Justice Minister Tudorel Toader will propose Adina Florea for the third time as the Chief-Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA). She was refused by Klaus Iohannis until today on grounds related to the legality of the appointment, Digi 24 announced.
“I am resending the 5 requests to Cotroceni. I will also send to President Klaus Iohannis the certificates issued by the National Council for the Study of Securitate Archives (CNSAS) stating that none of the candidates made political police”, Tudorel Toader said, according to Digi 24.
On Wednesday, President Klaus Iohannis sent a letter to the Justice Minister Tudorel Toader, as an answer to his request to re-evaluate the proposal to appoint Adina Florea as the Chief-Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate. “I find that the factual and legal grounds for the rejection of the original proposal subsist”, was the President’s message.
“Taking not that the documentation that was sent continues to be deprived of the proof attesting the fulfilment of the requirement provided by Art.48 par. (10) of the Law no. 303/2004, namely the proposed person wasn’t part of the intelligence services before 1990 and didn’t collaborate with them, considering that by reason of the Decision no.358/2018, the Constitutional Court does not recognize that the Justice Minister – by virtue of his central role in the procedure for appointing the prosecutors in the leading positions provided by Art.54 par.(1) of the Law no.303/2004 – has the possibility to forward a proposal by breaching the objective requirements set by the law, I find that the factual and legal grounds for the rejection of the original proposal to appoint Mrs. Adina Florea, who is a Prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Constanta Court of Appeal, as the Chief-Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, subsist”, the head of state explained.
On November 21, the President rejected for the first time Adina Florea’s nomination as the head of DNA. The head of state also rejected other 4 nominations for leading positions within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to ICCJ and within DIICOT. In all of the five cases, the President appreciated that the legality requirements are not met.
There are CNSAS members who accuse the President of the institution of prejudging in Adina Florea’s case
In a letter sent on Thursday to the President of the institution, Constantin Buchet, six of the 11 CNSAS members accused him of prejudging when he sent to CSM the opinion that Adina Florea, who was proposed and rejected as the DNA head, wasn’t a collaborator of Securitate.
“On January 9, 2019, we found out about the existence of the letter no.P 1974/18 of December 28, 2018, which you sent to CSM and signed in your official capacity of the CNSAS President. The document refers to the situation of the checks related to Mrs. Florea Adina Sterschi Florena Esther, Mrs. Hosu Elena Georgiana, Mrs. Nedelcu Iuliana and Mrs. Constantin Antonia Eleonora. From our point of view, the document you sent to CSM in the name of the entire institution, raises serious legality questions, since you have exceeded your attributions provided by GEO 24/2008 and substituted the College. Specifically, in the answer sent to CSM in your personal name, you gave the verdict on the lack of Mrs. Florea Adina’s capacity of collaborator/worker of Securitate in the meaning of the law. In this respect, we draw your attention on the provisions of Art.8 of the Law on the functioning of CNSAS, according to which only the College can establish someone’s capacity or lack of capacity as collaborator/worker of Securitate, as a result of the verification of public interest”, the CNSAS members stated in the letter addressed to Constantin Buchet, which was obtained by MEDIAFAX.
They remind of the emergency ordinance regulating the functioning of CNSAS, mentioning that Adina Florea’s re-verification is on the Thursday’s agenda of the institution and the re-verification procedure can be finalized only as the result of a vote of at least eight members.
“At the same time, according to Art.23 par. (1) of the GEO 24/2008, the College can work only in the presence of at least 8 members. In fact, Mrs. Florea’s case is on the agenda of the meeting to be held today, January 10, and the re-verification procedure related to her can be finalized only as the result of the vote of the College. As you know very well, naturally, any College member can additionally request the checks in his case, if there is needed. In other words, the simple presence on the agenda of the meeting doesn’t automatically mean that the maintenance of the certificate was voted. In this letter, you have also issued your opinion on the lack of the capacity of a worker/collaborator in the meaning of the law, for Mrs. Constantin Antonia Eleonora, although you are underlining yourself, in the same paragraph, that the said person is not subject to verifications, according to Art.2 lett. B) corroborated with Art.5 par. 1 of GEO 24/2008. This case wasn’t also subject of an analysis, and even less of a vote in the College”, the quoted source explained.
According to the quoted source, the fact that the CNSAS President prejudged raises serious legality questions, and he was asked to clarify, both in writing and publicly, the unprecedented situation he created for the institution. The signatories of the letter point out that the lack of the CNSAS President’s reaction may cause a blockage of the institution.
“Mister President, you have prejudged on the capacity of a collaborator/worker of Securitate in the case of two persons, which raises serious legality questions. This is a procedural flaw caused by the rush in which you managed the situation, considering that, once again, any member of the College has the right to ask for additional verifications. Furthermore, we were not allowed to exercise our right to vote, since you substituted the College by making a decision in your own name.
Therefore, until you will not clarify in writing and publicly the unprecedented situation in which you attracted the institution, causing serious legality problems, we, the undersigned, ask you not to include the Note of Findings and the opinion of the Legal Department related to Mrs. Adina Florea, on the agenda of the College’s meetings. Your lack of reaction could cause an institutional blockage, which is unwanted by all of the members of the College”, the quoted source concludes.