Kovesi on presence at Gabriel Oprea’s in 2009: I won’t comment on gossip, I couldn’t have influenced the elections: I’m waiting for CSM’s answer on presence before parliamentary committee of inquiry

National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi stated in an interview for Ziare.com, when asked about her presence at Gabriel Oprea’s during the evening of the presidential runoff in 2009, that she will not comment on gossip and that she did nothing that could have influenced the result of the elections. In what concerns the invitation extended by the parliamentary committee of inquiry on this topic, Kovesi pointed out she asked the Supreme Magistracy Council (CSM) for a point of view and is waiting for an answer.

Asked whether she was at Gabriel Oprea’s on the evening of the presidential runoff in 2009, Kovesi answered: “Whether I was there or not, that’s already a rhetorical question. It’s a topic publicly launched by a defendant and has in the meantime become a topic of gossip; I won’t comment on gossip, but I’ll answer questions that do not concern gossip.”

Asked to say whether she did anything to influence the result of the presidential elections of 2009, Laura Codruta Kovesi replied: “No. No. And I wonder how could I have influenced the result of the elections. It looks like a movie script.”

She said she has “no kind of information, data, evidence, that the elections were rigged.”

“Were I in possession of such an information, I would have been the first to open a criminal dossier and verify. I have no kind of information, data, evidence about these suspicions,” Kovesi pointed out when asked whether she is aware persons she knows – Florian Coldea or George Maior – may have attempted to influence the elections or may have even succeeded in doing so.

In what concerns the fact that she did not go before the parliamentary committee of inquiry, Kovesi stated that the reason for that is precisely because she does not have any kind of information, and 90 percent if not all of the committee’s objectives exceed her prerogatives as prosecutor.

The DNA Chief Prosecutor pointed out she was invited before a parliamentary committee in 2007 too, and she refused to show up, notifying the CSM, something she has done this time around too.

“This discussion took place before too, in 2007; back then I refused to show up and I notified the CSM, because, according to the status of magistrate, we cannot be investigated or verified by another state authority. I’ve done the same thing, I’ve refused to show up and I’ve lodged a request with the CSM,” Laura Codruta Kovesi stated, explaining that when receiving the first and second invitation she invoked the 2007 precedent and CSM’s decisions, and when she received yet another invitation she asked the CSM for its point of view.

“If the CSM says a prosecutor or judge is obligated to offer explanations to Parliament, we’ll see. I’m waiting for an answer from the CSM, they should let me know whether a prosecutor or judge is obligated to go answer before Parliament,” Kovesi concluded.


Judiciary body replies to corruption prosecution on presence before committee: Up to chief prosecutor to assess necessity, opportunity


Any decision on the necessity and opportunity of the chief corruption prosecutor’s presence before the parliamentary inquiry committee in the 2009 presidential election originates with her, Laura Codruta Kovesi, Chairwoman of the Supreme Council of Magistrates (CSM) Mariana Ghenea told Agerpres on Monday.

Asked whether or not CSM replied to Kovesi’s request not to show up before the committee for hearings, Ghenea said: “Yes, as the actual assessment of the necessity and opportunity of such presence before the committee originates with the chief prosecutor of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) in line with the relevant rules and regulations in force. CSM does not interpret the rulings of the Constitutional Court (CCR), as they are mandatory and generally valid, and ignorance of law excuses no one.”

She added that the response was issued on Friday after-noon.

CSM Deputy Chairman Cristian Ban told AGERPRES in his turn that CSM’s response refers to CCR ruling 54/1994, 317/2006 and 602/2005, as well as a May 25, 2007 CSM plenary decision.



Related posts

Tudorel Toader asked if he expects spike in crime rate: I don’t know, we’ll see, I hope not

Nine O' Clock

Public Prosecution Office 2015 report: 644,391 cases solved, 58,909 persons indicted

Nine O' Clock

PNL – USR simple motion on justice defeated in Chamber of Deputies

Nine O' Clock
WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com