The DNA's first reaction after the judicial protests: Voineag claims that Kovesi also gave an order “similar” to his, the one accused by the DNA prosecutors in the film Recorder. What the documents contain
Laura Codruța Kövesi and Marius Voineag. Photo: Profimedia. Collage: Ion Mateș / Hotnews
Criticized by prosecutors from the DNA, both in the film Recorder and on Monday in a testimony for HotNews, for exercising control over the files, Marius Voineag has not reacted until today, in front of the magistrates' statements regarding his order. On Monday, DNA sent to HotNews the order given by Marius Voineag in August 2023 and the disposition given by Laura Kovesi in August 2013.
Two DNA prosecutors, who requested confidentiality, said, one to the Recorder, the other to HotNews, that Chief Prosecutor Marius Voineag issued an order at the beginning of the 2023 mandate requesting the case prosecutors information about the activity in the files. It is about the special measures, which were going to be approved by the court. The magistrates of the DNA claimed that other managements did not request such a thing.
Immediately after the Recorder film, HotNews asked DNA for a reaction. This did not come until today, after HotNews published the testimony of another DNA prosecutor.
DNA: “A similar mood” was also given by Laura Kovesi
The quoted prosecutors refer to the order of the prosecutor Marius Voineag requesting to receive information about actions such as tracking telephone calls, searches or ambient recordings, for which the law requires the Prosecutor's Offices to obtain approval from the courts.
On Monday, after the publication of the article in HotNews, DNA sent a right of reply. DNA confirms that the order exists. They offer it to public opinion. But the institution says that the order of the chief prosecutor Marius Voineag has a different meaning and a different effect than the prosecutors claim and that “a similar provision” was also given by Laura Kovesi.
DNA claims it is trying to induce a “misperception”
The leadership of the anti-corruption prosecutor's office says, regarding Marius Voineag's order:
“The claim that the issuance of an order to communicate to the management of the institution the requests addressed to the courts regarding the issuance of technical surveillance measures would violate the independence of the case prosecutor is totally baseless and intended to induce public opinion a wrong perception regarding the legal duties of the chief prosecutor”.
“The respective order was issued on 10.08.2023, based on art. 68 paragraph (3) and art. 69 of Law no. 304/2022 on judicial organization and art. 7 letters c) and s) of the internal order regulation of the National Anti-corruption Directorate, approved by Order of the Minister of Justice no. 1643/15.05.2015 (in force at that time)”.
DNA: should the DNA partners know, but not the chief prosecutor?
DNA claims that the order did not delay or influence stages of the criminal investigation.
“The hierarchical control did not concern the appropriateness of the administration of the evidence in the criminal trial. Moreover, in the content of the order it was indicated that the hierarchical communication measures will be carried out without interrupting or affecting the legal and regulatory circuit of notification of the judge of rights and liberties from the competent court and, respectively, the implementation of the authorized measures.”
In addition, the DNA claims that if those with whom the prosecutors work can find out that there are actions in the file, this is normal for the chief prosecutor of the DNA, “who has the leverage to refute them”.
The DNA says that the prosecutors did not complain to the Judicial Inspection
“In addition, a similar provision was also issued in 2013 by the chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate”
“The order you refer to in the press article (no.. that of Voineag) is in force, not being challenged according to the applicable legal provisions. Also, no notifications regarding violations of the independence of prosecutors in relation to the implementation of this order have been addressed to the Judicial Inspection.”
The difference between Kovesi's measure and Voineag's measure
Placed face to face, the two documents have similarities and differences:
- The two provisions, communicated to the HotNews editorial office by DNA, differ in several aspects. Laura Codruța Koveși's circular was addressed only to the “central structure of the DNA”. According to the document, the prosecutors of the five sections of the DNA had to send to the management of the Directorate only the address through which the report was sent to the court.
- The order issued by Marius Voineag, on the other hand, is addressed to all prosecutors, including territorial structures.
- From the document issued by Kovesi, it is understood that the prosecutors requested the addresses to the court or to other partners, as well as the correspondence with the institutions that collected information.
- From the document issued by Voineag, it is understood that both the requests to the courts and the ordinances themselves are requested from the prosecutors. But without affecting the legal stages, it is specified in the order of Marius Voineag.
DNA's right of reply:
