAF, regarding intra - community operations (. ..)
4. His successor was named Cojocaru Cătălin Adrian, the son of Vorniceanu as deputy director at the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers. 5. Another godson of Vorniceanu is Argeşeanu Marius, who acts as director of the directorate within the General Directorate of Anti-Fraud Tax of ANAF.
6. Ştefănescu Marian, colonel (r) of the Romanian Intelligence Service on 28.10.2019 was reinstated as director general at D.G. Integrity of the Agency. Although the General Directorate of Integrity proposed to notify the National Anticorruption Directorate, Mr. Ştefănescu Marian did not notify the prosecutor's office and did not ask the tax control directions to calculate the damages resulting from the non-observance of the Law by public officials in agreement with large companies regarding illegal excise refunds, acceptance of registration by large companies on deductible expenses of some services suspected fictitious, as well as due to the lack of ANAF verifications regarding the reality of the operations that are recorded in the tax declarations 101 by the big companies, including by Farmec SA, fiscal verifications that result from the fraud mechanisms described also in the notification transmitted to the DG Integrity on 04.10.2019 without result;
7. Pușdercă Laurenţiu was protected and maintained as deputy director of D.G. Anti-fraud section 7 Sibiu even after informing the president, the vice-presidents and the chief inspector of the DGAF, that he was the most "longeval" director protected by function, classified after 5 days the submissions of the undersigned without carrying out any real verification, and between 2017 and 2019 it violated art. 45 of Law 188, because it refused to comply with the hierarchical provisions regarding the fiscal control ordered in August 2018 by the central structure of the DGAF, by the ANAF president on 14.02.2018 and in August 2019 by the General Integrity Directorate of ANAF.
Tatu Carmen Elena, officer (r) of the Romanian Intelligence Service as inspector general of D.G. Fiscal Antifraud, but did not order checks as a result of the notification and the petition registered with ANAF on 10.10.2019, to which I attached the notification from 04.07.2019, and with regard to the content of the notification and the petition we also sent attached and which also include information about Pușdercă Laurentiu, deputy director of the General Directorate of Fiscal Anti-fraud Section 7 Sibiu.
The addresses received on 31.10.2019 and 07.11.2019 from the Department and the General Anti-Fraud Directorate, subordinated to the ANAF - DGAF vice president, Raul Cristian Petrescu, highlight the obscure framework of the communications transmitted by the tax authorities, regarding the fraud mechanisms mentioned in his notification registered with ANAF on 04.07.2019 and in the other attached documents, which also include information on numerous non-compliance with the provisions received on the hierarchical
Page 81 of 152
line by Puşdercă Laurentiu, deputy director of the 7th Sibiu section of the General Anti-Fraud Directorate.
The chief inspector's invocation of art. 11 of Law 207/2015, the fiscal procedure code regarding the fiscal secret, constitutes a pretext to hide the communication to the petitioner of the measures that were ordered, since the request of the undersigned did not concern data from the category of the information that is included in the fiscal secret defined by para. (2) art. 11 of Law 207/2015 according to which "(2) in the category of information of the nature of those considered to be tax secret enter the data regarding the taxpayer / payer, such as: identification data, nature and amount of tax obligations, nature, source and amount income, nature, source and value of goods, payments, accounts, turnover, transfers of counts, balances, receipts, deductions, credits, debts, value of net worth or any information obtained from declarations or documents presented by the taxpayer / payer or third parties . ”, But only the measures that would have been ordered by the fiscal body in order to solve the complaint, notification and entry into legality.
9. Tudor Daniel Mihail was appointed in the period from 2017-2019 and ensured the maintenance of the fraud mechanisms, in the following positions occupied successively by:- the vice-president of the anti-fraud department, a position which, to the benefit of the frauds from Farmec SA, allowed him to approve the proposal to classify the submissions of the undersigned to the DGAF, by Puşdercă Laurentiu, deputy director of the Anti-Fraud Directorate of the 7 Sibiu section and its protection,
- vice-president of the fiscal control department that had subordinated, both directions of fiscal control, both DGAMC and DGAF and continued the same "measures" of tacitly maintaining the mechanisms of fraud, in the context in which officials from the fiscal control prepare minutes without any verification, only on the basis of the EXPLANATORY NOTE taken by the fiscal body to the company representative.
10. Ioan Gligor, Ioan Rus, Ioan Zadic, ANAF officials who in a coordinated manner participated in both the illegal alcohol refunds for 10 years, as well as in the formal fiscal control within the DGAMC-ANAF and the drafting of the Fiscal Inspection Report of 15.12. 2014, regarding the unjustified amendment of Farmec SA with 69,000,000 lei. The fiscal inspection report was canceled by the Cluj Court of Appeal, but ANAF did not verify the issues that outline the fraud highlighted in the notification of the undersigned.
11. In connection with these fraud mechanisms, I unsuccessfully informed three ministers, who belong, in order, to the governments of the National Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, respectively Dana Anca Dragu, a former economic analyst at the General Directorate for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission in Brussels, Mişa Ionuţ, Teodorovici Orlando, and this document was also sent to Mr. Cîțu Florin, current Minister of Public Finance.
Page 82 of 152
12. The Minister of Public Finance benefits from a Control Body whose head is VÂSCEA Gheorghe, whose marriage godfather is Nicu Anghel, general (r) Romanian Intelligence Service, and is composed of Vladuț Nicușor and dozens of other civil servants, but they did not carry out any verification regarding the mechanisms of fraud of the public finances, but transmitted the notifications to the General Directorate of Integrity of ANAF, although they knew that this direction not only does not contribute to the removal of the practices, but did not have measures regarding the calculation of the damages produced and the notification of the prosecutor's office regarding the ANAF's prejudice, even after officials of the General Directorate of Integrity found similar to the Romanian Court of Audits that excise refunds should not have been granted, accepting the "provision" written on a note by Ionuț Mişa, ANAF president at that time not to be notified criminal investigation bodies.
2.4.3 Essential findings regarding the activity carried out by ANAF without observance
Regarding the verification and control actions undertaken by all the structures of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration and the answers received from this institution, in relation to the hearings, requests and petitions accompanied by evidence that we submitted during 2008-2019, but were purposely ignored and not taken into account during the so- called controls, in reality not at all or formally carried out, only to create the appearance of some checks required by law, with the purpose and final result of covering frauds and ensuring the conditions for their continuation, there can be retained, above all doubts, the following essential findings regarding the activity of ANAF:
• the practice of ANAF officials to order the excise duty to be refunded in illegal conditions, without the economic agents proving, with accounting documents, the consumption in manufacture of the excise product (alcohol, diesel, etc.), according to point 22 paragraph 34 from the Norms for the application of the Fiscal Code, corresponding to which the excise duties were requested, only on the basis of explanatory notes,
• the explanatory note taken by the fiscal body from the chief accounting officer of the company according to which the excise product was used in its entirety, only for the purpose and with the result of protecting the interests of the beneficiaries of the amounts resulting from frauds and contrary to the public interest, represented by the correct collection of excises to the state budget,
• unlawful excise refunds without the taxpayer / beneficiary to include in the tax declarations 321 / the excise refund requests, the full supporting documents regarding the quantities of excise product that benefit from the excise refund, and the General Directorate for the administration of the High Taxpayers, pursuant to art. . 113 tax procedure code, during the fiscal inspections, there was the practice of the National Fiscal Administration Agency not to observe the non-observance of the law when completing each request for refund of excise duties with incomplete documents and information regarding the proof of
Page 83 of 152
the quantities actually used for the purpose for which the refund is requested and does not require legal sanctions and the prosecution notification, according to the extract from the first page of some refund applications attached to Evidence no. 8:
Extract the application for excise refund Extract the application for excise refund 2016 2018
• furthermore, the excise duties and reports returned by the Fiscal Inspection are made by ANAF officials with their domicile in Cluj, a circumstance that violates the provision of the Romanian Court of Audit on page 157 of the Report of the Romanian Court of Audit in 2013,
• failure to carry out checks on the registration in the accounts of large companies of significant amounts of money on deductible expenses, services and suspicious fictitious transactions, which are based on large transfers of money to companies from the country, from European countries or to companies with tax regime offshore, transactions that violate the 1624 Directive of the Council of Europe, artificially reduce the taxable profit, damaging both the budget of public finances, by collecting lower taxes on profit tax, and the patrimony of joint stock companies by paying suspicious fictitious services,
• the continuity of the actions of fraud of the state budget and of prejudice of the patrimony of the company is the result of the failure, knowingly, of the attributions conferred by law to the structures of fiscal control and integrity within ANAF, through the influence exercised by persons with management positions in this institution , by politicians and by officers active or in reserve within the Romanian Intelligence Service, in order to protect the private interests of these influence groups.
In relation to all the aforementioned considerations, I addressed to the president of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, Călugăreanu Mirela, the petition and the notification registered with no. 904300 / 04.07.2019, accompanied by evidence, and under no. 41600 / 09.07.2019 I registered the petition addressed to the Minister of Public Finance, Mr. Orlando Teodorovici, but both documents were declined at the General Integrity Directorate within ANAF. (The notification and PETITION to the ANAF President and the Minister of Public Finance, as well as the addresses received from the ANAF General Page 84 of 152
Directorate of Integrity, in Romanian and English can be accessed on the website www.coruptie-functionaripublic-ofiteri-farmec-consiliulconcurentei.ro / wp /).
Regarding the systemic mechanisms of fraud, including with the participation of civil servants, and the constant inaction of the control structures within ANAF, described in the notification to the president of this institution and to the Minister of Finance, the answers received from the General Integrity Directorate within The National Agency for Fiscal Administration prove the superficial interest that has determined that no objective and complete verifications have been carried out, and the measures of the General Directorate of Integrity towards the control directions, respectively the General Directorate for the Administration of the High Taxpayers and the General Directorate for Tax Fraud, are not likely to lead to the elimination of the fraud mechanisms, the establishment of the illegal facts and the real damages, as well as the application of the sanctions corresponding to the legal provisions, (but also the ignorance of the irregularities manifested within the structures of ANAF, which allowed the continuity of fraudulent operations).
2.4.4 The Romanian Intelligence Service sent with delegation to the National Agency for Fiscal Administration a number of 250 officers with military degrees to execute the orders of their superiors regarding the causes of interest and fiscal controls at order
In 2018, a large part of these military officers were withdrawn, but there are still a few dozen in ANAF management positions, for example Carmen Tatu, currently holding the position of chief inspector at the Anti-Fraud Tax Directorate, Marian Ştefănescu - general manager at General Directorate of Integrity, Ion Aurica, Deputy Inspector General at DG Antifraud Fiscal, Stoica Adrian, Chairman of the Examining Commissions of Civil Servants for the Occupation of the Management Functions of the Fiscal Agency and others.
The plan signed by the director of the Romanian Intelligence Service, the Minister of Public Finance and the Minister of the Interior, the chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, has released the mass monitoring of companies and taxpayers "with high potential for tax evasion and high tax fraud". Thousands of companies were seized.
Under these conditions, any newly established taxpayer, especially those with Romanian capital, is declared from the outset suspected that they could commit tax evasion and joint actions with officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service are carried out by ANAF according to chapter II "Introduction, monitoring of taxpayers" with the potential of high tax evasion and fraud, of newly established companies, clarification of the practical issues resulted in the last period from the activity of collecting taxes and fees and intensifying the interinstitutional cooperation by granting access to the databases managed by law enforcement institutions in domain and carrying out joint actions ... "
In fact, this plan had a hidden character, it pursued applications in the area of private interest of officers and civil servants, each was directed against private property whose Page 85 of 152
heritage was harmed by concerted and directed abusive measures, with the purpose of carrying out fiscal controls directed against companies in order to destroy their activity or obtain economic information, as well as in order to protect the systemic fraud mechanisms in relation to which information officers and civil servants are interested since the findings of the Romanian Court of Audit in 2013 and the submissions of the undersigned, accompanied by evidence, to the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the Romanian Intelligence Service and the National Anticorruption Directorate, as well as to other prosecutor's offices, they were under the benefit of the inaction or of some formal controls that subsequently proved illegal. The decision of the Constitutional Court of 01.10.2019 found the unconstitutionality of the provisions that made these practices possible, and the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the measures that provided for the seizure until the end of the investigation.
2.4.5 The General Directorate of Integrity of ANAF, in the conditions of the knowledge of the mechanisms of fraud of the public property described with evidence in the THESIS 1 and THESIS 2 of the SESSION from 04.07.2019, did not have precise measures to the control directions, respectively a) to the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers to request information, records and measures, respectively centralizing with the companies that record in accounting on deductible expenses large amounts of money, representing money transfers to companies from the country and abroad, including with offshore tax regime , suspicious fictitious services, in whole or in part, depending on the supporting documents regarding the reality of the transactions, with the consequence of the artificial diminution of the taxable profit, and did not have in the same direction the measure of the fiscal inspection and the establishment of the legal sanctions that result from the finding of possible significant tax frauds , as well as the measure of the calculation and determination of the resulting damages, as a result of not presenting the supporting documents regarding the actual use of the excise product (manufacturing recipes, the list of finished products and invoices for the output of the finished products to the client). b) to the Directorate General for Fiscal Fraud to request: - pursuant to art. 113 of the Fiscal Procedure Code, to ascertain the non-observance of the law and to apply the sanctions provided for in point (j), after verifying that the tax declarations 321 are complete, and have attached all the documents provided in art. 34 of the Norms of application of the Fiscal Code regarding the proof of consumption of the excise product, respectively the list of products containing excise alcohol for which the excise duty is requested, the list of products containing isopropyl alcohol that is not subject to the excise regime, as well as the finished product sheets for products containing alcohol (manufacturing recipes), containing the name of the finished product, the quantity of alcohol Page 86 of 152
used per dose and the legal nature of the alcohol used, respectively excised or not subject to the excise duty regime;
- perform cross-checks based on complete accounting documents; - perform, by means of laboratory tests, comparative checks whether the value of the alcohol consumption mentioned in the manufacturing networks corresponds to the value for the same product resulting from the laboratory sample, both for products with excised alcohol, and for products with non-excisable alcohol;
Thus, the General Directorate of Integrity of ANAF has deliberately ignored the law, the frauds described in NOTIFICATION, the evidence presented, the Romanian' s Court of Audit findings and even its own findings regarding the confirmation of non-compliance with the law, the internal control report prepared in 2018 by this direction, which confirms the non- compliance. the law, considering that it did not carry out checks and did not order measures, regarding the fraud mechanisms mentioned in the complaint regarding the non-observance of the principles and of the law, regarding the equality of services and treatment by the national institutions, but also the non-observance of the right regarding equality before law.
The protection of these systemic mechanisms of fraud by the National Agency for Fiscal Administration is confirmed by the content of the address received from the Integrity Directorate with no. A-DGI 2436/905471 of September 2019, from the content of which it can be observed that the verifications that have been carried out within the ANAF are incomplete, superficial and formal, in relation to the practices highlighted in NOTIFICATION and the evidence presented, as well as to the requests of that petition, so, in relation to all the considerations presented above, it can be noted that:
(i) companies protected by information officers, through public officials of ANAF, record in the company's accounting, on deductible expenses, large amounts of money transferred to companies from the country, from abroad or to bank accounts with offshore tax regime, artificially diminishing the value of the profit taxable and due tax, a circumstance that, on the one hand, creates financial satisfaction for the persons who participate in money transfers, in order to motivate the interest groups, which participate and protect the systemic mechanisms of fraud through illegal restitution of excises and registrations in accounting of some suspicious fictitious transactions and services, and, on the other hand, commit fraud and misappropriate the assets of companies on shares used as a tool for conducting illegal operations and obtaining illicit profits.
(ii) companies protected by intelligence officers are subject to the mechanism of fraud by illegal excise refunds, without these, in the tax declaration 321 - the request for refund to present to the Fiscal Agency (ANAF) the complete documents provided in the law in point 22 paragraph 34 of The norms for applying the Fiscal Code, to prove the actual consumption for the purpose for which the exemption is granted from the payment of the excise duties for
Page 87 of 152
which the refund is requested, and the civil servants within the General Directorate of Administration of the High Taxpayers, within the fiscal inspections, do not respect the provisions of art. . 113 of the Fiscal Procedure Code.
2.4.6 Lack of a coherent legislative system regarding the protection of property
The lack of a coherent legal system regarding the protection of property that respects the rights of all parties involved, is also reflected in the fact that the law does not provide for the modality of formation and recovery of a debt by ANAF, both following a normal fiscal control, but especially afterwards some mistakes regarding the value of the enforceable title that is instituted by the tax authority and which is collected from the Taxpayers in an improper way. a) Following a fiscal control, ANAF finds that a taxpayer owes a sum of money and issues an enforceable title. The title becomes an official, compulsory act that is registered in the electronic archive, as well as known on the market of the taxpayer's business partners, the banks with which the taxpayer has loans or intends to access a credit, producing irreversible negative consequences in the business plan.Following an intentional or unintentional mistake by the tax body regarding the value of an enforceable title, the taxpayer is subject to a unilaterally established treatment without the wrong amounts being validated by a court before the application of the enforcement measures and the enforcement of assurance measures. b) If the taxpayer is justifiably justified in considering that the payment amount is incorrect, an expensive procedure follows in the court for suspending the effects of the title, in which case he has to pay a security of up to 20% of the value for which was issued the enforceable title, at the same time with the action in the cancellation of the fiscal control act.
The substantive and appeal judicial procedure lasts for several years, and the taxpayer must have the security of the bail to be paid at the same time as the judicial procedure is initiated, but the removal from the electronic archive of the measures established is made only after the decision becomes irrevocable in favor of the taxpayer. If the Court orders the cancellation of the payment amount that ANAF has found following the fiscal control, the taxpayer remains with the negative effects of the enforceable title that was issued by ANAF erroneously, respectively the impairment of the business which in the meantime may attract the state insolvency or bankruptcy, as a result of the negative reaction of business partners.
In both situations mentioned above, the taxpayer is the victim of a procedure by establishing the enforceable title, without the amounts being verified and validated in the judicial framework following the contradictory procedure.
Page 88 of 152
c) In case ANAF executes an enforceable title, the law incorrectly allows the National Agency for Fiscal Administration to request simultaneously to several banks the collection of the same enforceable title, because hypothetically ANAF often receives the same debt.
The above cases are systemic breaches of private property and property rights, which may initially lead to unintentional mistakes or abuses, with the result that as a result of the abusive actions of ANAF, some companies enter the insolvency / bankruptcy procedure, and thereafter, the assets and business of these companies will be taken over by certain companies controlled in the personal interest of some intelligence officers, civil servants or politicians.
2.4.7 The institution of the ANAF president did not contribute by precise and firm successive measures to encourage, respectively to eliminate the fear of some officials or, as the case may be to constrain persons from the management of ANAF directions, to determine the entry into legality, the calculation of the resulting prejudice, the application of the sanction provided for in art. 113 pt. J) tax procedure code, removing these fraud mechanisms and notifying the prosecutor's office regarding the repeated non-compliance with the law, as well as requesting the necessary legislative changes to the Minister, the Government and the Parliament.
Neither the ANAF president nor the General Integrity Directorate of the ANAF officials subordinated to the president complied with the Law, the provisions of the ANAF president, the findings of the ANAF Integrity Directorate, nor the findings of the Romanian Court of Audit, which in the Court's 2013 report stated on page 154 that ANAF should not have returned the excise duties in the absence of manufacturing recipes and documents regarding the consumption of alcohol, excise product, (documents proving production and sale).
In this respect, it is justified the appreciation that ANAF works in a legislative system that allows abuses, and the policy of the persons in the management of the central and regional structure, named through influential persons (their godsons) and officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service management, who have the interest that in the activity of this institution to continue certain practices and to obtain certain results of a personal nature, creates a high degree of uncertainty about the civil servants within the institution, which promotes a state of fear of them and blocks the activity of those civil servants who want to remove certain bad practices of fraud in public finances.
Evidence no. 8 highlights numerous attached documents and information highlighting ANAF abuses, with the result of protecting public property frauds, fiscal inspection reports and fiscal control minutes regarding the return of excise duties, documents by which the ANAF management have approved the return of excises, explanatory notes taken by the body fiscal to the representative of the company that the excise product was Page 89 of 152
used in the manufacture, the only one that was the basis of these refunds, reports of control bodies, as well as other documents regarding the tax frauds practiced by interest groups, accepted by public officials and carried out with the participation of some of them, under the protection of senior officials within ANAF and of officers within the intelligence services, of which we exemplify the following:
(1) The Romanian Court of Audit report from 2013 found that the officials of the National Tax Administration Agency violated the law on restoring excise duties without the beneficiary presenting the documents provided in the law, without manufacturing prescriptions for products containing the quantity of excise product and accepting the conditions impose to the beneficiary. We present the whole report attached, and also essential extracts from the contents of the report.
The report of 2013 of the Romanian Court of Audit, which found the violation of the law by the customs officials within ANAF, who returned the excise duties to Farmec SA during 2007-2011, without requesting and being presented by the company the documents provided by the law regarding the actual consumption of alcohol in the manufacture, the manufacturing recipes for the products containing alcohol, and without carrying out cross-checks on the reality of the use of alcohol, so that, practically, ANAF accepted the refund of excises under the conditions imposed by the applicant company Farmec SA ”, findings of the Romanian Court of Audit regarding the violation of the law by customs officials and remedial measures established since 2013, not fulfilled by ANAF until now (according to the excerpts):
- Excerpt page 154: "... In these circumstances, the external public auditors find that the refund was made under the conditions requested and imposed by SC Farmec SA and not on the basis of the analysis of the supporting documents, so that the decision of restitution is made aware of the case. . In order to establish the fiscal factual status, the taxpayer has the obligation to make available to the fiscal body, records, business documents, and any other documents. For the same purpose, the fiscal body has the right to request documents also to other persons with whom the taxpayer has or has had economic or legal relationships. In the absence of all the documents proving the actual consumption of ethyl alcohol for the purpose for which the exemption was requested, the refund should not be granted. In the favorable solution of the requests for restitution of the excise tax, not all the means of proof provided by the Fiscal Procedure Code were administered ... "
- "ANV could, according to the fiscal procedure code, request the delegation of powers for the fiscal inspection to be carried out by the fiscal inspection activity within another customs structure, in order to eliminate any suspicion regarding the independence of the persons carrying out this mission"
(2) Report of the Financial Guard - the General Commissariat, prepared on 15.03.2010, which highlights the absence of the denaturant in the management of the company (according to the extract): "From the laboratory analysis performed on 10 (ten) samples of" fresh air freshener Airwick, taken of the Financial Guard from the distributor in Romania of such products manufactured by the concern Reckitt Benckiser from Hungary resulted in the absence of the denaturant propandiol from the composition of the liquid contained in the odorizing sprays ”.
(3) The safety data sheet of the Air Wick product, produced by Farmec SA for Reckitt Benckiser, which confirms the undenatured ethyl alcohol, taking into account the references in the company documents, which results in the absence of the denaturant 1.2 propandiol with no. CASE 57-55-6, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the use of ethanol in the manufacturing process of the product, ie undenatured refined ethyl alcohol. (4) The manufacturing recipe for the product "AirWick 250 ml", document issued by SC Reckitt Benckiser with headquarters in Hungary, which was requested from this company by the Financial Guard, through ANAF, document in the criminal file no. 3164 / P / 2012 of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest Tribunal, which shows that the Air Wick product does not contain denaturant 1.2 propanediol, the alcohol used being
Page 90 of 152
ethyl alcohol (ethanol), which proves that the alcohol used by Farmec SA for the AIR WICK product has not been denatured.
(5) The minutes of 30.03.2009, concluded by the customs officials on the occasion of the verification of the excise refund, stating that “Denatured ethyl alcohol was received in two different warehouses, each with its own record kept by the FIFO method, the first reception being in both cases for the merchandise provided by Euroavipo Grup SRL .... "and that" .... From the verification of the warehouse records it was found that the data in them do not fully correspond to the requests for refund, the latter containing errors of calculation and erroneous data".
(6) The fiscal inspection report that shows contradictory information regarding the number of finished products, respectively 62 and 93 products, to which the company used alcohol, (according to the extract - page 8): “from the verified documents it was found that alcohol denatured ethyl… was used in production between January 2006 and January 2009 for the manufacture of 62 marks (finished products, semi-finished products and testers) ”, while the expertise from file no. 3164 / P / 2012, to which we referred above, mentions that the company used alcohol in the manufacture of a number of 93 finished products (according to the extract): “On a distinct manner, a centralizing situation was drawn up which results from the fact that during the analyzed period, the company used the ethyl alcohol purchased to obtain 93 marks, (finished products, semi-finished products and testers) ”, a situation which proves that the company has presented contradictory and non- compliant information with the real economic operations, documents that show that the beneficiary of the refund does not present any provided documents of law regarding the proof of real consumption in the manufacturing process.
(7) document in PDF format, which outlines five sets of excise refund applications, fiscal control minutes regarding these requests and excise refund decisions, without the economic agent Farmec SA presenting the documents provided by law on the actual use of alcohol in manufacturing. (8) document in PDF format, which highlights from 2014-2019, requests for the refund of excise duties which, regarding the proof of consumption in manufacture, include only consumer goods, do not contain lists of the manufacturing products / product sheets with the product name, the quantity of alcohol / product and the nature of the excise / non-excisable isopropyl alcohol, invoices for withdrawal from the products containing alcohol.
(9) control minutes, explanatory notes in which it is mentioned that alcohol was used in the manufacture, as well as the documents through which persons from the ANAF management have approved the excise refunds without the documents provided by law, making it impossible to verify the reality of the consumption in the manufacture, although the Court of Accounts mentioned in the 2013 Report that the refund of excise duties should not have been approved in the absence of the documents provided for proving the actual alcohol consumption.(10) The Fiscal Inspection Report of 15.12.2014 and the annexes 11 and 12, in which it is mentioned that the fiscal inspection was started following the notices of the undersigned, but the address no. 3770/2016 of the General Directorate for Integrity of ANAF confirms that the DGAMC has not carried out fiscal verifications regarding the notifications of the petitioner, that is, of the undersigned, as unreally is mentioned in the RIF by the tax inspectors, and, moreover, from the same report results on several occasions the formulation of "denatured alcohol", although, from the content of the annexes to the report, signed by the tax inspectors and Farmec officials, it can be seen that the alcohol was not denatured, but they did not apply legal sanctions.
(11) the civil sentence no. 46/2015 of the Cluj Court of Appeal, from which it follows that the economic agent Farmec SA did not fulfill the fiscal norms regarding the refund of excise duties and the lack of coherence of the fiscal authorities (according to the extract - page 15): “In addition, one of the conditions provided in the fiscal norms for the return of excises was the presentation of the proof of the quantity used for the purpose for Page 91 of 152
which the exemption was granted, consisting of a centralizing situation of the quantities actually used and of the related documents. From here it is doubtless that the respective decisions to return the excise duties for the period 2009-2011 are in contradiction with the findings of the fiscal inspection report and with the measures in the tax decision, related to the same time period, the Court noting the inconsistency of the authorities' fiscal conduct, taking into account also the relatively large interval of time in which the restitution decisions were issued ”.
(12) The internal control report prepared by the Integrity Directorate of ANAF (p. 133), which highlights the violation of the law, because it found the practice for a long period of the Supervisory Direction of Excise and Customs Operations to issue decisions of excise refund, without the Farmec SA agent presenting the accounting documents regarding the actual consumption of manufactured alcohol (according to the extract - page 133): ".. provided the company has not submitted a document to the tax authority to show the method of calculating the cost of production and implicitly, the quantity of ethyl alcohol used for the purpose of producing each type of cosmetic product, the fiscal body did not have sufficient information to establish the reality of the consumption of raw material, respectively ethyl alcohol in correlation with the quantity of finished product and products in execution ".
(13) The internal control report of the Integrity Directorate of ANAF, from which results (according to the extract) that: "... the fiscal inspection team formed by Rus Ioan-Vasile, Zadic Ioan and Şandor Marcela-Mihaela, under the coordination of Mr. Gligor John, did not comply with the provisions of art. 8 of the O.P.A.N.A.F. no. 467/2013 and resumed the fiscal inspection although they acknowledged that the conditions provided in art. 5 lit. e) from the same normative act were not met ... "
(14) The internal control report of the Integrity Directorate which results (according to the excerpts) that Alin Aurel Ghiurcă, Deputy General Manager of the Fiscal Inspection Directorate, during the period 11.03.2014- 14.12.2014, "... moved to Cluj where he participated in the activity review session, but he also read the draft Tax Inspection Report and made some observations. The meeting was attended by the mentioned and Mr. Rus Ioan. Mr. Alin Ghiurcă also called for the drafting of the Tax Inspection Report as a matter of urgency ... "and" ... he believes that he has asked the tax inspection team to draw up the aforementioned point of view, but he makes it clear that in many situations he prepared information that he presented to the management, all the more so since the first two addresses were inscribed the resolution "please talk", and in order to discuss it he had to inform the management in advance; "
(15) The internal audit report prepared by the Integrity Directorate of ANAF (p. 161), which highlights: “the violation of the law and in the period after 2012 up to now (2018), similar to the findings of the Romanian Court of Audit regarding the period 2007 - 2011 in connection with the absence of any ANAF checks by the excise department at the date of excise refund and by the Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers (DGAMC) at the date of the fiscal inspection. Following the verification of the documents annexed by the economic operator to the refund applications, as well as the documents mentioned by the control teams in the minutes that have been verified, the internal control team thinks that the way in which the fiscal body granted the excise refund right to SC Farmec SA, between 2014-2016, has similarities with some aspects noted by the Romanian Court of Audit in the Report prepared in 2012, respectively a possible deficiency regarding the verification of all the supporting documents regarding the use in the production process of cosmetic products of denatured ethyl alcohol, respectively the specific consumptions for products incorporating denatured ethyl alcohol in correlation with the recipes / manufacturing specifications ”.
(16) Excerpts from the balance sheets of Farmec SA, which show that the employees of the joint-stock company recorded on non-deductible expenses and provisions over 60,000,000 lei / ron, equivalent to over 15,000,000 euros, representing the value of the invoices issued by this company to customers from country and abroad, according to excerpts from the declaration 101 submitted to ANAF, in order to create the Page 92 of 152
appearance that alcohol was used in the manufacturing process and to obtain decisions to return the excise duties paid and legally due.
(17) excerpt from the notification to DGAMC dated 14.09.2017 and 2019 regarding examples of suspected fictitious services, which have been protected by ANAF so far.
(18) The annual audit report prepared by KPMG for Farmec S.A, according to which (excerpt): “During 2016 the company registered trade-offs between receivables and debts to 45 partners. The gross value of the debts and claims that were the object of the compensation was 52,298,282 lei. These compensations were made mainly with the large chain stores and the state budget (VAT excise duty with alcohol excise duty).
"(19) The minutes dated 21.06.2017, concluded by the fiscal inspectors Cuc Mariana, Minuta Angela, Nicola Horea Ioan, Raţiu Rodica Mariana, (all with their domicile in Cluj) within the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, from which results that, for example, in 2015 there was an excessive number of invoices reversed and canceled, with a high suspicious value, but no checks were made regarding the reality and legality of these invoices and the related accounting operations, which are mandatory during the fiscal inspection, according to the provisions of art. 108 and art. 118 paragraph (5) of chapter V of the Fiscal Code.
(20) The internal control report of the ANAF of 2019, which highlighted that the same persons participated in the conclusion of the minutes of the excise refunds, as well as in the Fiscal Inspection Report, a circumstance that suggests that persons from the management of the National Fiscal Administration Agency sought to cover the illegalities regarding the excise refund (according to the excerpts):
- Excerpt page 96: "... It is found that the same control team that carried out the unannounced control at SC Farmec SA concluded with Minutes no. R-BH 18 from 04.07.2012, has been designated with the partial fiscal inspection of excise duties. "(P. 96).
- Excerpt page 99: "The internal control team found that the members of the fiscal inspection team appointed to perform the partial fiscal inspection of excise duties at SC Farmec SA, both those of D.R.A.O.V. Cluj (Lorincz Gheorghe, Mihele Ovidiu and Talpoş Delia-Teodora), as well as those from D.G.A.M.C. (Rus Ioan-Vasile, Zadic Ioan and Şandor Marcela-Mihaela) and who had the obligation to verify the reality and legality of the operations with excisable products, carried out before it (14.01.2013), on-the-spot investigations / unannounced controls in order to solve the requests for restitution of excises to the taxpayer subject to fiscal inspection, aspect confirmed also by the previously nominated ”(p.99).
- Excerpt page 101: "Compared to the above mentioned ones, the internal control team considers that since the above-mentioned ones had previously pronounced on the legality of the operations for which they approved the requests for restitution of excises submitted by SC Farmec SA to the competent fiscal body, there is the probability that those actions were reflected in the partial fiscal inspection of excise duties by exercising a formal control regarding the verification of the purchases of ethyl alcohol denatured from the point of view of legality and reality with repercussions on the fiscal findings of the Tax Inspection Report no. F-MC 376 / 15.12.2014 ... ”(p. 101).
(21) The proposal of the General Integrity Directorate to be notified to the National Anticorruption Directorate was prevented by the ANAF president, Mr. Mişa Ionuţ, who approved the Internal Control Report, but attached the unsigned balance ordering measures without National Anticorruption Directorate written by the hand according to the photocopy inserted , mentioned above. Neither Mrs. Călugăreanu Mirela, the president of ANAF, who holds the capacity of president of ANAF, did not take measures to notify the judicial bodies according to art. 291 C.p.p.
Page 93 of 152
(22) The report of the Directorate-General for Integrity, from which results (according to the statements - pages 142 and 162), that: “it states that the criminal file no. 3164 / P / 2012 instrumented by the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest Court was not instrumentalized by the General Legal Directorate in the criminal investigation phase. The answer is all the more important since during the period 07.01.2014 - 16.08.2016 the above-mentioned one has held the position of head of the Judicial Service in criminal cases within the General Legal Directorate. ”And that, at the court“… in the instrumentation of the file no. 12283/3/2016, there were no additional defenses to the formal content of the complaints made. "
(24) the address received from the General Directorate of Integrity of ANAF A-DGI 2436-1905471, which confirms the lack of ANAF measures as a result of the NOTIFICATION and PETITION of 04.07.2019 registered with no. 904 300.
(25) The addresses from 31.10.2019 and 07.11.2019 received from the Chief Inspector of the DGAF Mrs. Tatu Carmen Elena and the Vice-President of the DGAF Raul Cristian Petrescu.
(26) The joint measures plan of ANAF, the Romanian Intelligence Service and other Public Institutions, regarding companies with Romanian capital hunted by ANAF. Source: https://www.luju.ro/dezvaluiri/anchete/firmele-romanesti-haituite-de-noua-securitate-iata-ingrozitorul-plan- comun-de-masuri-prin-care-in-numele-combaterii-evaziunii-fiscale-agentii-economici-si-contribuabilii-au-fost- vanati-de-haitele-anaf-piccj-sri-mai-mj-planul-semnat-de-maior-si-kovesi-a-da
(27) “Liviu Dragnea's Tax and Romanian Court of Audit Network. People close to the leader of the PSD have controlled the multinationals demonized for alleged wrongdoing over the last six years. The main characters are: Ionuț Mișa (former Minister of Finance, former head of ANAF, former head of the General Directorate for the Administration of High Taxpayers) . Supported directly by Liviu Dragnea in all these positions, he reported directly to the PSD president, passing on his direct heads; Bogdan Stan (former head of ANAF, former deputy director of the General Directorate for the Administration of High Taxpayers, current member of the Romanian Court of Audit plenary). Supported directly by Liviu Dragnea. He coordinated a tax inspection division of the Taxpayers Department; Florin Tunaru (former ANAF vice-president, current vice-president of the Romanian Court of Audit). He was the auditor at Romcip SA / Ferma Salcia SA (Dragnea jr. Company), while he was Liviu Dragnea's personal advisor when he was president of the County Council; Marius Vorniceanu (former adviser and general manager in the Romanian Court of Audit). His daughter's company audited for Tel Drum, and Vorniceanu is considered in the PSD Liviu Dragnea's right hand regarding his business. Vorniceanu was in the past a "pillar" of the controversial Financial Guard; Mihai Busuioc (the current President of the Romanian Court of Audit, former General Secretary of the Government). Busuioc is also a close relative of the head of the PSD, the one who appointed him to the management positions at the Ministry of Development and the General Secretariat of the Government; Cătălin Cojocaru and Alexandru Costache are close to Marius Vorniceanu, being Page 94 of 152
considered loyal. ”Source: https://www.g4media.ro/exclusiv-reteaua-din-fisc-si-curtea-de-conturi-a-lui-liviu- dragnea-oamenii-apropiati-de-liderul-psd-au-controlat-in-ultimii-sase-ani-multinationalele-demonizate- acum.html
(28) https://romanialibera.ro/investigaţii/esecul-murfatlar-dosarul-dna-desfiintat-partial-de-judecatori-701200. Ionuţ Mişa's links with the fraud of public property, tax evasion from Murflatar! Ionuț Mișa left in 2013 from the management of Finance in Constanța and came to a position that is also related to the verification of Murfatlar Romania businesses. On February 13, 2013, Mișa became general director at the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, where he had responsibilities regarding the coordination and organization of the fiscal control activity and the fiscal administration activity. At the National Anticorruption Directorate, the Murfatlar file was not in process, although the National Anticorruption Directorate prosecutors declared that: “the acts of the Murfatlar chiefs would have been carried out provided that the civil servants within the competent tax and customs authorities either failed to perform the acts to which they were obliged by the service duties. , or they have performed such acts defective ”, so they protect frauds and persons:
2.5 The systemic non-observance of the law and of the European Law by the Competition Council, respectively of the provisions of art. 5, 6, 15 and 17 of the Competition Law no. 21/1996, but also of the provisions of art. 101 and 102 of the Treaty on European Union on Competition
Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius has the position of President of the Competition Council, concurrently with the membership in the organization "Aspen Institute", of which are part business people, but also leading persons of prestigious companies, investigated at the Competition Council for participation to cartels, prohibited by the Competition Law, context in which the systemic breach of the legal provision mentioned above is explicable and justifies the appreciation that the president of the competition authority closed / opened investigations without the plenary agreement, favored large companies whose representatives are members in the previous organization mentioned.
In 2009, Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius was appointed as President of the Competition Council by the President of Romania at that time, Traian Băsescu, being of notoriety the support he has benefited from him and other people with important public functions, respectively , Bujor Teodoriu Bogdan - presidential adviser - and Olteanu Bogdan - former vice-president of the Chamber of Deputies, vice-governor of the National Bank of Romania and former vice- president of the National Liberal Party, under the conditions in which he did not fulfill the legal conditions in terms of professional training, because Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius studied medicine at Carol Davila University, did not profess in the legal or economic field, but held the position of State Counselor of the former President of Romania, Traian Basescu.
In 2015, the mandate of Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius as President of the Competition Council was renewed by the appointment in this position by the current President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, under the conditions in which he, on March 23, 2015, decided not to promulgate The Forestry Code and to send it to Parliament for review on the basis of a document transmitted to the Presidency of Romania at the initiative of the Competition Council, as Page 95 of 152
stated by President Klaus Iohannis in a press conference on May 14, 2015, after, on April 27, 2015, The Senate of Romania rejected the request for review and adopted the Forestry Code: "When we sent the Forestry Code to Parliament, there was a document that we relied on, it is the DOCUMENT THAT HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED TO US, WITHOUT BEING REQUESTED, BY THE COMPETITION COUNCIL, which drew our attention to the fact that there is a risk of infringement for Romania, so there is a risk that the law does not comply with the European law. I thought it was a very serious thing. ”
The decision to review the Forestry Code was adopted by President Klaus Iohannis, in the context that concerning this law, in the public space, there were numerous reactions in the sense that the company Holzindustrie Schweighofer, the main beneficiary of the illegal retrocessions and Forestry cutting, but also the most important company in the activity of cutting, procurement and processing of mass, influences state institutions in order to adopt a legislation favorable to its activities and to block any action directed against companies related to this company, both directly and through the Competition Council or some politicians, highlighting the amplification of political attacks between PSD and PNL.
From this perspective, it can be argued that a causal link is not excluded between the following factual circumstances, evidenced by documents and numerous public information: (i) granting by the president Klaus Iohannis a new mandate of president of the Competition Council to Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, with the non-observance of the law regarding the conditions of employment of this function and regarding the incompatibility;
(ii) sending the Forestry Code for review by Parliament based on a document issued on its own initiative by the Competition Council, an abnormal situation, since "the Competition Council does not have an institutional relationship on its own initiative with the President", as the former President has stated of Romania, Traian Băsescu, in a telephone intervention on B1TV from 14.05.2015, stating that "IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED TO ME, IN 10 YEARS, TO GET FROM THE COMPETITION COUNCIL A NOTICE CONCERNING THE PROMOTION OF A LEGISLATION. (...... ) This is the first time I see that this is how the Competition Council works ”;
(iii) reasonable suspicion indicating a possible involvement of President Klaus Iohannis in supporting the interests of Holzindustrie Schweighofer, generated by: - the scandal surrounding the adoption of the new Forestry Code; - Cosmin Capră, former general manager of Holzindustrie Schweighofer, between 2003- 2011, and later, administrator of Energy Exchange Austria (EXAA), a renewable energy company that produces biomass made at Holzindustrie Schweighofer, a person living in Sibiu, on the same street with President Iohannis' family
-the very close relations of Andreas Huber, the godson of President Klaus Iohannis and the Honorary Consul of Austria in Romania, with Holzindustrie Schweighofer;
Page 96 of 152
- statements made at a press conference by Sebastian Ghita, according to which there were documents about the connection between Klaus Iohannis and a representative of the Austrian company Holzindustrie Schweighofer: "Here is the proof, since you want documents:
(iv) the investigation of forests illegal logging and tricked bids, currently underway at the Competition Council, of which is also part the Austrian company Holzindustrie Schweighofer, headed by Gerald Schweighofer;(v) the possible pressures and influences exerted by Holzindustrie Schweighofer on the Competition Council and, indirectly, on the President of Romania, through a former director within the Competition Council, during the mandate of Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius as president of this institution, respectively Georgeta- Elena Gavriloiu, current lawyer within the company "Schoenherr and associations", which provides legal assistance for Holzindustrie Schweighofer, representing "the influence traffic at the Competition Council, respectively the suspected branch Holzindustrie Schweighofer - Georgeta-Elena Gavriloiu - Bogdan Chiriţoiu and / or the officials who drawn up the address no. 2652 from March 17, 2015 sent by this institution to the President of Romania, Mr. Klaus Iohannis ”;
(vi) the involvement of the National Liberal Party, which supports the candidacy of Klaus Iohannis for a new term of President of Romania, for maintaining the position of Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, in order to protect certain group interests, considering that: - Report no. XX / 215 / 17.04.2019 of the Economic Commission, industries and services of the Senate, which concluded its submission to the Permanent Bureau of the Senate, with a view to forwarding it to the President of Romania, with the proposal of dismissing Bogdan Chiriţoiu from the position of President of the Competition Council, the Constitutional Court was notified by the National Liberal Party with the exception of unconstitutionality of the Senate Decision no. 4 / 11.02.2019 by which it was agreed to conduct a parliamentary inquiry by a permanent commission on the way of conducting an investigation by the Competition Council, exception rejected by decision no. 416 / 26.06.2019 to CCR.
- Raluca Turcan, vice-president of the National Liberal Party and vice-prime minister of the Romanian Government from this moment, owns jointly with Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius a plot of land in Gruiu, Ilfov county;- Ludovic Orban, president of the PNL and current Prime Minister of Romania had interests of collaboration with the law firm "Doru Tărăcilă and associations", in which works as a collaborator also Dumbravă Dumitru, former Director of the Legal Department within the Romanian Intelligence Service, institution who did not make criminal notifications in relation to illicit business and possible criminal acts committed in the exercise of the duties of service by Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius within the Competition Council;
Page 97 of 152
- Alexandru Violeta is vice-president of the National Liberal Party and minister in the current government, but also a member of the organization "Institut Aspen", along with Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius; Last but not least, keeping Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius in the position of President of the Competition Council, under conditions of obvious incompatibility and systemic non- observance of the law by the institution he runs since 2009, was and is supported by the representatives of the European Commission, an aspect highlighted by a series of documents sent to the Constitutional Court by the Competition Council, in support of the exception of unconstitutionality regarding the parliamentary inquiry into the activity of this institution, respectively:
(i) "Address of Mr. Johannes Laitenberger, Director-General, European Commission-DG Comp, dated April 2, 2019, on the parliamentary inquiry", (ii) "Address of Mr. Johannes Laitenberger, Director General, European Commission-DG Comp, dated February 28, 2019, regarding the duration of investigations", (iii) "address of Mrs. Margrethe Vestager, Commissioner for Competition, regarding the status of independence, provided by the ECN Plus Directive - letter dated December 21, 2017".
Compared to the above, it is justified to conclude that the President of the Competition Council, Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius enjoys the privilege of being "above the law" by persons and public institutions in Romania or in Brussels, in order to protect and maintain this position , knowingly ignoring his incompatibility with the public function and his involvement in the systemic non-observance of the law by this institution, with the purpose and the result of favoring certain natural or legal persons in relation to carrying out, closing or not opening investigations by the Competition Council, illegal actions with very high impact on the heritage of consumers in Romania.
This conclusion is required also in relation to the following considerations: a) - the finding of the Economic Commission for Industries and Services according to which "The President of the Competition Council, Bogdan Chiriţoiu, by his decisions, obstructed the good conduct of the investigation and made it difficult to reach the objectives of the parliamentary inquiry, as approved by the Permanent Senate Office, by the Decision no. 4/2019 ", as well as that the investigation initiated by the Security Structure of the Competition Council regarding the provision of documents and statements given in the parliamentary investigation, in a secret meeting represents" an attitude of defiance of a parliamentary inquiry, by intimidation of witnesses ", which" is unprecedented and cannot be tolerated as it has affected the good conduct of the investigation "(points 2 and 17 of the Report no. XX / 215 / 17.04.2019 of the Economic Commission for Industries and Services of the Senate);
Page 98 of 152
b) - lack of finality of the findings and conclusions contained in the Report no. XX / 215 / 17.04.2019, drawn up following the parliamentary inquiry carried out by the Economic Commission, industries and services of the Senate, validated by rejecting the exception of unconstitutionality of the Parliament Decision no. 4/2019, according to the Decision no. 416 / 26.06.2019 of the Constitutional Court, as long as the proposal "dismissal of Bogdan Chirițoiu from the position of President of the Competition Council" has not been realized so far.
As a consequence, Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius continues to exercise his mandate as President of the Competition Council in a state of incompatibility with this function and in the same non-transparent, discretionary way and in violation of the legal norms, benefiting from the inaction or formal action of some public institutions and authorities, which did not properly fulfill the prerogatives provided by law for reporting and investigating the activity of the Competition Council and of the president of this institution, such as the National Anti- Corruption Directorate, the Romanian Intelligence Service, the National Integrity Agency, the Romanian Court of Audit, with the result of ensuring the protection and maintenance of non-compliance of law and European Law at the Competition Council.
2.5.1 The systemic non-observance of the Law and of the European Law derives, first of all, from the willful appointment, in the position of president and member of the Plenum of the Competition Council, of persons incompatible with the law and under the existence of a suspicion regarding the legality of setting up the Consultative College of the Competition Council
The most important public institutions can ensure the observance of the law, the Constitution and the European Law only by appointing integral, professional and compatible persons, from the point of view of the legal provisions, with the public dignity function that they hold. The principle of legality was willfully violated by politicians on the occasion of the election and appointment as president of the Competition Council of persons incompatible with this dignity and were maintained in the public office, in exchange for the execution of the orders received and with the purpose that these illegal appointments ensure protection of the interest groups that have contributed to the appointment of the presidents in positions, to be able to control and direct the activity of the Competition Council, a key authority in the life and business climate of Romania and of any country.
The Presidents of the Competition Council and its members were abusively appointed, following the Government Ordinance of December 2003, by which the Government proposes and the President of Romania appoints, without a pre-selection procedure and without verifying the fulfillment of the conditions provided by Law 21/1996 for the appointment in the respective functions, so that in relation to the last three presidents at the Competition Council there are strong indications that the provisions of art. 15/17 of the Page 99 of 152
Law 21/1996 were not respected, a circumstance against which, in relation to their incompatibility with the position of president at the Competition Council, it turns out that neither the competent state institutions have measures to remove the violation of the law nor have they fulfilled the attributions provided by the legal norms.
1) Incompatibility with the position of president of the Competition Council of Berinde Mihai, who, between 2004-2009, held the dual capacity of president of the Competition Council and of officer of the Foreign Intelligence Service, with the military degree of general, and following the notification of this circumstance, the Foreign Intelligence Service withdrew him from his position as president of the Competition Council.
2) Incompatibility with the position of president of the Competition Council of Oprescu Gheorghe, under the conditions in which the National Integrity Agency found this incompatibility after the exercise of the mandate by decision no. A259 / 1.1 / 03.2009. However, the decisions made by Oprescu Gheorghe in the position exercised against the law were not annulled, on the conditions that, on March 27, 2009, the National Integrity Agency sent a press release regarding the finding of the incompatibility state only at the expiration of his mandate of President of the Competition Council.
However, Oprescu Gheorghe had, on the one hand, the obligation to declare on the date of appointment that he was not in one of the incompatibility cases, according to the provisions of art. 86 of Law no. 161/2003, and, on the other hand, it had the possibility to make all the necessary steps to enter into legality, in terms of respecting the legal regime of incompatibilities, within a maximum of 75 days from the date of appointment in function, according to art. 99 of the same law.
3) Incompatibility with the quality of president of the Competition Council of Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, a public position that he has been helding and holds for a period of ten years.
The current President of the Competition Council, Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, is incompatible with this function and with that of a member of the Council plenary, in relation to the provisions provided in art. 15 and art. 17 paragraph 5) of Law 21/1996, valid from 29.12.2015, which regulates the criteria of incompatibility of the president and members of the plenary.
(1) The first reason for incompatibility with the capacity of President of the Competition Council arises from the non-fulfillment of the provision provided in art. 17 paragraph (3) of Law 21/1996, valid for the period 2009 - 29.12.2015, and at art. 15 paragraph 4 point g) of Law 21/1996, valid from 29.12.2015 until now, according to which the president and the members of the Plenum of the Competition Council must have an active, economic and / or legal experience of ten years, and according to the information presented in the CV of
Page 100 of 152
Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, he has not met and does not currently meet the conditions provided by the Law, respectively 10 (ten) years economic and / or legal experience.
(2) The second reason for incompatibility in the appointment and holding of this position by Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius arises from the provisions of art. 15 paragraph (6) of Law no. 21/1996, which refers to the fact that any member of the plenary is forbidden to own consulting companies, directly or through interposed persons, or to be part of other Associations that could affect the decisions made in the position held in the Plenary of the Competition Council, which must be INDEPENDENT of its personal interests.
The current President Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius was appointed on April 27, 2009, and at that time he was associated and directly owned 33% of the shares of Creator Consulting SRL, respectively 90% of the shares of BMC Consultant SRL, the administrator of this company being even his father, Chirițoiu Constantin, and the object of activity of both companies being "business and management consulting activities".
Taking into account the obvious incompatibility situation, on May 20, 2009 Bogdan M. Chirițoiu created the appearance of compliance with the law, which was violated throughout the exercise of the two mandates as president of the Competition Council, and convened the general meeting of the associates. , in which he specifies that he renounces the social shares he owned in the two companies, assigning them to his father Chirițoiu Constantin and to Carmen Savin.
Examination of the provisions of art. 17 paragraph (5) of the competition law, in force until 29.12.2015, and of art. 15 paragraph (6) of the same law, valid from 29.12.2015 until now, allows the conclusion that the official who continues to exercise his interests in a commercial company, through an interposed person, is in the area of incompatibilities at which refers the law, because, in such a situation, the personal interests of Mr. Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius did not cease with his exit from the two companies, but continued through his father, in the conditions of fulfilling the position of president of the Competition Council by Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, so that it had the obligation to refer to the aforementioned situation in the declarations of wealth and interests, which he omitted in order to protect his interests.
(3) The third reason for the incompatibility with the position of president and member of the Plenum of the Competition Council, arises from the quality of Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius as a member of the "ASPEN Institute" Romania and as a member of the National Committee for Development, a factual situation that is not highlighted in any declaration of interests, since the provisions of the Competition Law, mentioned above, prohibit belonging to any economic structure precisely to protect the independence of the president and members of the Competition Council. In this respect, the lack of independence in making decisions as president and member of the Plenum of the Competition Council is due to the fact that the "Aspen Institute" is funded by GEORGE SOROS and represents one of the foundations in
Page 101 of 152
Romania financed by the well-known American billionaire, a private person who aims to promote personal business interests.
A list of organizations funded by the American billionaire George Soros, published in the American press, includes a key name: Aspen Institute, whose Romanian branch is headed by Mircea Geoană, former PSD leader, former foreign minister and former US ambassador, and public information indicates that this foundation has connections in the business world, at the highest level of management of foreign banks, key in Romania, or of some corporate companies, which have been or are in investigations of the Competition Council conducted with sponsorship under the leadership of President Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, persons who are members or are on the board of the "Aspen Institute" Romania, such as Alexandra Gătej, former president of Unilever South Central Europe, former presidential adviser, Cristina Verchere - member on OMV board of directors Petrom, Carlo Pignoloni - Manager Enel Romania, Iulian Trandafir - CEO Farmexpert, Mariana Gheorghe - former vice president and CEO OMV Petrom, Steven Cornelis van Groningen - president Raiffeisen Bank, Răzvan Radu - CEO, president of Unicredit Bank, Sergiu Manea - president of BCR, Tomas SPURNY, Member, CEO, BCR Erste Bank, Sorana Rodica BACIU, Member, Director Strategy, Corporate Development & Investor Relations OMV PETROM SA, Benoit CĂŢEL, Member, CEO Volksbank Romania, Ciprian CIOBANU, Member Director Medlife, Nicolae DĂNILĂ, Member, Member of the Board of Administration National Bank of Romania, Radu GHEŢEA, Member, President CEC Bank, Florin ILIE, Member, Head of Financial Market Sales, ING Bank Romania, Philippe LHOTTE, Member, CEO BRD, Tomas SPURNY, Member, CEO, BCR Erste Bank, Violeta ALEXANDRU - Executive Director of the Institute for Public Policy, Minister in the current government, Patrick Desbiens Vice President GlaxoSmithKline.
(4) The fourth reason for incompatibility and illegality of the position of president and member of the Plenum of the Competition Council by Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, arises from the omissions and inconsistencies in the declarations of wealth and interests made by him during the fulfillment of the position of president of Competition Council: (i) the belonging of Mr. Chirițoiu B. to the Masonic Lodge "MEMENTO MORI", a circumstance that is not mentioned in the declaration of interests.
(ii) obvious inconsistencies between the declaration of wealth of Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius and that of Valeriu Ţurcan, co-owners of a land in Ilfov County, a fact evidenced by the content of the declaration of wealth of Bogdan Chirițoiu dated May 31, 2011, in which it records , in the category "lands", that together with Valeriu Ţurcan owns an agricultural land with an area of 1,600 square meters, while Ţurcan Valeriu mentions that he owns in a co- ownership with Bogdan Chirițoiu 1,000 square meters and it is out of town.
(iii) in the declaration of wealth of 2018, in the category "lands", Bogdan Marius Chirițoiu states that he is co-owner also with Carmen Savin, the person who is an administrator in the company Creator Consulting. Page 102 of 152
(iv) does not highlight in the statements of wealth the fact that he is an assistant at the University of Bucharest.(v) from the declaration of wealth dated 20.05.2009, it appears that Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius received money from the National Agency for Restoration of the Property, in two installments, mentioning that he received the second tranche in the amount of 250,000 ron (approx. 60,000 EURO), but it remains uncertain the date he received the first installment, given that this Agency was established in 2005, and in no wealth statement from 2005-2009 he did not indicate that he had received the first trance.
(vi) the omission to specify the quality of associate of the father in the company Creator Consulting SRL and BMC Consultant SRL, as well as that of administrator in SC BMC Consultant SRL, in the statements of wealth and interests from 2010 and 2011.
(vii) according to the declaration of wealth drawn up in 2012, Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius received in 2011 the amount of 37,674 ron from “elaboration study” at a joint stock company, a legal person of private law, that is the Romanian Fund for Counter garantee SA (FRC) ), and in this way violated art. 5 of Law no. 21/1996 which states: “The quality of member of the Competition Council is incompatible with the exercise of any other professional activity or consultancy, with the participation, directly or through interposed persons, in the management or administration of public or private entities or with the holding of functions or offices of public dignities, except for the didactic activity of higher education. They may not be appointed experts or arbitrators neither by the parties nor by the court or by another institution ”.
4) The designation of the President and of the Plenum of the Competition Council is carried out under suspicious conditions of illegality and by the influence exerted by the corporatist companies or by persons in their interest group, with the result of maintaining an anti- competitive climate and protecting the activities carried out with the violation of the Competition Law by big companies.
In Report no. XX / 215 / 17.04.2019 of the Economic Commission, industries and services within the Romanian Senate, in the chapter "Final conclusions", point 21, it is mentioned that from the "statements made by the former Secretary General Vasile Şeclăman, and by Dan Ionescu, member of the Plenum of the Competition Council, there are suspicions regarding the legality of the procedures of setting up the Consultative College of the Competition Council ”, noting that in front of the Commission Vasile Şeclăman declared that“ the establishment of this College is illegal, as it was made by a Government Decision given by a Government that had been dismissed by Parliament three days ago, by a censure motion "and that" that Government Decision was not signed by the Minister of Justice nor by the Minister of Finance, Vasile Şeclăman considering that the legal provisions were not respected ", and his statements "are supported and supplemented by the statements made by Dan Ionescu about the establishment of the Consultative College ”.
Page 103 of 152
In the same Report, on page 19, details are made regarding the statements of the two made before the Commission regarding the establishment of the Consultative College, respectively: - Dan Ionescu's statements to exemplify the inadequacy of the way the Consultative College was set up, consisting in revealing a paradoxical situation "generated by the presence of Mr. Steven Van Groningen, executive chairman of Raiffeisen Bank Romania, as a member of the College", which means that "a representative of a bank investigated by the Competition Council was responsible for nominating the members of the Plenum, respectively the President of the Competition Council, an institution that is supposed to investigate it objectively".
- regarding the way the members of the Consultative College were proposed, "Dan Ionescu, supported by Vasile Şeclăman, stated that the list with the members of the Consultative College was proposed by the then President of the Council, Bogdan Chiriţoiu, together with the Secretariat of the Consultative College" and noted "a procedural anomaly, namely that the former chief of staff of the president of the Competition Council, currently head of service in the Council, is at the same time the head of the Secretariat of the Advisory Council, responsible for proposing the list of members of the Advisory Board". From this perspective, the illegality of appointing, from 2012, the president of the Competition Council and the members of the Plenary of the same authority by the Consultative College, appointment that vitiates the independence provided for in art. 15 paragraph 3) and paragraph 7) of Law 21/1996, legal norms that are not systemically respected, in the context in which:
- the members of the Consultative College were appointed in 2012 by Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, in his capacity as president of the Competition Council, and, subsequently, in 2015, the Consultative College appointed Chirițoiu B. for a second mandate as president of the Council Competition;
- the members of the college have strong interferences, direct and indirect, with economic agents subject to the investigation or that could be the object of investigations of the Competition Council, circumstance that contributes to maintaining or defeating the competitive business climate, considering the composition of the Consultative College established by the GD 390/2012, in which are found persons such as, for example, Steven van GRONINGEN (member in the Board of Directors of the Council of Foreign Investors of Romania), Florin POGONARU (President of the Business People Association), Sorin MÎNDRUŢESCU (general manager of Oracle, former president of AMCHAM - American Chamber of Commerce in Romania, in which he is a partner / member and Colgate Palmolive Romania), Judge Dana Iarina Vartires (who participated in the adoption of the ICCJ decision which led to the closing of the investigation by the Competition Council in the case of Colgate Palmolive ), Costel ST ANCIU (President of the Consumer Protection Association),
Page 104 of 152
Violeta ALEXANDRU (Executive Director of the Institute for Public Policies, Vice President of the National Liberal Party and Minister in the current government), Natalia ROMAN (President of the National Union of Judges), as well as the former President of the Council respectively Viorel MUNTEANU, Theodor PURCĂREA, Mihai BERINDE (Petrom employee).
2.5.2 Illegalities regarding the way in which the Competition Council acted abusively, selectively and formally, in their own interests and in the interests of the group, and not in accordance with the Law and European Law, including by closing investigations with ignoring the obvious evidence, without the approval of the Plenum of the Council Competition, or by refusing to carry out investigations that were required in relation to the content of the notifications and the evidence attached to them.
1) The investigation “Banks”, opened by the Order of the President of the Competition Council no. 420/2008, was closed by Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, president of the Competition Council, by Order no. 260/2013, with the solution of non-sanctioning of banks
The investigation carried out by the Competition Council had as object the possible violation of the provisions of art.5 paragraph (1) of the Competition Law no. 21/1996, republished, with the subsequent modifications and completions, and of art. 81 paragraph (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community by the companies active in the market of banking and interbank services in Romania and was closed "without all the Plenum members being informed about the rest of the documents concerning the investigation, respectively the two consultative points of view and the counter-report signed by Nathaniel Cornoiu ”, which led to the conclusion of the members of the Economic Commission, industries and services within the Senate that“ Bogdan Chiriţoiu has managed to close the investigation, conducting his activity with bad faith. ", As recorded in the Report no. XX / 215 / 17.04.2019 of the parliamentary committee of inquiry (point 3 - Final conclusions).
The real reason for the closure of the “Banks” investigation under conditions of illegality, also found by the parliamentary committee of inquiry, does not exclude a causal link between this decision and the double quality of Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius as president of the Competition Council and member of the “ASPEN Institute” , financed by George Soros and having among the members persons of the management of prestigious banks active in Romania, such as, for example, Steven Cornelis van Groningen - president of Raiffeisen Bank; Răzvan Radu - CEO, president of Unicredit Bank; Sergiu Manea - president of BCR, Ionuţ Costea - former president of Reiffeisen Bank, Daniel Dăianu, Florin Ilie - ING Bank, Mișu Negrițoiu - ING Bank CEO, Nicolae Dănilă - one of the most experienced bankers, chairman of First Bank Romania, who held the position chairman at the Romanian Commercial Bank and on the board of directors of the National Bank.
2) The investigation on the fuel market, was initiated by Order 211 / 8.09.2005, when the terms of the deployment and the investigation team led by a rapporteur were established,
Page 105 of 152
but, starting with 2010, the new President of the Competition Council, Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius , tried several times to close this investigation, but failed, as the first rapporteur appointed did not agree with this proposal, claiming that there is sufficient evidence to fine the parties involved in the cartel. After the rapporteur entered into medical leave of the rapporteur designated to carry out the investigation, it was proceeded to appoint another rapporteur, respectively of an approved person, who, in time, could achieve the objective required by the new president, respectively "closing this investigation".
In 2015, by order of the President of the Competition Council, the main players in the fuel market were removed from the investigation, namely: OMV Petrom SA (which at the date of the infringement operated Petrom and Petrom V petrol stations), OMV Petrom Marketing SRL (which at the time of violating the law, it was operating the OMV gas stations), Lukoil Romania SRL, Rompetrol Downstream SRL, Mol Romania Petroleum Products SRL and ENI Romania SRL (which at that time operated the AGIP gas stations) and, in pursuit of the aim wanted, the Competition Council renounced the charge of infringement of the parties involved of the provisions of art.6 of the Competition Law, respectively of art. 102 of the TFUE, as the main objective of the investigation, remaining only the violation of Article 5 of Law 21/1996, respectively 101 of the TFUE.
In Report no. XX / 215 / 17.04.2019 of the parliamentary committee of inquiry, it is noted that, from the statements before the commission by Vasile Şeclăman, as former Secretary General of the Competition Council, it turns out that "there are other investigations on which suspicions regarding the modality of evidence management and closure solution without amendment of the economic agents ", being named" the investigation carried out by the Competition Council on the fuel market, investigation opened in 2005 and completed in 2015 ", the members of the Economic Commission, industries and services considering that" there are arguments that are worth investigating ”, meaning that, through the addresses no. XX / 150 / 13.03.2019 and no. XX / 171 / 20.03.2019, it was sent to the Competition Council "the request to provide data regarding the stage of the investigation, respectively the report drawn up at its completion". (point 20 - Final conclusions).
The suspicion regarding the direct involvement of the President of the Competition Council in the illegal way of managing the evidence and adopting the closing solution without amending the economic agents, in the case of the investigation on the fuel market, is reinforced by the fact that Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius is a member of the organization "Institut Aspen", together with decision-makers from the major fuel producers / sellers companies, such as Mariana Gheorghe, CEO of OMV Petrom. So, after 11 years, the investigation had no effect on consumer protection and competition that would lead to a reduction in the price to the final consumer at the pumps, the fuel
Page 106 of 152
distributors acting even more aggressively through agreements with negative impact on the final consumer.
3) The Colgate Palmolive investigation was closed without being fulfilled the judgments, respectively the sentence no. 302/2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal and decision no. 37 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, by which the defendant of the Competition Council was obliged to carry out the investigation with the theme that was described in the complaint of the subscribed Prestige Trading
These judgments have not been fulfilled so far, and the Competition Council has not carried out the investigation that was required in the report even by the decision no. 124 of the Plenum of the Competition Council, which found that the subscriber is on the same relevant market, but the cause for the restoration of the investigations was not restored. Instead, the Competition Council illegally fined the Prestige subscription with the amount of 1,500,000 lei, equivalent to 500,000 euros, using suspected false documents, in the copy, to create so much pressure that would cause me to give up the judicial action, an aspect that I was suggested within the institutional framework, as well as the appearance of the applicant's failure to comply with the law, given that the Competition Council fined Colgate Palmolive by 3,000,000 euros, and subsequently the fines were annulled by the courts.
The investigation against Colgate-Palmolive company, opened a second time by order no.36 / 2007, was canceled by the ICCJ decision no. 2502 / 12.05.2009, restricting the right of the Prestige subscriber to benefit from the exercise and fulfillment by the Competition Council of the attributions stipulated in the law, respectively carrying out a legal investigation, under the conditions that in the panel of the High Court of Cassation and Justice also participated Magistrate Dana Iarina Vartires, member in the organization AM-CHAM / American Chamber of Commerce, along with the companies Colgate Palmolive, in the case settled by the respective court.
4) The investigation in the case of Kraft Food, the current Mondelez, following the Prestige complaint regarding the violation of the law of competition, agreements and discrimination that vitiated the competition, was refused by the Competition Council, given that, previously, in 2000, Kraft Food company it was also sanctioned for the violation of the competition law, and the violations notified by the subscriber represented a continuation and a recidivism regarding the non-observance of the Competition Law.
The court rejected Prestige Trading's complaint on the basis of documents, considered as evidence in the file, but in relation to which it limited the access of the subscriber, violating the right to defense, circumstance against which I cannot exclude that, in fact, these so- called evidence might not have existed, but, at most, an informative note received from the Romanian Intelligence Service through which decision to be made in the file no. 27411/2/2005 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
Page 107 of 152
5) The investigation in the case of Unilever South Central Europe, its clients and competitors, was closed by President Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, although Popescu Dragoş, the rapporteur appointed in the investigation, prepared a Note with proposals containing evidence that should have been administered to complete the research. , as well as the connection to the investigation regarding Unilever of the complaint of the subscribed Prestige having the same object, but it was replaced with another person, then the president ordered the closure of the investigation, without the consent of the plenary, with the non-observance of the law, circumstance that favored the company Unilever, the clients and its competitors by the sanctions provided by law.
Galic Prod SRL's complaint to the Competition Council was not investigated by the Competition Council, which refused to link the petition's complaint to the investigation with the same object that was opened in the Unilever case, and subsequently the president Bogdan Marius Chirițoiu replaced Dragoş Popescu, ignoring the content of the note drawn up by the rapporteur regarding the indications on the possible violation of art. 5 of the law by UNILEVER SOUTH CENTRAL EUROPE SRL and by the clients and competitors of this company, after which he closed the investigation, in violation of the law, respectively without the consent of the Plenum of the Competition Council.
However, as a result of anti-competitive practices and agreements of Colgate Palmolive Romania, Kraft Foods and Unilever South Central Europe, practices prohibited by Competition Law no. 21/1996, the aforementioned contracts ceased, with the consequence that the Prestige and Galic companies recorded huge financial losses, provided that there was evidence regarding the granting of discriminatory commercial conditions, which culminated in their exclusion from contracts, an abusive measure, biased, anti-competitive, with the result sought for the fulfillment of some tacit agreements, favoring a company, ignoring the provisions of the competition law.
In the case of Unilever, the investigation was not conducted within the limits of the law, with the consequence of protecting the interests of Unilever South Central Europe from legal sanctions, a circumstance that does not exclude the interference of the Romanian Intelligence Service through its officers, considering the personal interest of Romanian Intelligence Service colonel Dociu Răzvan, through the company Acvila, belonging to his son, who benefited from the extension and exclusivity of sales contracts and logistics services for Romania and the countries of the region, granted by the company investigated by the Competition Council, as well as the fact that the Romanian Intelligence Service officer was involved in the privatization of several companies. from Prahova county ROVIT SA, GFR, Vinalcool Valea Calugareasca SA, including the transfer / trading of Dero SA's patrimony to Unilever Romania (see chapter 2.8 Romanian Intelligence Service).
Page 108 of 152
6) Failure to comply with the law and the decisions of the Competition Council plenary in the investigation of the drug company GlaxoSmithKline Beach (GSK)
In the autumn of 2012, the pharmaceutical manufacturer GSK asked the Competition Council to be informed if it violates the competition law in case that from 01.01.2013 it will implement a system of distribution of its drugs directly to pharmacies, not through distribution companies, in especially in the case of medicines on which GSK held a dominant position, as it was the sole manufacturer.
The Plenum of the Competition Council debated this request in December 2012, and, according to media information, with a 3-2 vote, the decision was made not to give the green light to the system requested by GSK.
However, the President of the Competition Council, Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, sent a reply letter to GSK, at the end of which he stated: "... although the Competition Council does not recommend the use of another distribution system to the detriment of the other companies that restructure their systems of distribution must pay particular attention to the products for which they hold a dominant position ”.
This formulation, which can be interpreted as approving the GSK application, gave rise to conflicts within the Competition Council, and the vice-president of this institution, Valentin Mircea, resigned a few months after sending emails to his colleagues accusing the style of the leadership of the Competition Council practiced by the president Bogdan Marius Chiriţoiu, which manifested itself, "among other things, by refusing to introduce materials on the agenda, delaying investigation reports, modifying documents agreed by the members of the Plenum and issuing points of view in the name of the Plenum ", stressing that" we are dealing with one of the most serious attacks on competition, in particular with regard to the market for medicines at European Union level ".
The former vice-president of the Competition Council stated that "... the letter sent does not correspond COMPLETELY to those expressed by at least part of the Plenum members" and that the issuance of a letter by the President of the Competition Council "who ignores concrete proposals made by some members of the Plenum represents a serious fact ", being" understood that the documents authorized by Plenum must leave the institution in the form agreed by Plenum! Not the other way! (...) these things being valid even for the President of the Competition Council ”.
Competition councilors Dan Ionescu and Laszlo Gyerko, members of the Plenum, had the same critical reaction to the point of view transmitted to GSK by President Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius on behalf of the Competition Council, especially that Lumeajustitiei.ro announced that it had emails that show that some of the members of the Plenum proposed that at the end of the letter to GSK insert the phrase according to which "the Competition Council does
Page 109 of 152
not recommend the use of a distribution system like the one described by GSK in the markets in which it holds a dominant position".
Co-participation in Aspen organization of Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, together with Mr. Patrick Desbiens, vice-president GlaxoSmithKline, explains not only issuing the response letter to GSK, "procedurally inadmissible", according to the former vice-president of the Competition Council, but also why an investigation was not opened as a result of the complaint of 15.12.2011 of the subscribers Galic and Prestige in which the anti-competitive activity of GSK was targeted, being considered only a simple "address", and not a "petition and complaint", as it was communicated by President Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius.
Although the case was notified to the Government of Romania, respectively to the Prime Minister, by persons from the Competition Council, as well as regarding other violations of the law imputed to President Chirițoiu, so far no measures have been taken regarding the notification of the competent bodies in relation to the abuses of the Competition Council. and of the president of this institution.
7) The least inappropriate activity of the Competition Council regarding the market in the natural gas sector in Romania
There is information that following the notification of TERRORISM AND ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT , which carried out a criminal investigation on some members of the commission of evaluation of the contracting authority Transgaz for abuse in service and taking bribes in case of auctions, the Competition Council initiated an investigation regarding the tricking of auctions by understanding carried out by the participating bidders, and the investigation team would have finalized the investigation report in 2016 with the proposal to sanction the bidders (members of a cartel), without retaining the quality of "facilitator" of the contracting authority Transgaz, not being susceptible elements in this sense, but, following the aggressive and urgent requests of President Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, the investigation team made a note of summary extension, there being insufficient indications regarding the role of Transgaz as facilitator of the cartel for its involvement in its investigation and sanctioning.
In fact, according to the same information from the public space, the President of the Competition Council wished to formally extend the investigation to Transgaz, and the anti- competitive act committed by the bidders (cartel) and the "committed" act of Transgaz ("facilitator") would be dissolved, considering the context at that time, respectively the negotiations with Russia regarding the transit of Romania of the gas line to Turkey or other negotiations with the USA regarding the gas in the Black Sea, but the criminal case investigated by TERRORISM AND ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT against some natural persons from Transgaz.
Page 110 of 152
In February 2018, the Competition Council published a Report of the investigation on the natural gas sector, which is more like a study of this sector of activity, in which appraisals are made regarding the functioning of the markets in the natural gas sector between 2012 and 2016 and is concluded with "Chapter XI - RECOMMENDATIONS", without finding any violation of the Competition Law or European norms and without applying sanctions.
Under these conditions, the unexpected inspection carried out at the companies Transgaz SA, Romgaz SA and OMV Petrom SA can be explained by the European Commission, through DG Competition, regarding possible violations of the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, case investigated exclusively by the European Commission, "assisted ”By the Competition Council, which has the obligation to support this type of actions based on the European legal regulations.
8) The Competition Council did not investigate that the Romanian consumer goods market makes agreements forbidden by the Law between producers with a dominant position and some retailers, imposing shelf taxes, which condition, restrict and limit the trade and contribute to the artificial increase of the sales value of products to consumers.
These shelf and entry taxes in each store are not found in the trade between the same retailers and suppliers of products from Western countries, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, etc., representing a discriminatory manifestation of consumer services, which is practiced by some retailers in Romania, compared to Western European countries, the situation of inequality, determined by the non-observance of the principle of reciprocity, in which Prestige was subscribed, is relevant, given that:
- paid over 500,000 euros for listing fees, shelf fees to Carrefour, and subsequently this company excluded from the shelves the PRODUCTS of the subscribed;- paid over 100,000 euros to Artima company, later becoming Carrefour Expres (by merger), the company that did not record 137 invoices for products delivered by Prestige subscriber and did not pay them, with the result intended to exclude from the shelf SUBSCRIBE PRODUCTS (see sample no. 9 - Financial Guard Report);
- paid over 200,000 euros to PENNY Market SRL, in the form of entrance fees in each store, after which the retail company excluded from the shelves the PRODUCTS of the subscribed. Examples of exclusion and refusal to negotiate may continue (..)
9) The President of the Competition Council, in an abusive manner, has discretionally closed investigations ignoring the evidence, refused to open legal investigations or opened or closed investigations without observing the legal procedures, depending on interests and obligations: (1) The filing of the evidence regarding anti-competitive practices coincides with the
Page 111 of 152
favoring of the companies that break the law, taking into account agreements and extra- institutional reasons.
By Order no. 7/2010, the President of the Competition Council, Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, filed the evidence regarding practices / understandings between retailers and category leaders that contributed to the exclusion from the shelf of competing products, order in which: until 31.01. 2010 the documents that make up the investigation file initiated by order no. 36/2007, regardless of the support they find, they will be archived and will no longer be used in any other procedure of the Competition Council ”.
(2) The opening or closing of investigations without observing the legal procedures, according to interests and obligations.
- the investigation opened in 2009 regarding the auction organized by APDRP for the preparation of farmers-2010, concerning the company SECUIANA SA, with the report completed and sent to the Legal Department in 2012, redone and handed over to the Plenum of the Competition Council for hearings in 2014, the investigation held in the drawer of President B.M. Chiriţoiu another 2 years and closed after more than 7 years, with very small fines, because the former vice president NEAGOE OTILIAN, held an important package of shares in the respective trading company;
- closure of investigations without the application of sanctions, even if the Report of the competition inspectors highlighted practices prohibited by law and was finalized with a sanction proposal, consuming effort and money for their performance, activity with a duration of 2, 3 or even 4 years; - carrying out the so-called "PRIORITIZATIONS", by which some economic agents were removed from the investigations in which they were investigated, being fined only a small number of them, as is the case with SC ELEKTROMARKET, where, after 6 years of research, they applied fines only to a number of 5 economic agents out of the 47 under investigation, or the investigation on the paint and varnish market opened in 2008 and closed after 10 years of research only by amending a few companies, most of them being removed from the investigation, by the "disjunction" method , according to the will of President Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius;
- the amounts representing fines applied as a result of the violations established by the investigation reports remain, most of the times, not collected by the Competition Council due to tacit / hidden agreements regarding, on the one hand, the delayed transmission of the Competition Council's decision to ANAF, respectively after the company applied for and the bankruptcy was declared, a condition in which the tax authority can no longer execute the economic agent, and, on the other hand, the call of certain companies investigated to submit commitment requests, according to which they acknowledge that they violated the competition law and made a commitment that they would not violate it, given that the
Page 112 of 152
report providing for their legal sanction was already finalized, so that these companies were protected and escaped from any fines, including the payment of the resulting damage;
(3) The Competition Council and Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius refused to investigate the complaint I filed and registered with no. 17050 / 15.12.2012
Abusively, Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius considered to be a simple address the petition and complaint which referred to:
- sanctioning Colgate Palmolive (CP) company for providing incorrect, wrong / inaccurate information until this company will provide the appropriate information to the Council, and then initiate the investigation based on information and records that reflect the reality
- conducting investigations based on the evidence presented by the subscribers in the cases of Colgate Palmolive, Kraft Food - Mondelez, Unilever South Central Europe, GlaskoSmithKleine, Orkla Foods, Procter & Gamble, Henkel, Nestle, Metro, Kaufland.
Thus, the investigation in the cases of Colgate Palmolive, Glaxo Smith Kline, Orkla Foods, Carrefour Romania, Billa and Artima, Kaufland, Lidl (formerly Plus Discount), Penny Market SRL and other companies received a protective treatment from the Competition Council, and the discretionary action of the president of this institution, Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, to refuse the investigation of anti-competitive practices regarding agreements forbidden by the Competition Law can be explained by his co-participation in the organization "Institute Aspen", along with several leaders of some multinational companies, such as Patrick Desbiens, vice GlaxoSmithKline, an aspect that does not exclude the existence of extra- institutional reasons, which had as a consequence:
- removing the Prestige subscription from the contract with GSK and refusing to supply products, in violation of the provisions of the Competition Law, - Similarly, the contracts between Prestige and the companies Orkla Foods and GlaxoSmithKline, Carrefour Romania, Billa Romania, Kaufland Romania, Lidl (formerly Plus Discount), as well as the contracts between Unilever South Central Europe, Galic, its clients and partners.
10) The practice of interfering in the investigations of the officials at the embassies in Bucharest of some western countries pursuing a certain result in relation to the companies that repeatedly violate the law. For example, there are writings that highlight that the interventions were made all the time at the top of the Romanian institutions, institutions that according to the law should have helped to stop fraud and to recover damages. For example, Mr Blair L. Labarge and Robert J. Tate, officials at the US Embassy in Bucharest, persons who are not parties to civil or criminal cases, went to the Competition Council, prosecutor's offices, courts and other institutions in Romania, representing the interests of officials in companies that have broken the law.
Page 113 of 152
2.5.3 Public authorities that did not comply with the Law, with the result of protecting and maintaining systemic non-compliance with the law and European Law at the Competition Council
1) The National Anti-Corruption Directorate has been keeping not processed for years criminal proceedings that aim the activity of the President of the Competition Council, Bogdan Marius Chirițoiu, for example no.500 / P / 2013, no.73 / P / 2012 and a file from 2017, which constitutes a implicit manifestation of the protection of the non-observance of the law at the Competition Council and guarantees the maintenance of their non-observance and of the European Law and for the future, the object and the evidence of the research being the non-observance of the criminal law by Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius on the occasion of the exercise of the duties of the president at the Competition Council (see chapter 2.2.11 - criminal files kept in non-processing).
In one of the files, the criminal investigation “in rem” began, respectively regarding the investigated criminal act, and it is investigated how a number of companies, including Teamnet International and Siveco, are investigated by the Competition Council, including the investigation of the links between Irina Socol and Bogdan Marius Chirițoiu, following denunciations made by the owner of the company SIVECO.The non-processing of the files favors the fraud of the law, of the public and private property and the non recovery of the damages is one of the systemic practices in Romania, and the Prosecutor's Office for the investigation of criminal offenses has not investigated the prosecutors and the policemen from the National Anticorruption Directorate that favor the persons involved and the facts by which it is violated the criminal law, as a result of keeping the files in non-processing.
The National Integrity Agency protects the non-observance of the law regarding the incompatibility of some persons with public office, including the incompatibility of Chirițoiu Bogdan with the position of president of the Competition Council, circumstance that contributes to the lack of independence of the competition authority, the lack of impartiality, the use of the institution in personal interest, as a result of the lack of a fair competitive climate.
On 07.03.2019 I notified the National Integrity Agency with the complaint no. 3454 regarding the incompatibility of Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius with the position of president at the Competition Council, and, on 24.04.2019, ANI informed me that: “from the analysis of the petition, the information obtained ... there are no indications regarding the violation by BM Chirițoiu..of legal provisions regarding the incompatibility ... ”, a communication made with the non-observance of the law, because a motivated ordinance was not issued, in accordance with art. 64 of Law 144/2008, in conjunction with art. 10 ind.4 of Law 115/1996 (according to which the phrase "Research Commission" is replaced by the name "National Integrity Agency"), followed by the application no. 8004 / 04.06.2019 by which I requested the motivational order, without receiving any answer so far. Page 114 of 152
The National Integrity Agency, did not fall within the limits of the legal procedures and did not issue the "motivated ordinance" in relation to each of the seven reasons for incompatibility with the position of President of the Competition Council of Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, following the notification of the undersigned registered with no. 3454 / 05.03.2019 and of the application no. 8004 from 04.06.2019.
3) The Romanian Court of Audit was notified of the fact that at the Competition Council were hired dozens of people who never come to work and receive salaries on the card, respectively with the complaint registered with no. 131641 / 16.05.2019, but did not show interest for the minimum administration of the evidence we indicated in the complaint, although this situation was also highlighted by the Report no. XX / 215 / 17.04.2019 of the Economic Commission, Industries and Services of the Senate, according to which other information related to the investigation "refers to a number of fictitious employees at the Competition Council", referring to the statements of the former Secretary General of the Competition Council , Vasile Șeclăman, according to which these employees are included in the organization chart, are paid monthly, but they do not come to work (point 19 - Final conclusions).
4) The Romanian Intelligence Service has received numerous violations of the law at the Competition Council, repeatedly, even regarding large transfers of money that may be related to the outcome of the investigations from the Competition Council and could represent corruption facts, but he did not make any criminal complaint to the National Anticorruption Directorate. The Romanian Intelligence Service tolerated the departures from the law of the Competition Council and of the president Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, although he knew including the involvement of officers with management positions in the activity of this public authority, issues related to which, in the public space, television and press written, there were indications in this regard, a circumstance likely to support the thesis that certain investigations at the Competition Council were conducted from the headquarters of the Romanian Intelligence Service, with the consequence that this institution did not fulfill the duties provided by law and did not notified the competent judicial bodies regarding the non- observance of the law at the Competition Council in relation to certain open, delayed or closed investigations under conditions of non-compliance with the Competition Law. (see section 2.4).
5) The Parliament did not show the interest that was required for the control of the activity of the Competition Council as a result of the public information and notifications regarding the closing / opening of investigations without the consent of the plenum, the non- processing of investigations, the disappearance or disregard of some evidence resulted in the framework of the investigations, evidence regarding agreements prohibited by law that have been filed, in case of investigations of interest for certain influence groups, although
Page 115 of 152
there were evidence regarding the non-compliance with the law and the investigation report could have been concluded with the proposed amendment according to the law and collecting fines from the state budget.
6) Inaction of the European Commission in the case of CHAP 0236-2012 regarding the internal investigation, in relation to the manifestly erroneous information made by Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, as president of the Competition Council
In the European Commission investigation no. CHAP 0236/2012, as a result of the Commission's request for information, Chirițoiu replied that he considered 'address' the complaint of the undersigned registered with the Competition Council with no. 17050 / 15.12.2012 and did not open a legal investigation, because it has open investigations with the same object and the same companies, a circumstance that does not correspond to the reality according to the documents attached to the evidence.
According to art. 258 of the TFEU, the urgent establishment of the infringement procedure, together with the opinion included in the findings of the annual report on the reform of the judicial system and corruption, the European Commission did not issue a reasoned opinion or a reasoned decision in the case of CHAP0236-2012, regarding the systemic non- compliance of Law and European Law by the Competition Council and national institutions in Romania, a circumstance that could have been influenced by the fact that Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, as President of the Competition Council, misinformed the European Commission (evidence no. 9). - representing the address with the requests of the European Commission and Chirițoiu's answer).
Evidence no. 9 highlights documents and information that highlight the systemic failure to comply with the law and the European Law on COMPETITION, the diversion of the purpose of the public authority and the way of functioning in the personal interest of some interest groups, as well as the discretionary actions, in non- compliance with the law of the President of the Competition Council. , Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius.
(1) Report no.XX / 215 / 17.04.2019 of the Economic Commission, industries and services of the Senate regarding the parliamentary inquiry regarding the investigation carried out by the Competition Council, opened by the Order of the President of the Competition Council no.420 / 2008, and having as possible object violation of the provisions of art. 5 paragraph (1) of the Competition Law no. 21/1996, republished, with the subsequent modifications and completions, and of art. 81 paragraph (1) 1 of the Treaty establishing the European Community by the companies active in the market of banking and interbank services in Romania, which results in serious deviations from the law found in the activity of the Competition Council and of the president of this institution, Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, who acted in a discretionary manner and influenced the decision to close the investigation, exemplifying the most significant aspects:
(i) "by corroborating the statements of the witnesses heard, the members of the Economic Commission, industries and services found that the two consultative points of view were not made available to all the members of the Plenum of Competition Council, and the counter-report came into the possession of some of the members of the Plenum about 1 year after handing over to the President, being sent by email by Nathaniel Cornoiu ”, so that the closure of the investigation, with the solution of non-sanctioning of the banks, was done without all the members of the Plenum being informed about all the documents elaborated, and "Bogdan Page 116 of 152
Chiriţoiu was accused by other witnesses heard of the fact that the closing vote of the investigation was given by the Competition Council Plenum without the parties involved having been heard". (point 3 - Final conclusions);
(ii) "The members of the Economic Commission, industries and services consider that the concealment of the counter-report for about 7 months represents a deliberate delay of the investigation, which is in flagrant contravention of the obligation to exercise the duties of service with good faith", "which further confirms the fact that the investigation was delayed and obstructed by the decisions of President Chiriţoiu "(point 4 - final conclusions) and" is the clear evidence of the biased way in which the investigation was managed "(point 5 - final conclusions);
(iii) "Considering the statements of all the witnesses heard, regarding the charge of concealing evidence, the members of the Economic Commission, industries and services found that the investigation team did not take into account all the evidence collected during the investigation, and some of the evidence included in the report they were given a subjective interpretation "(point 7 - Final conclusions) and that" there is a fracture between the evidence included in the report and the final statement "as well as" there were evidence that could change the final conclusion, which the investigation team either analyzed superficially or did not include in the report ", respectively" the document by which one of the investigated banks acknowledges that it communicated to the competitors business interests, which contravenes the Competition Law no.21 / 1996 ”Namely the address transmitted on January 6, 2009 by Unicredit to the Competition Council, evidence identified by Nathaniel Cornoiu ”(point 8 - Final conclusions);
(iv) "The members of the Economic Commission, Industries and Services consider that the decision of the President of the Competition Council not to inform the members of the Plenum concerning the conclusions of the points of view, as well as concerning the Rapporteur's decision not to take, in the drafting of the final report on the investigation, observations and proposals formulated by the Interconsultation Groups, constitute serious deviations that must be sanctioned as they prove the bad faith manifested in the exercise of the duties of the service ”(point 14 - Final conclusions);
(v) "The inconsistencies in the statements and the contradictory statements of the witnesses were likely to reinforce the suspicions of potential external interventions, both in the conduct and closure of the investigation with the solution of not sanctioning the banks" (point 16 - Final conclusions), the parliamentary committee also referring in the Report to the fact that "Bogdan Chiriţoiu denied that anyone from outside the Council would have exerted pressure on him to close the investigation" but, "during the hearings, the Secretary General confirmed that he had attended a telephone discussion between Bogdan Chiriţoiu and Radu Gheţea, (President of the Romanian Association of Banks), in which the latter called for the investigation to be closed ”, and Nathaniel Cornoiu emphasized that“ the intervention outside the Council ”was undoubtful.
(vi) "The investigation initiated by the Security Structure of the Competition Council, the citation of the former Secretary General and his chief of staff to be investigated, as well as the citation of Nathaniel Cornoiu regarding the provision in writing, in a sealed envelope, of the statements he gave in the parliamentary inquiry, in a secret hearing, are considered by the members of the Economic Commission, industries and services as acts of intimidation of witnesses, meant to obstruct the investigation "(point 17 - Final conclusions).
(2) court decisions that have not been fulfilled by the Competition Council, with the result of favoring Colgate Palmolive; complaints about anti-competitive facts and practices regarding which the Competition Council refused to carry out legal investigations, President Chirițoiu replaced the rapporteur in the Unilever investigation, his clients and competitors, ignored the evidence and the rapporteur's proposal and closed the case without the consent of the Council favoring with millions of euros, companies that violated the Law,
Page 117 of 152
opened and closed investigations without the consent of the Competition Council plenum, disappeared evidence from investigations; distributed commitments to favorite lawyers:
(i) the notification and complaint registered under no. 17050 / 15.12.2011 at the Competition Council and letter no. 16925 / 13.01.2012 by which I was notified of the refusal to open the legal investigation and the investigation of the claimed facts;
(ii) the complaint no. 3454 / 07.03.2019 addressed to the National Integrity Agency regarding the incompatibility with the position of President of the Competition Council of Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, the address of this institution from 24.04.2019 and the application no. 8004 / 06.04.2019;
(4) Information from public sources highlighting the systemic failure to comply with the law and European Law on COMPETITION, diverting the purpose of public authority and how to operate in the personal interest of some interest groups, as well as the discretionary actions, in non-compliance with the law of the President of the Competition Council, Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius:
(i) http://aspeninstitute.ro/people-categories/board-of-trustees/, presents the board and members of the "Aspen Institute" Romania, good and elitist paramount organizations or how the influence networks in Romania operate. The board includes politicians and businessmen representing some corporate companies, which have been or are under investigation at the Competition Council and in relation to which Chiritoiu B. has abused his interest to be closed investigations ignoring the evidence. For example, from the board "Aspen Institute" are Alexandra Gătej, former president of Unilever South Central Europe, former presidential adviser, Cristina Verchere - member on the board of OMV Petrom director, Carlo Pignoloni - Manager Enel Romania, Iulian Trandafir - CEO Farmexpert, Mariana Gheorghe - former CEO of OMV Petrom, Steven Cornelis van Groningen - president of Raiffeisen Bank, Răzvan Radu - CEO, president of Unicredit Bank, Sergiu Manea - president of BCR.
(ii) https://infopuls.ro/2016/07/21/regele-lemnului-austriacul-gerald-schweighofer-termita-ce-devoreaza- padurile-romaniei-ce-legatura-este-intre-schweighofer-si-klaus-iohannis/ "KING OF THE WOOD", Austrian GERALD SCHWEIGHOFER, " THE TERMITE" that devours the forests of Romania. What connection is between SCHWEIGHOFER and KLAUS IOHANNIS, according to which:
There are reasonable suspicions that indicate a possible involvement of President Klaus Iohannis in supporting the interests of Holzindustrie Schweighofer, which has led to the scandal surrounding the new Forestry Code. These are two situations that prove that the president is very close to decision-makers from the Austrian company. - In the first case, it is noteworthy that the former general manager of Schweighofer (current employer working with the Austrian company) is a neighbor of Iohannis in Sibiu, the two living on Balea street, with a distance a few houses. Moreover, his wife, the prosecutor of the Alba Court of Appeal, Maria Capră, is the one who closed one of Iohannis's files, in which he was accused, in a criminal complaint, of being involved in a network of illegal retrocessions of buildings , when he was mayor of Sibiu. - In a second case, it is worth mentioning that his son, Andreas Huber is the honorary consul of Austria in Romania, a close friend of Holzindustrie Schweighofer.
(iii) http://valeajiuluipress.com/?p=6973, according to which the United Romania Party (PRU) will complain to the president for the illegal deforestation in Romania. Deputy Sebastian Ghita organized a press conference on Monday evening, presenting documents about the connection between Klaus Iohannis and a representative of the controversial Austrian company, Holzindustrie Schweighofer, involved in several scandals related to illegal logging:
Page 118 of 152
"Here is the proof, since you still want documents:" From Holzindustrie Schweighofer to Mr Iohannis. We are writing to you about changing the law on Forestry Code. “This is the situation and if we do not decide to choose intelligent and dedicated leaders for Romania, we will still be robbed. As we did in the case of "Earth's curfew", in this case we will also make criminal complaints, until Romanians can buy two cubic meters of wood to warm themselves in winter, "said Sebastian Ghita.
- "It is a letter from Schweighofer to Klaus Iohannis. It is clear evidence that foreigners also manipulate the president of Romania. That's the truth as big as China. Here is the signature with which he asked the president and he executed. It started the cutting of the Romanian forests. He received a letter and returned the law sent to promulgation. What did Iohannis do after the Romanians trusted him? Andreas Huber, Honorary Consul of Austria in Sibiu, is Klaus Iohannis's friend, relative and godson. It is suspected that he took this letter to Cotroceni. This is the truth about who protects the mafia of the forests logging of Romania. Mr Klaus Iohannis told us he had no interest. Here's the clear link. Scheinhoffer writes to Klaus Iohannis, "said Sebastian Ghita.
(iv) https://www.nostrasilva.ro/editoriale/paduri-ieftine-politicieni-ieftini-cronologia-si-probele-dosarului- schweighofer/ CHEAP FORESTS, CHEAP POLITICIANS – THE CHRONOLOGY AND EVIDENCE OF THE SCHWEIGHOFER FILE
According to:- the institutions of the Romanian State have been notified since 2005 on all aspects of the activities of Schweighofer companies (timber purchase, acquisition of forest land, purchase of land on which the factories were built, anti-competitive practices)
- it is presented the context in which the new Forestry Code was adopted, including the involvement of Holzindustrie company and the threat with an international trial against the Romanian State, the letter signed by Gerald Schweighofer, the owner of the company, registered on September 22, 2014 at the Cabinet of the Prime Minister, but also of the AmCham company (Romanian-American Chamber of Commerce) which launches a press release in which, in the name of the "business community", it shows that the Forestry code project could have disastrous effects on forests, in the long and medium term.
- On March 23, 2015, the President of Romania, Mr. Klaus Iohannis understands not to promulgate the Forestry Code, making a request for review.
- In the context of speculations regarding the influence of President Klaus Iohannis's decision by the Holzindustrie Schweighofer company, on March 26, 2015, in an intervention in the program "The Last Word", moderated by Mr. Cătălin Striblea, we showed that those from the Competition Council have sent to the President their point of view. I also pointed out that in order to get out of this situation Mr Klaus Iohannis would have to make public the opinion of the Competition Council.
- On April 27, 2015, the Senate adopts the Forestry code and rejects the request for review.- After this moment, the political attacks between the PSD and the PNL are amplified, entering an area where there is no longer a real dialogue regarding the measures required to save the forests in Romania.
- the decisive link of the influence of Mr. Klaus Iohannis was the Competition Council and NOT Mr. Dan Mihalache. The Competition Council must conduct the National Anticorruption Directorate investigation, as Nostra Silva has stated since March 26, 2015 and provided the evidence on April 1, 2015.
- On May 12, 2015, the Competition Council definitively acknowledged its incompetence and instead of presenting solutions requested a consultation of the European Commission. If they still don't understand, why didn't they call the former director, Mrs. Georgeta-Elena Gavriloiu?
Page 119 of 152
- Only on May 13, 2015, the President of Romania, Mr. Klaus Iohannis, makes public the opinion of the Competition Council sent before the request for a review of the Forestry code. Nostra Silva had publicly requested this since March 26, 2015. It should be noted that the opinion is signed by the President of the Competition Council, Mr. Bogdan Chiriţoiu.
- President Klaus Iohannis, in a press conference on May 14, 2015 said: “When we sent again the Forestry Code to Parliament, there was a document we relied on, it is THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS TRANSMITTED TO US, WITHOUT BE REQUESTED, BY THE COMPETITION COUNCIL, which has drawn our attention to the fact that there is a risk of infringement for Romania, so there is a risk of not complying with the European law. I thought it was a very serious thing. ”
This statement was resumed by the President of Romania, Mr. Klaus Iohannis, in a press conference on May 18, 2015: “the (legal) department has proposed me to resend because with the act that came to promulgation, also came A NOTIFICATION FROM THE PART OF THE COMPETITION COUNCIL, NOTIFICATION COMING FROM THE COMPETITION COUNCIL'S INITIATIVE. I resubmitted the law in Parliament using this notification”.
- Former President Traian Băsescu, in a telephone intervention of May 14, 2015, at B1TV, brings an additional clarification: “THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED TO ME, IN 10 YEARS, TO RECEIVE FROM A COMPETITION COUNCIL A NOTIFICATION ON THE PROMULGATION OF A LAW. IT'S THE FIRST DATE WHEN IT HAPPENED (...) It has not happened to me. This is the first time I see that this is how the Competition Council works ”.
Mr. Traian Băsescu also added: “SURE IT IS ABNORMAL WHAT HAPPENED. THE COMPETITION COUNCIL HAS NO INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIP OF THEIR OWN INITIATIVE WITH THE PRESIDENT ”.- Our conclusion: we ask DNA to investigate the influence traffic at the Competition Council, respectively the suspected branch Holzindustrie Schweighofer - Georgeta-Elena Gavriloiu - Bogdan Chiriţioiu and / or the officials who drafted the address no. 2652 of March 17, 2015 sent by this institution to the President of Romania, Mr. Klaus Iohannis.
(v) https://octavpelin.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/omul-cheie-in-afacerea-lobbystului-penal-klaus- iohannisavocatul-georgeta-gavriloiucare-timp-de-18-ani-a-fost-director-in-cconsiliul-concurenteieste-avocatul- firmei-holzindustrie-schweighoferdar/ THE KEY MAN IN THE BUSINESS OF THE CRIMINAL LOBBYIST KLAUS IOHANNIS, LAWYER GEORGETA GAVRILOIU, WHO FOR 18 YEARS WAS DIRECTOR IN THE COMPETITION COUNCIL, IS THE LAWYER OF THE HOLZINDUSTRIE SCHWEIGHOFER COMPANY, BUT WHO IS THIS LAWYER ?!
The issue of deforestation has also recently sparked a great debate and even conflict between the palaces after President Klaus Iohannis resubmitted to Parliament a law bringing serious amendments to the Forestry Code. The president was accused of improper links with the Austrian company Holzindustrie Schweighofer.
- The Austrian company Holzindustrie Schweighofer breaks everything that moves on the Romanian deforestation market, and in the management they have taken a man who knows everything that moves in the area of regulations on the Competition Council. The lawyer Georgeta Gavriloiu, who was for 18 years director in the Competition Council, is now the lawyer of the Holzindustrie Schweighofer company. - Between 2007 and 2011, Georgeta Gavriloiu was liaison officer on competition issues between the Romanian authority and the General Competition Directorate of the European Commission. She was one of the representatives of the Competition Council of Romania in several working groups sponsored by the Commission, as well as in the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Abuse of Dominant Position.
- Since February 2011, the new partner of the Schoenherr group has headed the Directorate of Industry and Energy of the Competition Council - a sectoral direction responsible for the application of the national and European competition rules in the industry and the energy sector. He also participated in the formulation of the Competition Council's position on draft government decisions, laws and ordinances with possible anti- Page 120 of 152
competitive impact and campaigned to increase the knowledge of the competition rules in Romania. - Since February 2013, Georgeta Gavriloiu has represented the Competition Council at the Advisory Committee of the National Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE).
(vi) https://www.ziardecluj.ro/interesele-schweighofer-atinse-prin-codul-silvic-au-fost-sustinute-inclusiv-de- klaus-iohannis
The interests of the Schweighofer achieved through the Forestry Code were also supported by Klaus Iohannis
Focus - Removal from the position of monopoly holder of the Schweighofer-Holzindustrie group regarding the processing of wood in and from Romania has brought serious financial damage to the Austrian company. The apple of discord in this story is an article of law initiated by the former Minister of Waters and Forests, Doina Pană, an act challenged both by the one who held the dominant position, but also by the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis
- It is about imposing a quota of maximum 30% of the volume of an industrial wood mass assortment related to a single species that can be purchased / processed by a single economic agent. In other words, an economic agent could not purchase and / or process more than 30% of the total wood mass at national level, for each of the tree species existing in the national Forestry fund. - The most affected by this legislative restriction would have been the Austrian colossus Schweighofer, who had a monopoly in the wood processing industry. ... In a footage filmed with the hidden camera, Karl Schmid (photo), the sales manager of Schweighofer Romania, acknowledged before the EIA investigators the dominant position of the company, specifying that to work at maximum capacity there is no room for others. - One of those who tried to remove these quotas from the Forestry Code was even President Klaus Iohannis, who on March 23, 2015 sent to the Parliament the Forestry Code for review, keeping the arguments of Schweighofer.
(vii) https://evz.ro/actiune-dna-nume-greu.html şi https://www.luju.ro/magistrati/dna/descindere-la-consiliul- concurentei-procurorii-dna-au-navalit-la-biroul-presedintelui-bogdan-chiritoiu-pentru-a-ridica-documente- legate-de-investigatiile-consiliului-concurentei-despre-licitatia-teamnet-siveco-apia-functionari-din-consiliu-au- sesizat-guve from which it follows that in one of the files the criminal investigation “in rem” was started and the way in which a number of companies, including Teamnet International and Siveco, are investigated by the Competition Council, including the investigation of the connections between Bogdan Marius Chirițoiu and Irina Socol, owner of SIVECO, following complaints made by it.
(viii) Newspaper BURSA #Companies #Energy / June 08, 2016, according to which:- The Government regards "with interest and concern" the control action initiated by DG Competition at the companies Transgaz, Romgaz and Petrom, said the spokesman of the Executive, Dan Suciu, in a briefing at the Victoria Palace.- "There are companies, certainly some state, others in which the state has a minority participation, but they are independent legal entities, which are subject to a procedural control within the well-defined procedural limits that DG Competition (Directorates-General for Competition within the European Commission ", said Dan Suciu, when asked about the Government's position regarding the control action at Transgaz, Romgaz and Petrom, reports sources from the press.
- The Competition Council assisted, for the first time, the European Commission in the unannounced inspection carried out at the companies Transgaz SA, Romgaz SA and OMV Petrom SA. The Competition Council is obliged to support this type of action on the basis of European legal regulations.
(ix) https://www.bursa.ro/comisia-europeana-inspectii-neanuntate-la-romgaz-transgaz-si-omv-petrom- 08669920, according to which "Transgaz confirms the inspection":
Page 121 of 152
- On June 6, 2016, at the headquarters of SNTGN Transgaz SA in Mediaş, at the Representation of Bucharest as well as at the Department of Accessing European Funds and International Relations, inspectors of the European Commission - the General Competition Directorate and the Competition Council of Romania appeared, for the purpose of conducting an inspection.
- The inspection is carried out in accordance with Article 20 paragraph (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of the Council of the European Union regarding the implementation of the competition rules stipulated in art. 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty becoming art. 101 and 102 respectively of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. SNTGN Transgaz SA supports the representatives of the European Commission - the General Competition Directorate and the Competition Council by making available all the requested documents and information.
(4) Other documents: (i) extracted from the website of the University of Bucharest; (ii) statements of wealth Bogdan Marius Chiriţoiu and Valeriu Ţurcan, documents from the contents of which result the co-ownership of a land Chirițoiu - Ţurcan Raluca, deputy prime minister of the Government and vice president in the National Liberal Party; (iii) Order no. 7/2010 of the President of the Competition Council, Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, by which he ordered the archiving of evidence regarding practices / agreements between retailers and category leaders that contributed to the exclusion from the shelf of competing products.
2.6 Systemic failure to comply with the law by the National Integrity Agency
National Integrity Agency, shortened ANI, established by Law no. 144/2007, is an independent operational institution, which exercises a specialized administrative control regarding the verification of the acquisition of assets by the persons in the exercise of a dignity or a public function, as well as of the possible conflicts of interests or incompatibilities of these persons. According to the principle of operational independence, the president, vice president and integrity inspectors should not request or receive from any public authority, institution or person, provisions regarding the valuations regarding the wealth, conflicts of interest and incompatibility of any of the persons covered by Law no. . 144/2007, according to art. 15 paragraph (3) of this law, as amended and supplemented by Law no.176 / 2010.
Starting with 2011 and until now, ANI has not systematically complied with the provisions of art. 13 and 15 of Law no. Nr. 144/2007, as it did not function as an autonomous administrative authority and in accordance with the principle of operational independence, considering that the activity carried out was vitiated by "collaboration" with the Romanian Intelligence Service after the conclusion of this Protocol, at the initiative of ANI, of the registered Protocol. under no. S / 19333 / 16.03.2011, signed by Horia Georgescu, as general secretary and head of the security structure of the National Integrity Agency, and by Dumitru Cocoru, deputy of the Director of the Romanian Intelligence Service, at that time. The Agency's decisions were determined by the Informative Notes from the Romanian Intelligence Service and the protocol between Romanian Intelligence Service and ANI.
Page 122 of 152
As stated in the Report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate for exercising parliamentary control over the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service (on the website of the Parliament of Romania), this protocol was not found among the 65 protocols on which the Commission was notified. Also it was not denounced and / or abolished, and in its content there is no mention of sending informative notes regarding the object of activity of the National Integrity Agency, but this practice has existed.
The informative notes of the Romanian Intelligence Service were not mentioned in the internal procedures of the National Integrity Agency or in any material from the evolution of the files, but they materialized exclusively in "self-notifications" of the Agency, the classified note "Strict Secret" being transposed into a public document. , implicitly as an unclassified document, as a self-submission of ANI, thus violating the provisions of art. 12 paragraph (2) lit. a) and b) of Law no. 176/2010, by which the Law no. 144/2007, according to which “The ex officio notification is made in one of the following ways: a) Based on a notification report, drawn up by the president of the Agency; b) Based on a note prepared by the integrity inspector, approved by the integrity inspectors' management.
For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by the law, between 2011 and 2019, ANI was notified by the undersigned with several petitions regarding the violation of the law by public officials and magistrates through declarations of wealth or interests inappropriate to reality or contradictory, but also regarding in certain situations of obvious incompatibility, with the public position held by the respective person. The National Integrity Agency, in a directed and constant manner, either did not respond to the formulated notifications or carried out formal verifications and, contrary to the provisions of art. 10/4 of Law no. 115/1996, it did not issue motivated ordinances so that it could be appealed to the administrative litigation court, as it proceeded in the case of reporting on the incompatibility of Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius with the position of President of the Competition Council, cause in which the National Integrity Agency did not issue a motivated ordinance even after I requested compliance with this legal obligation through the preliminary complaint filed on 03.06.2019, in accordance with the procedure provided by law.
This mode of reaction of the National Integrity Agency can be explained by cultivating the non-observance of the law by this institution, systematically, as a result of the institutional "collaboration" and the personal relations that existed between George Maior, the former Director of the Romanian Intelligence Service , and Horia Georgescu, who held the function of Secretary General of ANI, between November 2008 - March 2009, and from April 2012 to March 2015 he held the position of president of the Agency, resulting in the intervention of the Romanian Intelligence Service, through the director to this institution, to issue orders regarding the way of solving some cases under investigation by ANI, with the consequence of violating the principle of operational independence of this public authority.
Page 123 of 152
Bogdan Stan, the current president of the National Integrity Agency is a graduate of the National Intelligence College "Mihai Viteazu", within the Romanian Intelligence Service, a higher education institution that prepares operational officers, analyst officers and experts in the field of security information.He was the deputy of Horia Georgescu, the former President of the National Integrity Agency, and he was succeeded in this position, which he holds and is currently exercising with the same "systemic habits / violations of the law, in order to protect and maintain in public positions of some persons promoted by the Romanian Intelligence Service, the obvious result consisting in the maintenance in public functions of some persons for whom there is certain evidence of incompatibility.
With regard to the aforementioned considerations, it is fully justified the appreciation that the National Integrity Agency does not systematically comply with the provisions of art. 15 paragraph 1 of the Law no. 176/2010 and acts as an annex of the Romanian Intelligence Service.
Evidence no. 10 - public information and documents that show that the National Integrity Agency does not systematically comply with European law and law, protects and maintains in public positions persons who do not obey the law in order to be directed in the exercise of professional duties: (1) The report of the Permanent Joint Committee of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate for the exercise of parliamentary control over the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service, from which, among others, it follows that:
(i) “S.R.I. transmitted to ANI a number of 71 information notes (notes, summary notes and special notes) regarding almost 600 persons, most of them with important functions in the central and local administration (ministers, MEPs, deputies, senators, presidents of county councils , state secretaries, mayors, deputy mayors, county council secretaries, ministerial advisers, institution directors, etc.) ” (ii) "George Maior lied to the Control Commission, distorting the truth regarding the institutional and personal relationship with the former head of the National Integrity Agency, being the main vector related to the institutional relationship with the National Integrity Agency and, in particular, in the plan personally, formally or informally, with Horia Georgescu ”.
(2) https://www.antena3.ro/actualitate/interviu-cu-fostul-şe-ani-maior-a-minţit-se-intervenea-direct-îd-are- 457502.html, according to which "Did Maior intervene in the files? Horia Georgescu, former director of the Integrity Agency, claims that George Maior lied in the parliamentary committee "and that" He intervened directly in the files, punctually, and said how to act "and, being asked if there were meetings that went beyond the legal framework, the former ANI chief said that Şelaru was not the only judge, but "There were more, Mrs. Stanciu, Mr. Ionuţ Matei (...) ... George Maior had contacts with many heads of institutions ..."
2.7 Failure to comply with the legal obligations provided for the Romanian Court of Audt, including the requirements regarding the autonomy and impartiality of the officials of this public institution
Law 94/1992, which regulates the activity of the Romanian Court of Audit, is not respected (systematically), being violated the provisions of art. 50 paragraph 1 bed a), since the persons holding management positions within this institution do not fulfill the status of impartiality and independence vis-à-vis the politicians who have proposed to the Parliament,
Page 124 of 152
in order to be appointed to the respective positions.Also, the provisions of art. 3 regarding the autonomy of the activity carried out, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, a legal provision that should give the Romanian Court of Audit officials independence in relation to all public authorities subject to the control of this institution.
The lines of the European Court of Auditors provide that it should be the conduct of the Court's staff, noting that "the Court's staff will avoid any conflict of interest, whether it is real or just apparent."In Romania, the autonomy / independence of the account counselors is not guaranteed, given that they are appointed following the proposals of the parties, without being subjected to any competition or examination regarding the professional training, and the politicians who make the proposals to appoint some persons in the management positions of the eight departments within the Romanian Court of Audit, departments that ensure the external audit of public institutions and authorities, have the interest to protect their own businesses that they carry on with them, in the long term, respectively for 9 years, during the mandates of the ones appointed by function.
It follows that the independence / autonomy of the "Account Directors" is and will be permanently affected by those who proposed for appointment, and this situation is transmitted up to the level of the specialized personnel subordinated to the president, vice presidents, account counselors, as well as the audit authority.The Romanian Court of Audit, accepting and sometimes following this mode of operation controlled by the personal interests of some groups, functioned directed, discreetly guarding mechanisms of fraud of public money, including by the lack of interest regarding the measures ordered following the controls and the entry into legality, and this can be determined, for example, by belonging to a political organization or exercising a political mandate, or in the case of holding the membership of a board of directors or the existence of financial interests in the controlled entities.
This support is confirmed by the following cases, presented as an example:
1) In the Report of 2013, the Romanian Court of Audit found a violation of the law in the sense that the decisions to return the excise duties were not based on the documents required by law, but were made under the conditions imposed by Farmec SA and not based on the analysis of the justifying documents, by the control act establishing that "in the absence of all the documents proving the type and the actual consumption of ethyl alcohol for the purpose for which the exemption was requested, the restitution should not be granted ...", as well as that "... In the favorable solution of the requests for restitution of the excise tax, not all the means of evidence provided for by the fiscal procedure code were administered ... "
Regarding the above considerations, the Romanian Court of Audit did not comply with art. 25 pt. G) of Law 94/1992, according to which the inspectors of the Romanian Court of Audit
Page 125 of 152
had the obligation "to comply with the legal provisions in the case of identifying frauds", because it did not fulfill the obligations stipulated in art. 33 of the same law, according to which "... (3) In the situations in which the existence of deviations from the legality and regularity, which have determined the occurrence of damages, is notified to the management of the audited public entity this state of fact. Establishing the extent of the damage and arranging the measures for its recovery become the obligation of the management of the audited entity. (4) In the situations in which the audit reports state the existence of facts for which there are indications that they were committed in violation of the criminal law, the head of the department notifies the law bodies to ensure the valorisation of the finding and informs the audited entity .... ", in the meaning of the notification of the criminal investigation body, in order to ensure the exploitation of the findings made regarding the violation of the law on the occasion of the excise refund.
At the same time, the Romanian Court of Audit was obliged to extend the checks up to now on the illegal excise refunds, as well as on other beneficiaries / taxpayers of excise refunds and, in addition, to follow the way of the National Agency's of Fiscal Administration fulfillment of the obligatory measures ordered by the control act of 2013, which has not been achieved so far, with the consequence of maintaining the mechanisms of fraud of public finances and organizing a protection regarding the continued fraud of the state budget through illegal excise refunds , although the undersigned have sent several requests to the Romanian Court of Audit, formulated under art. 8 ordinance 27/2002, which were left unanswered and without any reaction from this institution.
However, in this context, it cannot be ignored the possible causal link between the failure of the legal obligations by the Romanian Court of Audit, regarding the inappropriate activity according to the law of ANAF officials and the access to an important function at the Romanian Court of Audit of Vorniceanu Marius, who held management positions within ANAF, in the exercise of which he found the violation of the Law on the refund of excise duties, but did not notify the Prosecutor's Office and did not extend the investigations regarding the time period in which they were carried out and on other beneficiaries of refunds illegal excise duties, a circumstance that can confirm a fraud mechanism well organized and protected, by a group of people, considering that, his godson, Cojocaru D., remained constant at the General Directorate for the Administration of the High Taxpayers for approving illegal tax inspections, as well as the fact that, after 2016, to this directorate were transferred the competences for the conclusion of the minutes of restitution of excises from the General Customs Directorate, also in the power of approval of this person. 2) On 15.05.2019, the undersigned notified the Romanian Court of Audit regarding the fraud of public money at the Competition Council, including the payment of salaries of officials of the institution that do not come to work and I indicated the evidence supporting the complaint, but without showing a minimal concern for the administration of any evidence indicated, in order to verify the aspects and facts contained therein, the Romanian Court of Audit limited to request and accept a centralizing situation transmitted by the President of
Page 126 of 152
the Competition Council, Chirițoiu Bogdan Marius, a centralizing situation that does not reflect the reality.
The refusal of the Romanian Court of Audit to request the evidence indicated in the complaint and to analyze the aspects notified, including the acceptance of a centralized situation not accompanied by the indicated documents, is all the more serious, given that, by the Report no. XX / 215 / 17.04.2019 of the Economic Commission, industries and services within the Senate, following the parliamentary investigation regarding the investigations of the Competition Council, finding that it turned out that it does not have the competence of verification and to decide on the accusations regarding the existence of some fictitious employees at the Competition Council, decides to notify this institution for "verifying these accusations and applying any sanctions" (point 2 of the "Proposals" chapter of the Report).
Evidence no. 11 documents highlighting that this institution did not respect the European norms nor the Romanian law: (i) Attila Deszi's CV - member in the UDMR party, proposed by the party and appointed to the Romanian Court of Audit for the position of account counselor for nine years, from which it follows that he was appointed without fulfilling the condition stipulated in art. 97 point 2 of Law 94/1992, respectively that of having worked ten years in the specialization of the graduated studies, as well as a thorough professional training, in the conditions in which the aforementioned was electrician at the mine in Romania, he obtained a diploma in law at a private educational institution, but it only fulfilled political functions, without any relation to the control / audit activity, which proves that its appointment was a political one and not one based on professional criteria, and there is a reasonable suspicion that, in the short term, during which time he worked at the Competition Council, during the term of President of Chiriţoiu Bogdan Marius, he received a salary without performing the work corresponding to the position held at this institution.
(ii) Report of the Romanian Court of Audit of 2013 (excerpts), which results in the finding of illegalities regarding the return of excise duties to Farmec SA and the measures taken, following the evidence from point 2.4. referring to the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (iii) Report no. XX / 215 / 17.04.2019 of the Economic Commission, industries and services within the Senate of Romania (pt. 19 - Final conclusions), which results:
- "Other information related to the investigation, in the possession of which the Economic Commission, industries and services arrived, without having the legal powers to investigate the truth or to propose possible sanctions, information that resulted from the declaration of the former Secretary General of the Competition Council, Mr. Vasile Şeclăman, refers to a number of fictional employees at the Competition Council ” - "According to his statements, these employees are included in the organization chart, they are paid monthly, but they do not come to work"; - "Although the commission does not have the power to rule on these accusations, the objectives of the parliamentary inquiry are strictly those set out in Article 2 of the Permanent Bureau Decision no. 4/2019, the members of the Economic Commission, industries and services will notify the competent bodies in order to clarify these extremely serious accusations ”. (iv) the notification of the undersigned no. 131641 / 16.05.2019, addressed to the Romanian Court of Audit for carrying out verifications regarding the damage to the state budget as a result of fictitious staff hiring at the Competition Council, the subsequent requests and the answers received from the Romanian Court of Audit, respectively the addresses of this institution no. 1134 / 07.06.2019 and no. 223 / 09.19.2019;
Page 127 of 152
2.8 Failure to comply with legal obligations by the National Office for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering
Art. 39 of Law 129/2019 defines the National Office for Preventing and Combating Money Laundering as an operationally independent and autonomous body, functioning under the subordination of the Government and representing the coordinating and conducting authority for assessing the risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, Romania's financial information unit, the activity of this institution being carried out in cooperation with the criminal prosecution bodies, public authorities and institutions with regulatory, information and control attributions in the field, authorities with fiscal control or customs control powers, specialized bodies in the information activity provided in art. 6 paragraph 1 of Law 51/1991, regarding the national security of Romania, autonomous administrative authorities and institutions with the role of regulation and district supervision and control of the reporting entities, such as the National Bank of Romania, the Financial Supervisory Authority, the National Office for Gambling.
The office was notified by the police / IGPR, in the criminal file 3164 / P / 2012 of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest Court, regarding the establishment of the banking circuit and the final destination of the amount of 700,000 euros, transferred from the account of the company Farmec SA to the company account Allplington Investment Limited, based in Cyprus, transfer as a result of contracts concluded between Farmec SA, Allplington Company and Gerovital Cosmetics SA Romania, in which the former Minister Rovana Plumb held shares.
There is reasonable suspicion that these contracts do not reflect actual commercial operations, and the National Office for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering has not properly fulfilled the obligations provided by law, as it communicated to the police information and documents from which resulting that from the amount transferred to the offshore company, 60,000 euros were transferred into an account of Alpha Bank of Romania, but the Office refused to specify the name of the beneficiary and the supporting documents regarding the difference of 640,000 euros and did not communicate the information and the documents that were required by the criminal investigation body.
By notifying the undersigned of 30.10.2017, the National Office for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering was informed about money transfers that highlight possible transactions of corruption or tax evasion, arising from the registration in the accounting of Farmec SA of suspected fictitious operations, as a result of fraudulent operations of the law and of public and private property.
Persons who were appointed in the decision-making plenum of the Office come from public finance and audit structures and refused to have the measures provided in the law, in order to capitalize on the results of the control carried out or of the received requests, an example
Page 128 of 152
being Plăiașu Niculae, former head of The Financial Guard and close to the treasurer Ardelean Virgil, former head of the General Directorate of Information and Protection of the MA, for whom he worked in his company Arvifox Vision Security SRL, and the existing indications lead to links with Farmec SA, a company that has benefited permanently from refunds of excise duties without supporting legal documents.
However, in this context, we cannot consider that the National Office for the Prevention and Control of Money Laundering The Office fulfills the attributions conferred by the law to act as "an independent and autonomous body from an operational and functional point of view ..." nor can we exclude other interferences,
Evidence no. 12 documents highlighting the non-observance of the law by the National Office for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering.
(i) press investigations regarding the President of the OCPSB, Plaiesu Nicolae
- http://www.secundatv.ro/anchete/interesant-auditul-financiar-de-la-tel-drum-nu-i-a-fost-favorabil-lui-petre- pitis-omul-lui-dragnea-90812.html/?highlight=plaiasu - http://www.secundatv.ro/picatura-chinezeasca/ciolos-demite-l-pe-plaiasu- 26732.html/?highlight=plaiasu - http://www.secundatv.ro/studiu-de-caz/plaiasu-a-cedat-nervos-m-a-sunat-sa-ma-sperie-solicit- public-un-punct-de-vedere-din-partea-premierului-ciolos-11741.html/?highlight=plaiasu - http://www.secundatv.ro/studiu-de-caz/plaiasu-l-a-tradus-pe-toba-si-a-protejat-o-inginerie- financiara-de-12-milioane-euro-10370.html/?highlight=plaiasu - http://www.secundatv.ro/studiu-de-caz/rovana-plumb-nu-este-straina-de-contul-offshore-deschis- la-hellenic-bank-140-01-449221-01-10150.html/?highlight=plaiasu
(ii) address the date of the IGRP police to the Office no. 100 674 / 12.19.2012 (iii) the address of the Office, which does not respond as a result of the police request registered with the number CXII / 4794 / 07.02.2013 (iv) the notification of the undersigned no. CXVII / 11226 of 30.10.2017. (v) the reply address of the Office no. CXVII / 11226 / 11/29/2017
2.9 The activity of the majority of the members of the Parliament and of the Government of Romania was not able to adopt measures to improve the development of an open, transparent and constructive legislative process that would provide legal guarantees for the independence of the judiciary and for the observance of the law in each civil or criminal process, according to the rules. fundamental to the existence of a RULE OF LAW
2.9.1. Members of the Parliament and the Government succeeded each other in these institutions, expressing a clear concern for adopting legislative solutions, exercising direct or indirect pressure on the judicial bodies and using certain persons, with management or execution functions, from within the framework of information and judicial structures, in order to obtain favorable solutions to groups organized on the basis of financial interests, consisting of politicians, businessmen and multinational companies or Romanian, current or
Page 129 of 152
former officers within the Romanian Intelligence Service, prosecutors, judges, police officers, lawyers or financial experts.
(1) The Parliament and the Government of Romania did not contribute to the improvement of the legislative framework in order to avoid the systemic violation of the Constitution, the law, the European Law, as well as to remove the abuses by the justice bodies, prosecutor's offices and courts, the Romanian Intelligence Service, Competition Council, National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF), Romanian Court of Audit, Superior Council of Magistracy, Judicial Inspection, National Integrity Agency, National Office for Preventing and Combating Money Laundering and other institutions in Romania.
(2) The changes made to the laws of justice did not have as purpose and result the elimination of the deficiencies, which have affected and seriously affect the execution of the act of justice, but, on the contrary, they contain a series of measures that weaken the guarantees for the functioning of an absolutely independent judicial system and, as a consequence, it undermines the existence of a true rule of law in Romania, which ensures the equality of all citizens before the law and the observance of the procedural rights of each part of a civil or criminal process, independent of the belonging of any of these parties to certain interest groups that control and influence the adoption of the solutions desired and sought to be obtained in certain cases.
(3) The Government has adhered to the same coordinates for the creation of some levers for the control of the justice act, adopting a series of emergency ordinances which, on the one hand, have strengthened the authority and the influence power of the Minister of Justice over the prosecutors with the functions of management, by granting the right of decision in appointing them and initiating disciplinary proceedings against them (which could represent an interference of the executive power in the activity of the judiciary, against the constitutional provisions), and, on the other hand, they have legislated certain provisions of criminal law, which could weaken the activity of combating crime and favor the premature release of persons permanently convicted of serious crimes (besides criminals, robbers, rapists and politicians or businessmen convicted of corruption or fraud of the public or private heritage).
(4) Failure to follow / ignore the findings, conclusions and recommendations made by the Venice Commission and the GRECO Commission.
(5) The absence of any initiative of the Parliament or the Government to eliminate the legislative deficiencies that are found in the regulations regarding the constitution and functioning of the Superior Council of Magistracy and Judicial Inspection, so that, through consultations with all the factors involved in the execution of the act of justice - including civil society, which must benefit from the right to a fair trial and have effective safeguards on ensuring it to any person - to make the necessary legislative changes for the supreme judicial
Page 130 of 152
bodies to be elected in a democratic and transparent framework , without interference from the political factor or information structures.
From this perspective, it is fully justified the appreciation that the PARLIAMENT and the GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA folded on the actions of influence of the interest groups, regarding either the issuing of normative acts that weakened the criminal laws, or the inclusion in them of unconstitutional provisions, which, subsequently, they were sanctioned by the Constitutional Court, or they refused to issue legal provisions that would be expressed in a precise and rigorous manner and to contribute to the consolidation of Justice and to establishing a real material and criminal liability of the magistrate, including legal matters that are the subject of the present complaint.
2.9.2. The absence of a real and effective control of the parliamentary commissions on the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service and of the other national institutions under the exclusive and direct control of the PARLIAMENT of Romania and deliberately ignored the abuses of these institutions in relation to which it was repeatedly notified, without carrying out parliamentary control, hearing and analysis of primate evidence. For example, the PARLIAMENT, (1) He did not exercise parliamentary control, through the Commission for the supervision of the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service, regarding the actions taken by this institution, as a result of the notifications received and the information he collected (press, the justices, etc.). (2) The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate did not carry out a parliamentary investigation and I was not heard regarding the abuses that I have notified to the commission for abuses in the Senate and to the commission for supervision of the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service, in this respect the following aspects are relevant :
(i) Pop Georgian, the chairman of the commission of supervision of the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service, informed me formally that " Romanian Intelligence Service has made / does checks", without presenting the petition of the undersigned to the deputies that make up the Commission; (ii) Senator Manda Claudiu, the president of the Supervisory Commission of the activity of Romanian Intelligence Service, communicated to me, by the address of 19.10.2018: "we specify that the Romanian Intelligence Service cannot intervene in the procedure for resolving disputes, regardless of their nature" , also formal reply, since the undersigned addressed me with a petition regarding precisely the fact that the officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service, abusing this quality and because of a personal interest, influence / direct the activity of the Justice and of the national institutions; (iii) Senator Bălan Ioan informed me, on two occasions, that he classified the notificatin of the undersigned (for lack of interest), without any hearing and without carrying out any act of parliamentary inquiry;
Page 131 of 152
(3) the parliamentary control of the activity of the Competition Council was not exercised, through the specialized committees, in carrying out, within the limits of the law, the investigations it initiated, which were closed by the president of this institution, without the consent of the plenum, or of investigations in which evidence from the files under investigation disappeared, which allowed numerous abuses in the functioning of the Competition Council.
(4) The Romanian Parliament, through the Permanent Specialty Commission, has not created a legislative framework for the proper functioning and observance of European Law in equal measure of the rights and public property as of the taxpayers by the National Agency for Fiscal Administration.
(5) The Parliament of Romania did not exercise parliamentary control over the selective and formal functioning of the Agency - the National Office for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering, and in the absence of any governmental and parliamentary control, the National Office for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering did not respond to the address. IGPR in the criminal file 3164 / P / 2012 of PT Bucharest which is: “What is the complete circuit / route of the amounts of money, transfers from the account of the company ALLPINGTON INVESTMENT LIMITED to the end user specifying the natural person / the company to which amounts were paid , the value and justification of the object of payment / explanations ... ”, thus protecting the transaction with 700,000 euros between Farmec SA and companies controlled at that time by Mrs. Plumb Rovana, currently MEP and candidate for the position of Commissioner in the European Commission, and later in following the petition of the undersigned from 20.10.2017 regarding the money transfers to offshore, including the amount mentioned above, the National Office for Preventing and Combating Money Laundering again, by address no. CXIII / 1226 / 30.10.2017 responded formally with respect to operations and transactions representing suspected fictitious services that fraud both public finances and the patrimony of the joint stock company.
In this context, it is justified the appreciation that the Romanian Parliament has not systemically fulfilled the activity in compliance with the norms provided in art. 1 paragraph 2, art. 6 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law 24/2004, on the norms of legislative technique for the elaboration of normative acts and art. 39 and 40 of the Regulation of the Chamber of Deputies and art. 39 and 40 of the Senate Rules.
Lack of checks and legislative completions by the Parliament regarding the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service and the information services as a result of: - The information notes of the Romanian Intelligence Service to the institutions, which are not mistakenly left to the institutions for the purpose of proving transparency and efficiency, Page 132 of 152
- the secrecy of all the information transmitted by the Romanian Intelligence Service to the institutions must be an exception to the rule and not the rule itself, since not all the information transmitted constitutes state secrets or service secret information, and the informative notes must not become instruments of imposing character, or instruments of pressure against legal or natural persons, or civil servants. No fundamental right should be sacrificed on the altar of security. - the real necessity that only a small part of civil servants need the ORNISS certificate.
(6) The Parliament of Romania did not carry out any control of the activity of all public institutions, either as a result of the non-fulfillment of its activity within the limits of the law, nor as a result of the notifications received, the Parliament acted selectively, at the most formal. In this way, the Parliament did not identify the deficiencies existing in each specialized Law, in relation to which I presented in this document both the section I - institutions and section II - the petition requests. Regarding the Romanian Intelligence Service, the Parliament did not carry out any checks and findings regarding the systemic interference of this institution in all fields of activity and the inaction of the Romanian Intelligence Service regarding the information collected and the received reports. - Looking at access to secret information - The granting or motivated rejection of the Romanian Intelligence Service opinion for the security certificate to the civil servants and magistrates, with the possibility of finding the decision of rejection in the administrative litigation procedure - The actions taken by the Romanian Intelligence Service (Informative notes, criminal notices) regarding the information collected, the received notifications and the existing illegal practices.
(7) The Parliament has not exercised control over the activity of the Romanian Court of Audit, against the notifications received and the prosecution's notification by the Romanian Court of Audit. Evidence no. 13 highlights the formal activity of the Romanian Parliament, regarding the abuses of the national institutions in relation to which it has the obligation to exercise its control. Address no. C XIII / 1226 / 30.10.2017
In conclusion, the PRACTICES of obscure management and generalized domination regarding the vitiation of the independence and impartiality of justice, the dispositions of the prosecutor's offices and the decisions of the institutions of Romania, from the perspective of the reality and the information presented in the document, determine the following justified circumstances:(1) Do we still need a CONSTITUTION, LAWS and EUROPEAN LAW as long as the provisions mentioned in them are not respected and the established rights are not respected, because there are hidden understandings, relations of subordination and tacit domination (protocols) between the Romanian Service of Information and Competition Council, National Anticorruption Directorate, prosecutor's offices, Courts of Justice, ANAF,
Page 133 of 152
etc., which allow information and intervention at state institutions to obtain the desired result, according to the private interest of them and of some companies, with foreign or Romanian capital who violate the Law?
(2) Do we still need institutions, prosecutors' offices, the National Anti-corruption Directorate, courts of justice, the Competition Council, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the Superior Council of Magistracy, etc. and it would not be sufficient to limit ourselves to only one universal institution, namely the ROMANIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (SRI), as long as the SRI has in all the other institutions of the state officers, in sight or covered, promoted definitively or with delegation, partners , collaborators, informants.
(3) Why do we still need prosecutors and judges and why should not the decisions desired and decided by politicians, influential persons from the country and abroad and the officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service br transmitted directly to the judicial bodies, under the conditions in which the judicial institutions do receive precise indications regarding the decisions to be made in the files, as well as precise orders regarding the admission or rejection of the requests for evidence, the disappearance or removal of some evidence that was in the file?
SECTION II. THE PETITION
1. Aspects preceding the petition requests 2. Petition requests
1. Aspects preceding the petition requests
The principle of random distribution and the principle of continuity represent the guarantees of the right to a fair trial, from the perspective of access to an independent and impartial court, and the non-observance of the principles of random composition of the panel, the random distribution of the files and the continuity of the magistrate during the entire duration of the trial raises the issue of violation of the provisions provided for in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL in Romania should be not only a principle, but a fundamental rule of the rule of law and of a European democracy, since this rule has to be manifested since the notification by the police, to the prosecutor's offices or courts and be respected for the entire duration of the trial until its completion by a court decision.
In the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, it was held that, in order to determine whether a court can be considered "independent" within the meaning of art. 6 par. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, among other things, the procedure for appointing its members and the duration of the mandate should provide guarantees against external pressures and appear to be independent (Findlay v. United Kingdom, 25.02.1997, p. 73 ).
In the decision no. 685/2018, the Constitutional Court of Romania rules, in an unequivocal manner, on the purpose and nature of the guarantee offered by the regulations regarding
Page 134 of 152
the random distribution and distribution of cases for solving the panel, in the sense that "between the guarantees related to the objective impartiality of the court, part of the right to a fair trial, the random character of both the distribution of cases in the computer system and the composition of the panel set up by the law is registered.
PROPERTY is not protected by the Justice and by the national institutions in Romania from the abuses of some interest groups, provided that, after notifying the state authorities, according to the Law they must carry out checks, respond and, if necessary, issue motivated decisions, and these decisions can be censored by the Courts of Justice. The decisions issued or the refusal to issue decisions, within the public institutions and authorities, are influenced, directed and controlled by intelligence officers, politicians and businessmen, in cases where they have a personal interest in determining the state institutions not to fulfill the attributions stipulated in the Law, as a result of the fraud of public or private property by persons benefiting from preferential and unfair treatment by these public institutions.
2. Requests of the Petition
By virtue of the findings regarding the violation of European Law, highlighted in section I, as well as those in point 2.1. and 2.2. below, we ask the EUROPEAN COMMISSION to note that the violations exposed determine the simulation of the civil / criminal process, diverting it from its primary purpose - justice, right, truth -, and does not respect the impartiality and independence of the courts, nor of the judges and to the prosecutors, regarding certain, fundamental, direct and obvious elements of the Norms that contribute to the observance of European Law.
From this perspective, we ask to find the generalized institutional dysfunction within the system of administration of justice, determined by influence groups made up of politicians, intelligence officers and business people who have access and can intervene to certain persons with management or executive functions within the judicial system.
Justice is not performed in the name of the law and is not impartial and equal to all citizens of Romania, there being systemic mechanisms that, depending on the private interest of some groups organized by interests, are used to direct the administration of the justice act, it simulates the process, from the moment of the initiation of the justice act by introducing an action / appeals / constitutions / complaints on the role of judicial institutions in Romania.
In this context, during the trial judges from many courts reject incidental requests made to be addressed to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Court of Justice of the European Union and which would help to clarify some legal issues, as well as thousands of evidence from the file, the right of defense is violated by limiting access to the evidence that the judges declare secret to the plaintiff, although there is no doubt that these evidence are real, expertise is carried out drawn up by the opposing party, without the documents that have been requested by the experts, the titular judges are replaced, no criminal investigations or judicial investigations are carried out in accordance with the legal norms, with the consequence of pronouncing "order" solutions, resulting from agreements that exceed the civil or criminal process.
Page 135 of 152
Regarding the information and the documents presented in the probation, but also those requested by the Commission to obtain them from the Romanian public institutions, I respectfully request the European Commission to carry out the investigation, to find the systemic non-observance of the European Law regarding equality before the law of the citizens of Romania and the non-observance of the rights mentioned in section I, as well as the fundamental principles deriving from European Law, and to issue within the term provided by law:
- MOTIVATED OPINION, according to art. 258 of the TFEU, the urgent establishment of the infringement procedure, simultaneously with the inclusion of the opinion in the findings of the annual report on the reform of the judiciary and corruption, drawn up by the European Commission through the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, a transitional measure instituted to complete the judicial reform, or, according to art. 3 of the RULES OF PROCEDURE of the European Commission, MOTIVATED DECISION, according to the indication of the remedies against it.
2.1 In the investigation, the European Commission finds the generalized non-compliance, in the courts and prosecutor's offices in Romania, of the norms with guarantee role of the fair trial, the violation of the European Law through the systematic simulation of the process and the non-observance of equality before the law, determined by the used practices of favored groups in the courts
2.1.1. The European Commission to establish the non-existence in the law of the provisions that regulate the random composition of the judicial units composed of one, two or three judges, because art. 32 paragraph 1 of Law no. 255/2013, in force from 01.02.2014, regulates only the random composition of the panels composed of five judges.
2.1.2. The European Commission notes that the provisions of art. 11 of Law no. 304/2004, art. 199 paragraph 2) Code of civil procedure and art. 361 paragraph 3) Code of criminal procedure, regarding the random distribution of cases, systemically they are not fulfilled nor respected, in reality, in the judicial practice, because:(i) on the one hand, the current legislation does not regulate the whole process of random distribution and continuity, granting, in a non-permissible way, the possibility of the Superior Council of Magistracy and the governing bodies of the courts to add to the law and to issue, by its own regulations , rules favorable to the judges, which are contrary to the provisions of the law and allow abuses, although the Law, the only link between the justiciable and magistrate, must imperatively establish the limits of conducting and judging the fair trial and to ensure to any justiciable the written proof that the law has been respected.
(ii) on the other hand, it is unacceptable that a decision of the Superior Council of Magistracy or of the governing body of a court to regulate, according to a short-term interest, the procedure for conducting the PROCESS and for distribution or re-distribution of the case to a preferred judge, under this significant aspect being the Decision no. 1375/2015 of the SCM, through which regulations were adopted contrary to the provisions of Law no. 304/2004, in the conditions of the substantial modification of the provisions of the Regulation approved by the Decision no. 387 of the SCM, valid until 2015, which provided that "the files will be
Page 136 of 152
recorded in the order of receipt, chronologically, it being necessary to keep their records with the date and time, in a separate section ..." (art. 83) and that "The documents of notification of the court, filed personally or by a representative, sent by post, courier or any other way provided by law, are submitted to the registry, where, IN THE SAME DAY, after establishing the object of the case, they receive, except in the cases provided by law, number in the ECRIS application and certain date, IN THE ORDER OF THE RECEIPT ”.
The careful analysis of the examples and the evidence, presented in the complaint or attached to it, shows the failure of the courts to observe the principles of random distribution of the files and the continuity of the magistrate, which were violated by the judges with the intention and the result of obtaining, by non-compliance with the law, court judgments favorable to the party that has defrauded the Law and Property, in the conditions of unjustified rejection of the applications in the files, in the case of the trials finalized with final judgments given in the last seven years:
- the files are introduced in the ECRIS application in preferential order, so that the system only creates the appearance of random distribution; Failure to comply with the order of entry and registration of cases in the general registry of the court allows the files that have "interest" to be sent to trial to the preferred panels by former or current officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service and the president of the court, with the result of obtaining the desired / prosecuted court decisions, by the persons who have defrauded the law and the property and the distribution factors are introduced according to the panel at which it is desired;
The careful analysis of the examples and the evidence, presented in the complaint or attached to it, shows the failure of the courts to observe the principles of random distribution of the files and the continuity of the magistrate, which were violated by the judges with the intention and the result of obtaining, by non-compliance with the law, court judgments favorable to the party that has defrauded the Law and Property, in the conditions of unjustified rejection of the applications in the files, in the case of the trials finalized with final judgments given in the last seven years:
- the files are introduced in the ECRIS application in preferential order, so that the system only creates the appearance of random distribution; Failure to comply with the order of entry and registration of cases in the general registry of the court allows the files that have "interest" to be sent to trial to the preferred panels by former or current officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service and the president of the court, with the result of obtaining the desired / prosecuted court decisions, by the persons who have defrauded the law and the property and the distribution factors are introduced according to the panel at which it is desired;
- the composition of the panels made up of several judges is not random, the procedure is not transparent, giving the possibility of creating panels that are composed of judges "preferred" by the structures of services and interest groups;
- the continuity of the magistrate during the course of the trial is not respected and the "interruptions" in continuity are frequent, by the replacement of the magistrates, by the taking of files by favorite magistrates, using pretexts which, on closer investigation, prove to
Page 137 of 152
be not at all. justified, and, during the trial, the transfer of the file to another court is not done by random distribution;
- the ECRIS electronic application for the distribution of files is not at all provided and described in the law, not even mentioned, and, because there is no provision in the law of the rules regarding the description, the use in conditions of transparency and functioning of the ECRIS application, the order of the introduction of the cases in the ECRIS information system of cases, the litigants do not have the possibility to verify the observance of the law, which would provide them with confidence, following the transparent and verifiable confirmation of the impartiality, independence of the magistrates and the fairness of the civil or criminal process;
Analyzing the provisions of Law no. 304/20041, in relation to the provisions of art. 101, 103 paragraph (2) and 104 para. (1) of the Regulation approved by the SCM Decision no. 1375/20152, please note that this decision of the Superior Council of Magistracy and the decisions of the governing bodies of the courts are contrary to the norms of legal value and contribute to the systematic simulation and circumvention of the fair process, to the protection of the interests of the organized groups, to the detriment of the good faith person:
(i) the rules regarding the concrete way of carrying out the procedures for an effective random distribution of the files are not mentioned precisely in the law, but, wrongly, the law confers the possibility that through Regulations of the courts and Decisions of the Superior Council of Magistracy establish the method and the criteria for the distribution of cases by panels, in order to ensure the
1 The provisions of art. 11, 139 and 52, 53 of Law 304/2004: - Art. 11 of the law 304/2004: The trial activity is carried out in compliance with the principles of random distribution of files and continuity, except in cases where the judge cannot participate in the trial for objective reasons. - Art. 139 para. (1) of Law 304/2004: "By the Regulation of internal order of the courts, the following are established: a) the administrative organization of the courts of appeal, of the county courts, of the specialized courts and of the courts; b) the manner and criteria for the distribution of cases on the basis of judgments, in order to ensure the observance of the principles of random distribution and continuity ”; - Article 52 of Law 304/2004
(1) The governing bodies establish the composition of the judicial panels at the beginning of the year, aiming to ensure the continuity of the panel. The change of the members of the panels is made exceptionally, on the basis of the objective criteria established by the Regulation of internal order of the courts. (2) The panel is chaired, by rotation, by one of its members. - Article 53 of Law 304/2004 (1) The distribution of the cases by the panel is done randomly, in a computerized system. (2) The cases assigned to one panel may not be passed to another panel only under the conditions provided by law.
2 Provisions of the Regulation of the Superior Council of Magistracy :: - art. 103 paragraph 2 of the Decision of the SCM 1375/2015 - By the method of the cyclical system the files are taken by the person or persons designated according to paragraph. (1), which distributes a file, in order, to the competent panels, established according to art. 101 paragraph (5). - art. 104 paragraph 1 of the Decision of the SCM 1375/2015 - Whenever it is necessary to apply the method of cyclical distribution of the files, they are assigned, according to the date of registration at the respective court, to the competent panels, in order of their numbering.
Page 138 of 152
principles of random distribution and continuity, although the latter regulations are not legal, and their non-compliance cannot attract the criminal and civil liability of the persons who violate them, having taking into account the decision no. 405/2016 of the Constitutional Court, in relation to which the criminal liability of the persons of justice for the act of abuse in service cannot be drawn, provided by art. 297 of the Criminal code, except in case of violation of some legal norms, and the decision of the SCM and the decisions of the governing bodies of the courts are not laws.
(ii) although art. 11 of Law 304/2004 provides that the court activity is carried out in compliance with the principles of random distribution and continuity, unless the judge cannot participate for objective reasons, the Superior Council of Magistracy issued the decision no. 1375/2015, which is not a law, but is contrary to the Law, in terms of the regulation of the random distribution mode and of ensuring the continuity of the panel, in the sense that, according to art. 101 of this decision, "Random distribution in the computer system is performed only once, following that in the situations in which during the trial there are procedural incidents using the rules established in this regulation", which is, in fact, a pretext invented by the SCM so that during the trial, when procedural incidents occur, to use the rules provided in the Regulation adopted by the SCM, which has no legal value, but allows to direct the files to preferred panels.
(iii) art. 103 and art. 104 of the SCM Decision no. 1375/2015 establishes the cyclical distribution of the files, which is contrary to the provisions of art. 11 of Law no. 304/2004 which regulates the random distribution of the files, and the "modification" of the law through the SCM decision allows the judges to prepare a cyclical distribution algorithm so that the files of interest are distributed to the preferred judge.
2.1.3. The European Commission finds that the provision provided in art. 99 pt. O) of Law 303/2004 is necessary to be removed, because it has the role to protect and promote mechanisms of simulation of the civil or criminal process in Romania and not to strengthen by law the guarantees offered by the state regarding the fair trial and there must be an accountability, without intermediation / protection of the judicial inspection, of the persons (computer scientists, clerks, judges) who participate in the random distribution of the files, by attracting criminal liability in case of violation of the law, as well as with any of the other professions. 2.1.4. The European Commission finds systemic non-observance of the fair trial in the prosecutor's offices and in the police, considering that the files of interest are distributed without a legal provision regarding the random distribution and are kept in default, on criteria unknown to the justiciable and hardly justifiable, and, in addition, some files are not registered with a "P" number so that the criminal investigation is not carried out, without the possibility of obtaining information regarding the status of the file.
2.2. Measures requested to the European Commission
2.2.1. The European Commission recommends that Romania remove the systemic non- observance of the right to a fair trial, by introducing in the Law some norms that regulate, Page 139 of 152
in detail, the whole procedure for randomly distributing files, for randomly completing the panels and ensuring their continuity throughout the civil and criminal proceedings, as well as in the case of procedural incidents or whenever the file is passed to another judge, even for objective reasons, which must be concretely determined by the legal norms, and which prohibit the issuance of some judgments by the Superior Council of Magistracy or by the leading colleges of the courts on all the components that contribute to the random establishment of the panel.
Thus, the European Commission recommends to Romania, the adoption of precise / specific provisions, accompanied by sanctions, among the most serious, regarding the route of a file throughout the trial, in order to hold the persons involved in the random distribution of the files responsible, according to the conditions of the decision of the Constitutional Court no. 405/2016, which limits the employment of criminal liability for the crime of abuse in service, prvided by art. 297 of the Criminal code only in case of violation of the Law, in order to remove the systemic non-compliance of the random distribution and continuity, by introducing in the Law and not in Regulations or Decisions of the Superior Council of Magistracy, respectively:
(1) a description of the content of the ECRIS application, of its use and the removal of any subjective or non-transparent component, as well as of any distribution factor that cannot be verified at the request of the litigant, in order to give him confidence in the justice system;
(2) the registration in the general register of the court as soon as the file has been received, with the mention of the date and time of the entry of the file and the communication to the litigant by email or at the file of the supporting documents, respectively extracted from the general register with the causes of that day and the evidence of the random distribution by introducing in the ECRIS application;
(3) the declaration of the appeal / recourse shall be transmitted by the court of justice to the superior court in order to avoid holding them in the lower court for a time favorable to one of the parties;
(4) the random distribution of the files shall be regulated in law, precisely, by introducing each case in the ECRIS system, which shall be made immediately for each case, within the schedule of the court's schedule between 8:00 and 16:00, with the mention of the application being introduced one by one, against the date of entry and in the order of arrival of the files at the court, being distributed in the same order;
(5) the procedure for the composition of the panels composed of two or more judges shall be regulated as random, by drawing lots, in the ballot box, and transparent (filmed) to the justices, at all the courts of Romania;
(6) observing the provision of the law on the continuity of the magistrate who was titled by the random distribution of the file, if the magistrate continues to carry out his activity at the respective court, and, in the event of any procedural incident, the file will be distributed to another panel to be judged at random, by re-entering the ECRIS system of the file, in order to avoid bringing in the case some favorite magistrates, lacking impartiality;
Page 140 of 152
(7) the removal / prohibition of the possibility of cyclical distribution of the files, since it is predictable and allows to anticipate that a file will return to a certain panel, following the cyclical order established by the management board;
(8) the prohibition by law of the possibility of the Superior Council of Magistracy or of the governing bodies of the courts to establish the mode of distribution of the files regarding any procedure for the distribution of a case, which may vitiate the fair trial;
(9) the observance of these procedures shall be evidenced by written documents by the courts, and the situation of non-observance of these procedures (or of the absence of evidence regarding the observance of the procedure) shall be sanctioned by regulating an additional case for reviewing the court decisions that were pronounced in the conditions of non-observance of the law regarding the random distribution of the case, the non-random composition of the panel or the continuity of the magistrate in the criminal and civil files, as well as by attracting the civil and criminal responsibility of the responsible persons;
(10) the introduction in normative acts with the power of law, severe sanctions and easily applicable to the personnel of the courts and even the magistrates, in case of non- observance of the procedure of distribution of the files, considering that these facts constitute acts of direct and irreparable influence of the act of justice, seriously infringing the impartiality that the courts must prove;
2.2.2. The European Commission recommends to Romania severe measures and sanctions that will result in the removal of the systemic mechanism for keeping the files in non- processing in the police or the prosecutor's office, with the consequence of the infringement of the right of access to a fair criminal trial, within a reasonable time, in front of a court , which starts with notifying the police or the prosecutor's office, by introducing into law, some provisions regarding:
(1) the obligation to register with the indicative "P" of the criminal files, with the whole special and public regime related to this procedure; (2) random distribution of the files to the police and to the prosecutor's offices, and the transfer of the files from one policeman to another or from a prosecutor to another to be carried out under conditions of distribution.
These legislative measures are all the more necessary, since the changes to the Laws of Justice of 2018 only create the appearance of the possibility of attracting the liability of the justice personnel, as long as there is no legal provision that allows the injured party, the state or any other natural or legal persons to formulate direct actions to the court regarding the damages suffered as a result of the guilty acts of the policemen and the prosecutors in exercising their exclusive attributes in carrying out the criminal prosecution, obligatory preliminary act for the access of the justiciable to a court, in criminal matters.
2.2.3. The European Commission asks Romania to adopt the law of material liability of the magistrate, in order to hold responsible the persons administering the act of justice, to give confidence to the justiciable and to create the climate of a real fair trial.
Page 141 of 152
2.2.4. The European Commission recommends to Romania, through the Superior Council of Magistracy:
1) to adopt as a matter of urgency a decision by which to eliminate the provisions contrary to the law from the ROIIJ approved by the decision no. 1375/2015 regarding the procedures and registration of the files at the courts and at their introduction, in the ECRIS application for observing the legal principles of the random distribution of the causes and the continuity of the judicial panels.
2) to exercise the prerogatives of legislative initiatives, conferred by the provisions of art. 38 of the law 317/2004, in the sense of initiating projects of normative acts with the power of law, which to address to the Ministry of Justice in order to modify the laws of justice for the adoption of regulations absolutely necessary to create a legal framework that will ensure the development of a genuine FAIR TRIAL.
2.2.4. European Commission to recommend to Romania legislative measures, accompanied by severe sanctions, by which to eliminate the present custom, respectively the interference of the management of the Romanian Intelligence Service in the activity of Justice, Prosecutors and public institutions
(1) The Parliament mentioned in the Report of the Permanent Joint Commission of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate for exercising parliamentary control over the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service, the legislative proposal regarding "the elaboration of a unitary and transparent procedure provided by law regulating the collaboration of the Romanian Intelligence Service with other institutions ”, which determines the need for an annual parliamentary control to the Romanian Intelligence Service and to the beneficiary institutions, to verify whether the activity is carried out within the limits of the law, regarding the informative notes, the Romanian Intelligence Service 's opinion for obtaining the security certificates, the information collected by the Romanian Intelligence Service, the notifications received by the Romanian Intelligence Service criminal notices to National Anticorruption Directorate and TERRORISM AND ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT , if they were drawn up and transmitted according to the information collected and the notifications received, if the secrecy of the information sent by the Romanian Intelligence Service was excessively established, with the result of removing the access and civil society against abuses and frauds of public and state property.
(2) the precise regulation by law of the legal regime, the informative notes, which are transmitted to the courts or public institutions to be inserted and recorded in the unique register of entries to each institution or public authority, as well as in the unique register of exits of the Romanian Intelligence Service, and a copy to remain on probation at the recipient institutions, and the notes to the courts to be attached to the file of each case, motivated, so that, on the one hand, any suspicion regarding the obscure nature of the informative notes, the violation of fundamental rights and provisions to be removed, and, on the other hand, the deputies and the senators will be able to exercise parliamentary control through periodic checks if these Informative Notes correspond to the issuing institution and to the beneficiary institution of the information received, as well as if content of informative notes could be interpreted as an interference that is not allowed in the activity of the institution or represents a motivated information based on evidence; Page 142 of 152
(3) magistrates, civil servants and politicians to be protected by law from possible interference / suggestions of some officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service, which could vitiate their independence, freedom / influence in their decision-making activity; (4) the clear definition and limitation of the secret nature of the information, only in the case of informative notes containing secret state information and secret service information on certain personal data, contributes for the future both to the transparency and to the reduction of the number of users who currently need an ORNISS safety certificate. At present, all the information transmitted by the Romanian Intelligence Service is classified; (5) the opinion of the Romanian Intelligence Service that is granted for obtaining the ORNISS security certificate shall be motivated in the case of rejection, and the decision of the rejection may be challenged in the court;
2.2.5. European Commission to recommend to Romania to introduce in normative acts with power of law certain provisions according to which the public functions at the level of the Competition Council, the Court of Accounts, the Constitutional Court, the Heads of Prosecutors and Sections, TERRORISM AND ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT , the Section for the investigation of criminal offenses, the Directorate National Anticorruption, Superior Council of Magistracy, Judicial Inspection management and execution functions in the courts to be occupied by a preliminary public selection procedure, in which the persons can be subjected to a public analysis in the Parliament, the candidates can be publicly challenged, if they do not meet the selection conditions. Then, the functions will be confirmed through a competition, organized in a transparent, online (on the grid), following models practiced within the European Commission, regarding the occupation of public functions.
2.2.6. The European Commission recommends Romania to introduce in normative acts with power of law sanctions regarding the institutional and legislative framework in Romania meant to guarantee the right to petition, as well as an effective verification regarding the resolution of petitions and notices, based on verifications and evidence, as well as failure to comply with the provisions of art. 8 of Ordinance 27/2002, regarding the verification, settlement and response within 30 days
Institutionally, the property is not protected, because the Romanian institutions have not solved or responded absolutely to the numerous notifications and requests, in the absence of severe sanctions provided for in the law, regarding the verification and answers, the provision of art. 8 of the Ordinance no. 27/2002 paragraph 1 according to which: "The notified authorities and public institutions have the obligation to communicate to the petitioner, within 30 days from the date of registration of the petition, the answer, regardless of whether the solution is favorable or unfavorable". We sound an alarm against the fact that the dysfunctions are multiple and manifest themselves constantly, and the recommendation of the European Commission is not only desired, but absolutely necessary, because the tolerance of an attitude of indifference on the part of national and local institutions towards citizens' petitions tends to generalize because of the lack of effective sanctions.
The institutions in Romania that did not carry out checks, did not solve requests and notifications, did not communicate the requested information are the Ministry of Justice, the Minister of Public Finance, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration through the Page 143 of 152
General Directorate for Tax Antifraud, the Directorate for the Administration of the High Taxpayers, the General Customs Directorate , General Directorate of Integrity, President of the Agency, National Anti-Corruption Directorate, High Court of Cassation and Justice, Competition Council, National Office for Preventing and Combating Money Laundering, Bucharest Court of Appeal, Cluj Court of Appeal, Craiova Court of Appeal, Court Appel Braşov, Pitesti Court of Appeal, Body of Chartered Accountants and Experts, Judicial Inspection of the Superior Council of Magistracy, Romanian Intelligence Service, Romanian Court of Audit, Parliament of Romania, Abuse Commissions for Senate and Chamber of Deputies, the Commission from the Chamber of Deputies for the control of the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service, the National Integrity Agency.
Systemically, the institutions that were notified did not work in the name of the law, because they either did not carry out checks, they did not communicate a transparent response on the checks and remedial measures, or they sent us a formal response. In support of the necessity of the adoption by the European Commission of this measure, we state notices, petitions, complaints of the undersigned / subscribed to public institutions, which either have not been resolved at all and have not received any response, or have been formally resolved in violation of the law, petitions to the courts to provide me with written evidence regarding the random distribution of cases in relation to which the courts have refused.
(1) the requests to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, the Court of Appeal of Cluj, the Court of Appeal of Constanta and the Court of Appeal of Craiova did not communicate to me the documents and the information requested regarding the documents proving that the random distribution to the High Court of the civil cases in which the undersigned have the quality of party, although the principle of transparency is regulated also by art. 15 of the Treaty on European Union, and even more so the national institutions must respect the principle of transparency. (2) the requests addressed to the Judicial Inspection and the Superior Council of Magistracy no. 45092 / 19.05.2017, 63168 / 15.07.2017, 7671 / 24.10.2017, 7672 / IJ / 24.10.2017, 1/27253 / 11.12.2014, 1/07252 / 11.12.2014, 1/3494 / 13.09.2019, 29.11.2018, 1/13982 / 03.07.2018, 1/9275 / 04.05.2018, 14.06.2019 and 16.07.2019 for communication with evidence regarding the random distribution of the notifications of the undersigned and which have not been solved.
(3) requests to the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the General Integrity Directorate within ANAF did not carry out checks as a result of the petitions we registered under no. 856 / 14.09.2017, 64487 / 15.09.2017, dated 12.12.2017, under no. 1570 / 05.01.2018 and no. 180725 / 14.02.2018, the notification of the ANAF president and the Minister of Finance from 04.07.2019 and requests, notifications to the ANAF, DGAF, DGAMC and DG Integrity president from 10.10.2019 containing information and documents regarding the violation of the law by several civil servants from the General Customs Directorate, the General Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers, the General Directorate of Tax Antifraud, the Directorate of Fiscal Anti-fraud section 6 Sibiu, the General Legal Department of ANAF and did not sanction the violation of the law.
(4) the notifications we sent to the Romanian Intelligence Service, in 2014, 15.02.2015, 2016, 2017, 20.10.2018, which highlight the deep vulnerability of the national security as an effect of the deterioration of the Romanian living climate due to the interference of some officers in the institutional act of Romania, notifications left without any reaction and without any result, with the consequence of the continued damage of the state and private patrimony through large-scale illegal operations. (5) notifications, complaints, denunciations that have been registered with the National Anticorruption Directorate with no. 3166 / 16.02.2016, 3166 / 31.07.2017, 20.07.2017, 16272 / 20.10.2017 but they did not receive a number with a "P" sign, with the intention and result of favoring the persons who violated the law
Page 144 of 152
and the property, although they referred to the facts of fraud of the state budget and of the private patrimony, with the participation of some civil servants and under the protection of the inaction of persons belonging to the judicial bodies, which justifies the suspicion of the existence of corruption acts or in connection or assimilated to them by the competence of the National Anticorruption Directorate, which, surprisingly, it did not conduct any criminal investigation.
(6) the notifications sent to the Minister of Justice and unresolved, respectively the complaints registered with no. 45092 / 19.05.2017, 98936 / 02.11.206 and 63168 / 15.07.2016. (7) complaints to the National Integrity Agency regarding which we have not received an answer or no checks have been carried out or have been formally resolved by no. 140 / 11.01.2012, 133 / 11.01.2012, 137 / 11.01.2012, 149 / 11.01.2012, 142 / 11.01.2012, 141 / 11.01.2012, 139 / 11.01.2012, 138 / 11.01.2012, 136 / 11.01.2012, 135 / 11.01.2012, 134 / 11.01.2012, 132 / 11.01.2012, 2582 / 03.10.2011, 2531 / 28.09.2011 and no. 3454 / 07.03.2019, the latter against the so-called B.M. Chirițoiu, his incompatibility with the law with the position of president at the Competition Council, which was formally resolved, without reasoning regarding the violations of the law we notified, the classification of the complaint following the practice of the previous discussion with the Romanian Intelligence Service director.
(8) petitions to the Romanian Court of Audit no. 136867 / 04.08.2017, 141693 / 20.10.2017, 141694 / 20.10.2017, 120801 / 11.01.2018, 131641 / 16.05.2019 unresolved. (9) the requests to the president of the Body of the Accountants and Authorized Accountants of Romania (CECCAR) no. 6283 / 17.06.2014, 10542 / 26.10.2016, 6284 / 14.06.2017, which have not been resolved so far because the checks were formal. (10) the petitions to the courts that did not respond with writings to the petitioner's requests - to the ICCJ from 11.01.2019, 14.01.2019, 19.04.2019, 30.05.2019, 05.06.2019, 11.06.2019, 29.11.2019 - to the Cluj Court of Appeal from 05.02.2019, 19.02.2019, 26.03.2019, 03.05.2019, 31.05.2019, 30.09.2019, 16.10.2019 - to the Bucharest Court of Appeal from 07.01.2019, 22.01.2019, 11.03.2019, 18.09.2019 - to the Craiova Court of Appeal from 28.03.2019, 29.05.2019, 24.06.2019 - to Brasov Tribunal from 16.01.2019, 28.04.2019 - to the Cluj Specialized Court from 12.10.2018, 26.03.2019 and 22.04.2019 - to the Arges Specialized Court from 10.10.2018 and 27.03.2019
2.2.7. European Commission to impose task on Romania - to repair the unequal treatment that has been subjected for years by small and medium- sized companies to large companies, in this case international, and to establish equal, fair and firm regulations accompanied by clear and applicable sanctions in this area. - to adopt regulations that will ensure equal treatment and effective reparation of the damage caused by the fraud of public and private property
(1) The law removes the competitive climate which is constantly vitiated by the fact that small and medium-sized companies pay tax on profit, and large companies (corporations) transfer their profit to offshore tax accounts, in exchange for suspicious fictitious services and pay less tax to the countries hosting banks in offshore regime.
(2) The law removes the unequal discriminatory treatments that constitute disguised state aid granted years by the governments of the European countries, to the companies that transfer their profit in exchange for suspicious fictitious services. This unequal treatment
Page 145 of 152
has, in fact, caused small companies to accumulate debt, which is why small companies do not have access to European funds either. (3) The law to tax money transfers in exchange for services (suspected fictitious), and all companies to pay the same value as corporate income tax. So far, the money transfers to companies with offshore tax regime have represented a theft of large companies from paying corporate taxes.
(4) The fiscal amnesty granted to the small / medium-sized companies, namely the cancellation of the fiscal debts that until now have accumulated the debts due to an unequal treatment resulting from the money transfers of the big companies to companies with offshore tax regime.
(5) Introducing into the Law the obligation of the state to pay its debts to third parties. The state, although it owes large amounts of money to the natural or legal persons based on court decisions and the fact that the state does not guarantee through its law it creates a treatment of force in case the state has to collect amounts of money and an unequal treatment regarding the circumstance according to which the state owes money to third parties, it does not pay them, the property being treated with a double measure.
(6) The fiscal amnesty regarding the money in relation to which the persons holding them did not prove their provenance, the taxation of the money with a higher tax than the usual one and the simultaneous obligation to invest money in business in Romania, as an alternative of Romanian private capital.
2.2.8. The European Commission to ensure by law, in a unitary way at the level of the European countries, an equal treatment of the retail companies vis-à-vis their suppliers and the consumers of the products purchased from the shelves of the same supermarkets that sell products in Romania and in other western countries.
(1) retail cash & carry companies, supermarkets, hypermarkets, discounts and proximity companies that buy and sell products to consumers in western countries Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, do not charge and do not request suppliers shelf or network, per product or per store taxes, (2) while in Romania, part of the same retail networks conditions the collaboration withpayment of high shelf fees, entry into each store, without a precondition of reciprocity, which will manifest itself in exchange and in time. (3) Removing the imposition of commercial conditions regarding the payment of shelf fees for each network store, which limits and restricts the trade only for the companies that can pay these taxes, harming consumers because they cannot access certain products, and in addition, the shelf charges determine the increase of the price of the products with which the suppliers deliver the product, as well as the increase of the sale value of the product at the Romanian supermarket shelf.
Page 146 of 152
(4) The obligation of the retail networks in Romania to negotiate with local producers of consumer products of any kind.
2.2.9. The European Commission imposes on Romania the task of pursuing and regulating the protection of the property rights of the owners of participations in commercial companies, in accordance with the principles and rules of European law, among which we find the following:
- uniformization of the legal regulations for the protection of the property right of the shareholding holders, for all forms of joint stock companies, with limited liability, listed / unlisted for trading on the market; - careful instrumentation of exit procedures within companies with additional protection of the holders of participations that apply for such procedures (withdrawal, forced sale, etc.); - ensuring the intra-corporate imperative mechanisms by which the shareholders can access the protection of investments, in the sense of ensuring certain procedures by which the share of the holdings (the reflection of the holdings in the company's patrimony) can be maintained / protected.
- as the Romanian legislation is seen to be deficient and even in disagreement with the Second EC Directive, it is necessary to transpose immediately, faithfully provided. art. 33 of the Second EC Directive regarding the prohibition in the statute of the legal person of some regulations that allow to limit the participation of the shareholders in the process of increasing the share capital or in the process of acquiring the shares sold by associates / shareholders: “The right of preemption cannot be limited or withdrawn by statute or the constitutive act ...... " Another step of the Commission should be to ask Romania to ensure the protection of the minority shareholder against the abuses of the majority. A receipt of the EC recommendations and the usual provisions of the European laws in this area is desirable to be realized immediately (for example, including the regulation by law of the possibility to sell the shares at the correct, real market price in cases where the company is closed or not listed on the stock exchange).
Although, in principle, there is availability to provide such a framework that would guarantee ownership over the ownership interests in commercial companies, in reality, the practical transposition of the decision is made sporadically and insufficiently exclusively at the level of the ASF institution (regulatory authority exclusively for traded companies on the capital market)
For example, the extracts from the ASF Regulation no. 5/2018 and from the Law 24/2017 emphasize, regarding the limitation, that it must be performed as a percentage, according to the extract from art. 173 paragraph 3 of the ASF Regulation no. 5/2018: "The increase of the
Page 147 of 152
share capital will be achieved by granting the possibility of keeping the share held by each shareholder in its share capital.
"The price per share in case of increases is regulated at the accounting price, according to art. 174 of the same law:
"The number of shares to be issued in case of increases in share capital with cash contribution made with the lifting of the right of preference or in case of increases in share capital with contribution in kind is determined by the board of directors of the issuer and is equal to the ratio between the value of the contribution, established in compliance with the incidental provisions, and the highest of the following values: a) the weighted average trading price for the last 12 months prior to the date of the EGMS; b) the value per share calculated based on the net accounting asset related to the last published and audited financial statements of the issuer; c) the nominal value of the action. "Also, it is necessary to regulate with more power of law, more detailed and to establish effective and efficient sanctions in the matter:
- the adequate assurance of the shareholders in the companies on closed and open shares
- the responsibility of the administrators regarding the entrusted management activity;
- the regime of prohibitions with a protective character established by the law regarding the legal acts that can be concluded by the management of the company;-
- ensuring an audit activity eminently independent and with effective independence from the management of the audited companies,
- reconsideration of the external audit regarding better information.
2.2.10. For the equal treatment of Romanian citizens with European citizens who have received non-reimbursable funding from European funds for the development of industry and services, the European Commission should ensure the same treatment and impose to Romania, through joint measures, the obligation to adopt provisions and to allocate funds of co-participation for financing, so that companies can access financing programs for the development of the industry with European funds
The allocation of consistent amounts from European funds for the industrial development of the Romanian companies, concurrently with the following measures: (1) The agencies for the management and transmission of European funds must be depoliticized and function independently of the environment and the group interests of the politicians or their lack of interest. The management and execution staff within these agencies must be selected through competition, based on professional, transparent criteria, to avoid appointments or replacements by officers and politicians. In view of these considerations, I consider that the access of the funds is wrongly subordinated to the Page 148 of 152
Government and under the influence of the politicians and implicitly of the officers. Agencies must collaborate with civil society, with governmental and local public institutions, take over projects, transmit funding and ensure compliance with the law on their implementation, through OLAF, prosecutor's offices and the Court of Accounts, also considering co-financing with government funds. The control of this public institution must be exercised by the Romanian Court of Audit, OLAF, Parliament, and their salaries should be correlated with the result of accessing the funds by private persons or public institutions.
(2) The need for political separation regarding access to Romania of European funds. (3) The Romanian Government to provide co-financing for the categories of small, medium and large industrial projects and to create the framework for granting the financing at the beginning of each financial year of the European Union. The lack of such co-financing can be seen as a negative result, in the graph presented below:
Compared to previous financial years, there is a lower absorption rate and in no case an increase as would have been normal given the fact that the implementing authorities should have gained the experience after several years of coordination of European funds. Currently, companies are restricted from accessing European small, medium and large non- reimbursable funds, because the government does not really provide the values needed for co-financing, and co-financing exists only in budgets, but in fact the sources of government funding are not accessed due to administrative procedures. (4) The granting framework consists of legislation for the implementing authorities, reduction of bureaucracy, co-financing by the government and European funds in values according to the needs of industrial development.
Page 149 of 152
2.2.12. European Commission recommends Romania to provide a legislative framework in the field of public finance management, in order to ensure public and private balance and protection
(1) Strengthening the legislation on the return of excise duties on the excise goods that is currently provided for in point 22 paragraph. 34 of the methodological norms for applying the fiscal code, the checks to be carried out, the institutional separation of the persons who approve the refunds with the persons who carry out verifications regarding the compliance with the law and legal sanctions in case of non-compliance. (2) The enforceable titles issued by ANAF shall be implemented only after a court confirms the reality and extent of the amounts owed by the taxpayer.
2.2.13. The European Commission to ask Romania that the laws of justice regulate the procedure of random distribution of the notifications / works to the Judicial Inspection regarding the verification of the abuses of justice because the provision of the law on the random distribution of art. 69 paragraph (1) letter d) and art. 73 paragraph 1) Law 317/2004 to be effective
The random distribution procedure should take into account the time duration and the random distribution order, the actual fulfillment of the random distribution factor provided in the law and the sanction in case of non-compliance.
2.2.14. Appeals for annulment, current actions, petitions, notices, complaints registered with public institutions in Romania, complaint and petition to the European Commission and the European Parliament as a result of non-compliance with the law and European Law, attachments in probation that I will update daily on the site www.coruptie-functionaripublic- ofiteri-farmec-consiliulconcurentei.ro/wp/, entitled ABOUT CORRUPTION IN ROMANIA, WHICH DISTRIBUTES BUSINESS AND LIFE, and simultaneously I will communicate to the European Commission at present time the decisions, the documents issued by the public institutions / the notifications / complaints of the undersigned and the subcribed.
Petition to the Romanian Parliament regarding the communication of the COMPLAINT and the PETITION to the European Commission, which aims to:
- Notification of non - compliance with European law and law, and- the need for some provisions with legal force
- notification on the abuses of public institutions at the commissions for the investigation of the abuses and for the investigation of the activity of the Romanian Information Service, of ANAF, of the Romanian Court of Audit, the National Integrity Agency.
(1) APPEAL IN ANNULMENT at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, criminal file no. 4297/2/2019 against the criminal decision no. 547 / 18.04.2019, which ignored the law, the facts and evidence in the file, and the written conclusions notes from 05.03.2019, attached to the Page 150 of 152
sample no. 16 in Romanian and English (2) APPEAL IN ANNULMENT to the Cluj Court of Appeal, file no. 307/33/2019 of the civil decision no 81/2019; requests and addresses received - hearing (3) APPEAL IN ANNULMENT at the Cluj Court of Appeal, file no. 271/33/2019 of the civil decision no. 100/2019, applications and addresses received in the file - (4) ACTION FOR CANCELLATION at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest of the resolution of classification of the Judicial Inspection issued by the inspector Răducu Louysse and validated by the chief inspector Netejoru; civil file no. 4320/2/2019 requests for documents and addresses received from courts meeting the Judicial Inspection, response to the meeting – hearing 15.01.2020. (5) APPLICATION FOR RELOCATION of case 307/33/2019 to the High Court of Cassation and Justice
(6) OPEN LETTER to the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor's Office next to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and to the directors of the Romanian Intelligence Service on ABUSES OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, PROSECUTOR'S OFFICES AND COURTS, as a result of the fact that groups organized by persons, by repeatedly failing to comply with the law at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the Special Court of Cluj, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, at the Court of Mehedinţi, sought to maintain the mechanisms, facts of fraud of the public and private property, non-resolution of requests and notifications, failure to carry out real verifications and non-adoption of measures to remedy and notify the prosecutor's offices, unjustified rejection of actions, appeals and contestations, requests for probation, incidental requests regarding the referral of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and of the Court of Justice of the European Union for the clarification of some legal issues, it was not respected the law on the distribution of cases, they ignored court decisions with judiciary work power, did not comply with the decisions given in the case, knew that there are communication links that give rise to legitimate doubts about impartiality and extra-judicial interests and did not file a request for abstention regarding the trial of the case, they forced the payment of unjustified and excessive fees.
(7) COMPLAINT with the Minister of Public Finance in January 2020 regarding the NOTIFICATION to the president of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, was registered with no. 904300 on 04.07.2019 was sent DG Integrity from ANAF, which ordered superficial measures, incomplete, formal and the requests from 10.10.2019 to DGAF, DGAMC, DG Integrity and the president of ANAF.
(8) PETITION to the Prime Minister regarding the COMPLAINT and the PETITION to the EUROPEAN COMMISSION and NOTIFICATION of the mechanisms of fraud of public finances, regarding the disassociation within the National Agency for Fiscal Administration and the Control Body of the Minister of Public Finance - December 2019. (9) Request in claims to the Cluj Tribunal regarding the recovery of damages arising from the
Page 151 of 152
violation of the law (10) THE COMPLAINT against the Ordinance of the National Anticorruption Directorate, which did not carry out criminal prosecution documents in criminal file 8166/2/2019. (11) Petitions to the Romanian Court of Audit December 2019 (12) Petitions to the Prosecutors' Offices regarding non-working files (13) Action in the claim, appeal to the High Court of Cassation and Justice in file 6699/63/2015 * (14) Request to the Competition Council to fulfill the tasks provided for in the law and to comply with judicial decisions previously given. (15) Complaint with the Prosecutor's Office regarding the investigation of the abuses at the Competition Council
(16) Petition to the National Agency for Integrity and Action at the Bucharest Court of Appeal / Complaint with the Prosecutor's Office regarding the non-observance of the law, following the complaint of the undersigned registered with no 3454 / 07.03.2019 at the National Integrity Agency regarding the incompatibility of Chirițoiu B. with the function of President of the Competition Council (17) Petitions to the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, the Romanian Intelligence Service, the National Integrity Agency, the Court of Accounts, the Court, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Bucharest Courts of Appeal, Cluj, Craiova, Pitesti, Alba Iulia, the Specialized Court Cluj, Brasov, Arges, Craiova, District Court 1 and 2 Bucharest. (18) Referral to the National Office for the Prevention and Control of Money Laundering (19) Petition to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (20) Petitions to the Superior Council of Magistracy (21) Petition to the People's Advocate (22) Referral and petition to the Romanian Intelligence Service (23) Requests regarding the referral by the European Commission of the European Court of Justice of the European Union for clarification / settlement of some legal issues (24) Petition to the Ombudsman in Brussels (25) Petition to the European Parliament
Yours faithfully, 09th of January 2020
Nicolae Cristinel Olăneanu
Page 152 of 152