REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
On Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism
The nomination of the General Prosecutor and of the leadership of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA – (Laura Codruta Kovesi) and the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT – Alina Bica) was a protracted process. It was launched in September 2012 with a short deadline and signals that it was not a fully open process, notably through public statements by political figures on potential candidates. The Commission joined others in making clear that it did not consider the procedure used at that time to be in line with CVM recommendations which had specifically underlined the importance of this procedure.
It led to concerns expressed by a number of voices both within the magistracy and in civil society. The Commission reiterated its position on the procedure, noting that the approach taken put the onus of those appointed to show their commitment to pursue the work of these institutions in tackling corruption.
The procedure was subject to changes which gave more time and which opened up the process to more scrutiny, but it proved difficult to re-establish its credibility. The SCM was unable to recommend the candidates after a public hearing and no appointments were made. The institutions therefore continued to function with ad interim leadership.
In April 2013, a new list of the appointees was announced and forwarded to the SCM. This included some figures with established track records in the field of anti-corruption, but was essentially a political choice, rather than the result of a procedure designed to allow scrutiny of the candidates’ qualities and a real competition. It led to concerns expressed by a number of voices both within the magistracy and in civil society. The Commission reiterated its position on the procedure, noting that the approach taken put the onus of those appointed to show their commitment to pursue the work of these institutions in tackling corruption.
Another difficult issue arose with the appointments of head and deputy heads of section in the DNA in October 2013. Again, delegations to ad interim positions were abruptly terminated, and nominations were made by the Minister of Justice which had not fully followed the procedure of consulting the head of DNA. The timing also created concerns that a link was being made with DNA decisions on cases relating to political figures.50 Following criticism in public debate and by the SCM, a second, more consensual process took place which resulted in a different set of permanent appointments.
Comentariile Redactiei Corupţia.ro
Alina Bica a facut dovada dedicatiei de a lupta impotriva coruptiei, la fel cum face dovada dedicatiei de a lupta pentru protejarea Microsoft si a asociatilor acesteia si Laura Codruta Kovesi, ambele mentionate in raportul MCV.
Acestea au incalcat flagrant recomandarile MCV referitor la numirea transparenta pe baza meritului profesional, si nu in urma unor trocuri politice ilegale in vederea protejarii in continuare a retelelor de frauda, coruptie si crima organizata.
Raportul MCV si declaratiile Presedintelui Comisiei UE spun foarte clar ca urmeaza inca un raport peste un an, si ca speranta comuna este de a primi Romania in Schengen inainte de expirarea mandatelor de 5 ani pe care ambii Presedinti le au.
Pina cind Romania nu rezolva TOATE problemele mentionate foarte diplomatic in raport (Alina Bica nu este mentionata), si nici DNA nu este laudat, decit in termeni foarte relativi in baza criticilor severe din anii trecuti.
Kovesi continua sa obstructioneze cu perseverenta infractionala Recomandarile OLAF in Case OF/2010/0068 astfel relationat cu Dosarul 85/P/2011, si sa foloseasca aceleasi practici ilegale care au condus la implicarea directa a OLAF in solutionarea partiala a infractiunilor comise de Microsoft, RSC, Medist, SRI, MAI si DNA, incepind din anul 2000 pina in prezent.
OLAF acuza ca UE si OLAF au fost deliberat inselate de catre cei mentionati si in primul rind de catre DNA, motiv pentru care solicitam DEMISIA Procurorului Sef DNA, care a dat mai multe Rezolutii ilegale in dosarul mentionat, pe care in prezent il tergiverseaza cu incalcarea celor mai elementare drepturi pe care le avem, la viata, munca, reputatie, operele originale create de noi, demnitate si acces la lege.