Prime Minister Victor Ponta said on Tuesday, upon leaving the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) headquarters, that he came to file a decision of the European Court of Justice referring to the legal consultancy contracts, a document, which, in his opinion, proves that the anticorruption prosecutors have no case against him.
“I wanted to file, because it is important to the matter, the decision of the European Court of Justice of September 3, which clarifies very well what happens with the legal consultancy contracts: a service supply, such as the one we are talking about, which is remunerated through the periodical payment of some lump amounts must be regarded completed in the period for which the payment is reported, regardless of the provider’s having provided [the services] or not. I say that I carried an activity, the prosecutor says I didn’t, the European Court of Justice says we should both mind our own business, because, as long as the fees were paid, it is all right,” said Ponta.
According to him, from the European Court of Justice’s viewpoint, “there is no case here.”
Ponta came without his lawyer, pointing out that he wanted to explain to the prosecutor why he filed this document. The PM added that the case prosecutor didn’t have time to receive him and that the latter is going to analyse this decision of the European Court of Justice.
PM Ponta: Document filed with DNA will fundamentally influence investigation
In a Facebook post on Tuesday, Prime Minister Victor Ponta says the document he filed on Tuesday with the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) in a court case in which he is accused will fundamentally influence the conduct of the prosecution.
“It is a judgement of the European Court of Justice of September 3, 2015 issued in case C-463/14. The court rules that the chargeable event and the chargeability of the tax occur upon the expiry of the period in respect of which the payment has been agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer has actually made use of the supplier’s services,” argues Ponta.
He says the case considered by the European Court of Justice is identical to the DNA case in which he is implicated, and the decisions of the court are mandatory to all the EU member states.
“The prosecutor argues that I did not supply enough consultancy services, and hence I incurred a RON 51,000 damage on Sova and the Associates. I am claiming that I did supply (and paid the RON 51,000 in taxes to the national budget),” Ponta adds.
Ponta says the judgement of the Court of Justice indicates such discussion is irrelevant, posting a Romanian translation of the court’s ruling: “Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ?supply of services’ includes subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier has agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract. As regards subscription contracts for consulting services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 62(2), 63 and 64(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the chargeable event and the chargeability of the tax occur upon the expiry of the period in respect of which the payment has been agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer has actually made use of the supplier’s services.”
Ponta is investigated by the DNA in the Rovinari-Turceni case for forgery in documents under private signature, complicity to continued tax evasion and money laundering, in his capacity as lawyer, in a case where also prosecuted is former minister Dan Sova, accused of forgery in documents under private signature, continued tax evasion and money laundering.