Why do the president and the prime minister have different philosophies about the statute of limitations for corruption?
President Nicușor Dan proposes a public debate starting from the fact that in the current legislation for serious acts of corruption the statute of limitations can be 15 years. “The fundamental problem – says the head of state – is why we have not been able to solve a corruption case in 15 years”.
The answers are multiple:
(1) judges complain that they have too many cases and cannot cope. For example, judge Ioan Ilieș from Neamț wrote some time ago an article published in Juridice.ro in which he complained that around 4000 judges have to solve almost 4 million cases every year, which means an average of about 1000 cases for each judge;
(2) a list of prescribed files made by the daily Libertatea reveals that the main beneficiaries are high-calibre politicians or very influential people with political connections. This list includes, among others, Liviu Dragnea, former PSD president, accused of abuse of office and belonging to a criminal group in the Tel Drum File; Robert Negoiță, PSD mayor of sector 3; Cătălin Rădulescu, former PSD deputy, for forgery in the statement by which he requested a revolutionary certificate; Maricel Păcuraru, former shareholder of Realitatea TV for a fraud of 5 million in the Lottery File; Adrian Sârbu, the founder of the Pro trust for tax evasion in the Mediafax File;
(3) when she was asked if there were any changes in the court records that would have led to the limitation of the act, as it also results from the Recorder investigation, the president of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, Liana Arsenie, stated that only the files of certain defendants are seen, due to “media interest”, but that “there are thousands of people acquitted, for which the criminal trials cease” and, at the same time, “there are thousands of people in prison” because “judges present sentencing decisions”;
(4) In the case of Marean Vanghelie, the former PSD mayor of sector 5, judge Arsenie wanted to say that the statute of limitations expired in 2017, four years before the file reached the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
Prime Minister Bolojan's proposal
Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan's idea to see if the possibility of statute of limitations in corruption cases should be canceled could have an immediate effect, because as long as group interests prevail, the politician will find ways to influence the Justice.
Of course, a law that amends the Penal Code so as to cancel the statute of limitations in corruption situations can be amended later, by a less reformist government. Until then, however, it will produce effects. The question that the president asks, however, seems rhetorical and somehow responds to PSD's expectations, because the procrastination of important files has long become a tradition. The harshest example is the Revolution File, which will perhaps only be ready now that the main culprit is dead.
A public debate on the prescription and how it could be avoided could bring new solutions, but the Prime Minister's proposal is the easiest to implement. The question is whether the constitutional judges would accept it, given that the mass prescription of the files of the big corrupt started after the decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of October 25, 2022, which specified the rules of prescription and the fact that it can also be retroactive, and which interpreted the 2022 decision of the Constitutional Court by which Article 155 of the Criminal Code was declared unconstitutional and the CCR decision of 2018 which clarified the prescription as follows: “Between February 1, 2014 (the date of entry into force of the new Penal Code) and May 30, 2022 (the date of entry into force of GEO 71/2022, which corrected the legislative issue) there is no interruption of the special prescription”.
In Romania, all reforms attempted on the judiciary have failed due to the (in)visible links between politicians and the judiciary, old transactional habits and putting one's own interests above the interests of the state. The High Court not only restores the legislation in the criminal area, but also the salary one, fearlessly taking over the roles of the executive and legislative powers, under the gentle gaze of the Constitutional Court.
Sabina Fati – DW
