Christian Mititelu, another member of the CNA, was also declared in a state of incompatibility.
According to a press release issued by ANI and quoted by RTV, Rasvan Popescu infringed the legal regime of conflicting interests with criminal consequences, because in his position of CNA member (the mandates 2006 – 2012, 2012 – 2018), respectively of CNA president (29 June 2007 – 19 December 2012), while exerting his attributions, he solved demands and participated in making decisions that resulted in granting audiovisual licenses to SC Pro TV SA.
Meanwhile, Rasvan Popescu was in commercial relations and had patrimony benefits worth EUR 15,000 from SC Media Pro Pictures SA.
According to the source, from the evaluation activity it resulted that both Pro TV SA and Media Pro Pictures SA have the same shareholder – CME Investments B.V.
ANI claims that Rasvan Popescu did not observe the provisions of art. 253 para. (1) of the Criminal Code of Romania, which stipulates that “the deed of a civil servant that, while exerting his job attributions, commits an act or participates in making a decision which directly or indirectly results in a material benefit for himself, his spouse, a relative up to the 2nd degree inclusive or for another person with whom he was in commercial or work relations during the last 5 years or which brought or brings him benefits of any nature is punished with prison from 6 months to 5 years and the prohibiting of the right to hold a public office for maximum duration.”
ANI reported the case to the prosecutors of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in view of checking the evidence which proves that Rasvan Popescu committed the crime of conflicting interests.
In his turn, Christian Mititelu is accused of having been in a state of incompatibility during 4 November 2008 – 15 December 2012, when he simultaneously was president, then vice-president of the ‘Civic Alliance’ association and was a member of the CNA (assimilated with the position of state secretary).
Both Rasvan Popescu and Christian Mititelu strongly rejected the accusation and said they will appeal against the ANI decision in court, with objections to the accusations brought by the Agency and also to the way ANI did not observe the procedure, because they were not informed about the conclusions and were not asked an opinion.