Seven DNA prosecutors, including the head of the Iași Territorial Service, Cristina Chiriac, requested in court a 60% salary increase, citing discrimination against EPPO prosecutors, who would have similar duties. However, the judges rejected their request.
Seven DNA prosecutors asked for higher salaries PHOTO Archive
In the complaint addressed to the Tribunal, the plaintiffs asked the institution where they work to pay the difference between their salaries and those paid to the European prosecutors delegated from Romania, starting from June 1, 2021, and the payment of increased salaries in the future, writes Ziarul de Iași.
The date of June 1, 2021 is the date on which the EPPO came into operation, the quoted source also notes.
The Romanian prosecutors delegated to the EPPO are selected from among local magistrates and have the same qualifications and experience. Romanian prosecutors within the EPPO have the same attributions and powers as national prosecutors, and the support structures and specialized staff are similar. Also, the cases instrumented by the EPPO are also tried by the Romanian courts, like those analyzed by the DNA. The general working conditions and working environment of prosecutors are also the same.
The arguments of the DNA prosecutors
DNA prosecutors also compared their work pace with that of European prosecutors. Thus, in 2023, 1,431 files were processed regarding fraud in the European funds regime. Of these, 636 were resolved by DNA prosecutors.
Another 186 cases were submitted to the EPPO for the European structure to choose the ones it wants to implement. A number of 67 referrals were taken over for investigation by the European prosecutors. The other 119 returned to DNA.
“It is found that the majority of the cases in the matter of fraud with European funds were still handled by the DNA, and not by the EPPO, and that the number of cases evoked (taken up, no) by the European prosecutors delegated from Romania is on average less than a third of those submitted to them by the DNA. Regarding the finality of the criminal investigation activity, the total weight of the indictments and plea agreements drawn up by the prosecutors European delegates from Romania is below 10% compared to those drawn up by prosecutors within the DNA on the same specific crimes”the DNA prosecutors showed.
A similar situation was recorded in 2021 and 2022. The DNA prosecutors did not request the hiring of additional investigators, in order to reduce the agglomeration with files. Instead, they showed that European prosecutors receive salaries roughly 60% higher than DNA's with the same seniority. A DNA prosecutor with 15-20 years of experience earns a net monthly salary of approximately 20,000 lei, while a European prosecutor receives 32,000 lei. This pay difference is considered discriminatory.
On the other hand, DNA representatives, as an employer, appreciated that the reasoning of the disgruntled prosecutors was purely speculative. All DNA prosecutors are paid the same, by the Romanian state for which they work. The prosecutors delegated within the EPPO simply represented another category of magistrates, being employees of the European Council and paid by it.
This argument was accepted by the Magistrates of the Tribunal, who analyzed the file. They referred to the EU Regulation under which the European Public Prosecutor's Office was established. It consists of a central prosecutor's office and territorial offices organized in the EU member states. Prosecutors employed in the national offices are directly subordinated to the central prosecutor's office, not to the national hierarchal authority.
The complaint was dismissed
The salary differences between the European prosecutors and those of the DNA were not determined by a prohibited criterion, such as sex, age or nationality, but by the fact that the employer was different, the applicable legislation was different, as well as the funding sources.
As a result, DNA and European prosecutors were not in comparable situations. So, there could be no discrimination. As a result, the complaint of the DNA prosecutors was rejected.
The plaintiffs contested the decision of the Tribunal, the case being referred to the Court of Appeal. This court is to set the first term for the appeal.
