ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN ROMANIA, WHICH DESTROYS BUSINESSES AND LIVES

Chapter V – THE NOTIFIED INSTITUTIONS THAT FAILED TO FULFILL THEIR LEGAL DUTIES

In a directed and systemic manner, fundamental provisions on rights provided and guaranteed by Art. 16 of the Constitution of Romania, according to which„(1) Citizens are equal before the law and public authorities, without any privilege or discrimination; (2) Nobody is above the law”, as well as essential norms of the European Law, stipulated in Art. 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Equality before the law), a text according to which „all individuals are equal before the Law”, These fundamental rights of any citizen have been violated by national institutions in those cases where former or current officers of the intelligence services and politicians have an interest deriving from illegal businesses with the state and dictate the solution they want.

1. THE COURT OF ACCOUNTS.

Although it has found violations of law by customs officials who returned the excise duties to Farmec without carrying out verifications, it did NOT notice the Prosecutor’s Office about possible criminal deeds (??!!)

In the report of 2013 (Please also read the excerpt from the report on page 149 on page 157 – Annex 14), the Court of Accounts found the violation of the law by customs officials who ordered the return of the excise duties to Farmec SA, under the conditions where they did not carry out verifications on the actual alcohol consumption in manufacturing, did not request the manufacturing recipes, did not carry out any cross-checks and practically accepted the conditions imposed by Farmec SA (please see Annex 15 – the communication of the Court of Accounts of 23.10. 2013 to the undersigned).

Subsequently, the Court of Accounts did not seek to request for remedial measures from the competent directorates in order to stop defrauding the state budget and to recover the prejudices; it did not extend the verifications of the activity of ANAF on the legality of returning the excise duties and the reality of the operations with alcohol at Farmec SA for the period since 2012 up to now.

Regarding the period of 2007-2011, the Court of Accounts found that the customs officials of the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations – the Regional Division of Cluj have refunded the excise duties in the absence of any verifications, without Farmec SA submitting the documents specified in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code.

In relation to the provisions specified in Art. 19 par. 1^[1], Art. 21 par. (1) letter (o)^[2], Art. 107^[3] and Art. 171^[4] of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Accounts, corroborated with Art. 291 of the Criminal Procedure Code^[5], the President of the Court of Accounts, the Vicepresident Cosmin Nicula, the accounts advisor Dan Fârtescu and the manager of Department II, Mr. Alexandru Costache have unjustifiably failed to order the extension of the verifications and to notify the Prosecutor’s Office as a result of the notifications no. 136867/04.08.2017, 141693/20.10.2017, 141694/20.10.2017, 120801/11.01.2018 (please see Annex 16), although these measures were required taken into account the duration and magnitude of the fraud.

The Vicepresident of the Court of Accounts did not order nor informed me on the legal actions according to Art. 8 of the Government Ordinance 27/2002, as a result of the notification of 11.01.2018 (please also read the notification in Annex 16) and of the previous requests.

2. THE NATIONAL AGENCY FOR FISCAL ADMINISTRATION (ANAF)

Since 2007 till now, it had awarded decisions for the return of excise duties corresponding to the purchases of undistorted alcohol not used for manufacture, without Farmec presenting the documents referred to in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code. ANAF, through its competent DGV, DGAMC and DGAF directorates, has failed to fulfil its fiscal control duties based on the documents provided by the law. The Directorate for Integrity of the ANAF officials did not request from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations a copy of the file containing each request of Farmec for the return of the excise duties accompanied by the related documents on the actual consumption of alcohol in manufacture, fiscal control reports and the decisions for the return of excise duties. Even after I have submitted some examples of restitution requests (please see Annex 9) to the Directorate for Integrity, along with restitution decisions that highlight the practice of Farmec officials to not present the documents stipulated by the law, but it benefits from ANAF from the illegal return of excise duties, prejudicing the company and the state budget.

For the period of 2007-2018, none of the Fiscal Inspection Directorate (DGAMC) or the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate requested from Farmec and from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, for a cross-verification, a copy of each file on the requests of Farmec for the returns, nor reports, accounting documents on the actual consumption of alcohol in manufacture nor the evidence of the returns of excise duties to Farmec, and did not perform cross-verifications based on the accounting documents on the reality of the operations specified in the notification of 14.09.2017 to DGAMC. Please also read the petition of 14.09.2017 – Annex 18.

Thus,

2.1. The General Customs Directorate has under its subordination the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, continues to return excise duties, without Farmec presenting the documents on the actual consumption in manufacture and without carrying out cross verifications on the reality and legality of the invoices with products containing alcohol and have benefited from the return of excise duties, which had been issued to customers and were subsequently either unpaid and closed in the accounting system as non-deductible expenses, if these invoices appear in these cases to have been recorded with NIRs at customers, or the invoices that have been issued by Farmec and have been cancelled and returned afterwards, if they have been registered at customers and the products appear to have been inserted in the management of the Farmec company.

The Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, returned excise duties to Farmec SA during the period of 2007-2018 outside the conditions stipulated by the law:

without Farmec SA presenting the documents on the actual consumption of alcohol as specified by the Law at item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code^[6] (please see Annex 9 – requests of Farmec for the return of excise duties, fiscal inspection reports and decisions to return the excise duties),
without the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations to carry out verifications regarding the reality of the invoicesissued by Farmec to customers with alcohol-containing products and subsequently the invoices have been either cancelled and returned without the products being reinserted into stock of Farmec SA, or the invoices issued are not collected and are closed as non-deductible expenses. In reality, the products are not delivered to customers and the invoices are not listed to be recorded with NIRs at customers.
without the refined alcohol to have been distorted. Farmec has benefited from decisions for the return of excise duties, in violation of the provisions of Art. 200 and Art. 206 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code regulating the obligation of distortion. From the accounting documents attached, it results that the alcohol has not been distorted (please see Annex 6 – the Explanatory note and undistorted alcohol purchase invoices, preparation reports, DAIs, CMRs, reports on sealing at the supplier, reports on unsealing at the beneficiary, NIRs).
without the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations to carry out verifications on the type and legal status of the alcohol used in manufacture, taking into account that the officials of Farmec SA have purchased non-excisable isopropyl alcohol they have fully used in the manufacturing process, as well as refined undistorted alcohol, which benefited from excise duty refunds but was not been fully used in the manufacturing process. Monthly, the administrators of Farmec SA directors have compensated the amount of the excise duties with the VAT due from the current business, according to the excerpt from the annual audit report drafted by KPMG:

„During 2016, the company recorded offsets between receivables and debts to 45 partners. The gross value of the debts and receivables that were subject to compensation was 52,298,282 lei. These offsets were mainly made with the large store chains and the state budget (VAT offset with alcohol excise duties).”

The lack of such verifications has intervened for the company to declare that it has used ethyl alcohol in products where in reality it used non-excisable isopropyl alcohol.

For example, the products from the Triumf range for cleaning, where non-excisable alcohol was used, and in order to justify the quantity of ethyl alcohol, the company has unclearly declared that during the controlled period, it used ethyl alcohol for these products and for the period before and after the controlled period, for the same products, it used non-excisable isopropyl alcohol, under the conditions where it was specified on the product that the original recipe is used, namely isopropyl alcohol. Only after a verification of the total quantity of (excisable and non-excisable) alcohol purchased by the company, correlated with the manufacturing recipes as well as with the use of all types of alcohol in the manufacturing process can one determine whether the excisable alcohol was used in reality for manufacturing the products of Farmec.

without DSAOV to fulfil the verification regarding the reality of the actual consumption of alcohol in the manufacturing process, as a result of the fact that the Court of Accounts found in the report of 2013 that DSAOV returned to Farmec the excise duties without carrying out any verifications on the actual consumption of alcohol in the manufacturing process;
without DSAOV to carry out cross verifications regarding the reality of the invoices containing alcohol, issued by Farmec SA to customers, invoices that were subsequently cancelled or returned without having verified whether the products were recorded with NIRs at customers then whether, after the cancellation, the products had been reintroduced into management of Farmec SA, respectively whether there have been any influences on the finished products in the management of Farmec SA, without there being crossed verifications regarding the invoices that had been issued by Farmec SA and have not been collected, if the products were actually delivered to customers and appear to have been registered with NIRs to customers, and if Farmec has notified these customers about the outstanding balance, and the customers have recorded these values in the accounting system by incomes, respectively the communication, acceptance and registration as incomes by customers/beneficiaries who have not paid the invoices issued by Farmec, and Farmec has registered them to uncertain customers and then locked them in the accounting system, recording them by non-deductible expenses.
without there having been any verifications on the reality of the accounting deduction documents on the stocks and perishables or manufacturing losses and supporting documents.

The Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations still grants decisions on the return of excise duties in violation of the order of the Court of Accounts on page 157 of the Court’s Report in 2013, which stated that the fiscal controls at Farmec SA are to be carried out in the future with ANAF servants from other departments, in order to avoid any suspicion according to the following excerpt:

„According to the Fiscal Procedure Code, ANV could request for the delegation of competences for the fiscal inspection to be carried out by the activity of fiscal inspection in another customs directorate, in order to eliminate any suspicion regarding the independence of the individuals performing this mission. However, it was observed that ANV did not do so, empowering DRAOV of Cluj for this action. ANV did not want to complete any attempt to verify the activity of the individuals of DRAOV and DJAOV of Cluj, who were involved in the returns of excise duties, verifications that needed to aim at the impartiality, integrity and professionalism of the public servants”

On 20.10.2017 we registered with the General Customs Directorate of ANAF the notification no. 28979 (please see Annex 17). On the occasion of the notification, Mr. Bogdan Lari Mihei was replaced by Mr. Marius Atomei, as General Director of the General Customs Directorate. The notification was not solved, in the sense that the General Customs Directorate did not request from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations a copy of the documents submitted by Farmec, to the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations Operations, on the occasion of each request for returning the excise duties and the related documents on the actual consumption and each decision to return Farmec SA during the period of 2007-2018, although I have submitted the documents to the General Customs Directorate (please also read the requests for the return of excise duies, control reports, decisions on the return of excise duties – Annex 9), wherefrom it may be observed that officials of Farmec obtain decisions on the return of the excise duties for excisable alcohol without submitting the documents provided for in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code. The customs inspectors Ioan Gligor, Ioan Rus, and Ioan Zadic participated in the fiscal control at Farmec SA on the illegal return of excise duties without Farmec submitting the documents provided by the law, and subsequently participated in the fiscal control within DGAMC at the fiscal audit that led to the fiscal audit report drafted on 15.12.2014 that it was cancelled by the Court of Appeal as illegal, by sentence 46/2016.

Under Art. 291 of the Criminal Procedure Code[7], any individual with a leading position is bound to request the documents from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, as a result of the fact that the subordinated Directorate has returned the excise duties to Farmec SA, in the period of 2007 – until now, without Farmec SA submitting the documents provided for in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code, without Farmec submitting the documents provided for by the Law (please also read the requests for returning the excise duties, control reports and decisions excise duties – Annex 9)

2.2. The Directorate General for the Administration of Large Taxpayers in ANAF (DGAMC)

did not perform verifications following the petitions of the undersigned to ANV with registration number 68342 of 29.11.2011; No 34021 of 05.07.2012; no. 7565 of 14.02.2012; to the DGAMC under the no. 1149815 of 06.05.2014, no. 1164267/27.06.2014, no. 1177438 of 25.07.2014, no. 66755 of 29.07.2015, no. 91 of 26.10.2016, 915705 of 14.09.2017 – unsolved.

DGAMC did not request from the General Customs Directorate for the period of 2011-2018 the documents that Farmec SA submitted to the Directorate for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations on the occasion of each request for the return of excise duties, namely requests for the return of excise duties and related documents regarding the actual consumption, the fiscal inspection reports for the return of the excise duties and the decisions on the return of excise duties and did not carry out or solve the PETITION to DGAMC registered under the no. 915705 of 14/09/2017 (please see Annex 18). DGAMC submitted me the communications (please see Annex 19) where one can observe that, although I have submitted evidence that Farmec SA obtains Decisions on the return of excise duties during the period of 2007-2018 without providing the documents provided by the law, the officials of DGAMC have carried out formal controls and limit to the fiscal risk analysis, without carrying out the legal verifications specified in the petition of 14.09.2017 (Annex 18).

Thus,

the first fiscal control in the DGAMC was a formal one, and as a result thereof, on 15.12.2014 a RIF was drafted, by which Farmec was forced to pay 67,479,505 knowing that the classification of the deed was erroneous, which is why the Court of Appeal of Cluj cancelled the observation of ANAF through the sentence 46 of 18.02.2016.

This show was done only to induce the idea that Farmec SA is verified and is lumbered with large amounts of money, although it was known that the act shall not resist the judicial control. In this way, it was avoided to check the true problems of the company, which are subject to the notifications of the undersigned in 2011-2012

– through the DGAMC, ANAF did not carry out verifications on the notifications of the undersigned in 2011, 2012 on illegal operations and fictitious records at Farmec SA which resulted in the non-payment of the excise duties corresponding to the quantities of excisable refined alcohol that was not distorted and not used actually in the manufacturing process, fictitious services, etc., which is why the officials of Farmec distorted information presented in company’s registers.

Although the RIF states that they have carried out the control as a result of the notifications of the undersigned, the fiscal control did not perform these verifications (see Annex 20 – RIF). Through the communication no. 3770/2016 (please see Annex 21), the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF confirmed that DGAMC did not carry out the fiscal verifications regarding the petitioner’s notifications.

– although the RIF of DGAMC uses the name of „denatured alcohol” on page 5, 6, 8, 19, 20 (see Annex 20 – RIF) and creates the apparent legality as alcohol that benefited from the return of excise duties would have been distorted, in a controversial manner to Annex 11 and 12, the officials of DGAMC specify that the quantity of 1.5 million litres of 96.5% refined alcohol did not contain denaturant (see Annex 22 – explanatory note and Annexes 11 and 12 to RIF), a circumstance to which the provision stipulated in Art. 200 and 206 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code has not been complied with, but the RIF does not emphasise these irregularities regarding the ungrounded benefit on the exemption of excise duties corresponding to a quantity of 1,500,000 litres of alcohol that has not been distorted.

– The RIF of DGAMC creates the appearance of the verifications on the use of (undistorted) alcohol in the manufacturing process at Farmec SA because the fiscal control was incompletely limited to verifying the use of alcohol based on consumer vouchers – fiscal documents that do not have a fiscal status.

The fiscal inspection was to be carried out based on fiscal documents, respectively invoices issued by Farmec to domestic and foreign customers with products containing excisable ethyl alcohol (of any type) and non-excisable isopropyl alcohol, the list of products containing excisable and non-excisable alcohol, the manufacturing recipes that would explicitly prove the consumption and the type of alcohol used in the manufacturing process, in compliance with the legal provisions, which in Art. 108 and 118 par. (5) Chapter V in the Code of Fiscal Procedure that order that

„the tax audit shall consider the examination of all the facts and legal relationships that are relevant to taxation or the verification of the compliance with other obligations provided for by the fiscal or accounting legislation”

and not based only on the consumer vouchers, which not being tax documents, they are relevant documents only in correlation with other financial accounting documents, which contribute to the manufacturing process until the unfinished production under flow, as well as the finished products delivered to the warehouse of finished products and the actual sale of finished products containing alcohol of any kind, namely to the production reports and manufacturing recipes for products containing excisable and non-excisable alcohol of any kind, invoices issued by Farmec that customers from Romania and abroad with products containing alcohol of any kind, logs of sales and the statements 394. Thus, the fiscal inspection had to reveal the reality of the consumer vouchers based on which the alcohol registered in the stock records quantitatively and qualitatively corresponds to the production manufactured and invoiced during the fiscal inspection period.

Therefore, the actual consumption of alcohol of any kind cannot be calculated and verified based only on the movements of the consumer vouchers from the supply department to the manufacturing department of the company, as the fiscal officials Rus Ioan, Zadic Ioan, Gligor Ioan and Sandor Marcela did.

The second fiscal controlwithin the DGAMC that was carried out on 21.06.2017, the report found the lack of fiscal influences, carried out some cross verifications in relation to which they did not specify to the taxpayers what accounting documents to submit, a situation in which it favoured the economic agent, in relation to whom the cross verification was carried out, to submit incomplete information that does not reflect the actual economic operations. The fiscal control in 2017 did not carry out verifications on documents Farmec submits to the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations on the occasion of each request for returning the excise duties that took place between 2007 and 2018.

Fiscal inspectors concluded that they did not find fiscal deficiencies, although they did not cross-check on the reality of the documents presented to the Directorate for Customs and Excise Surveillance, and in the case of the „+” and „-” signing inconsistencies that amount to more than 20 million Euros without VAT from Farmec, customers and suppliers in the country and abroad carried out formal checks, requested inaccurate and incomplete accounting documents, and „overlooked” the verification of the reality of the supporting documents on which the Farmec officials, have presented over the last two years to the Public Finance Department.

I exemplify on the situation of inconsistencies that highlight differences between Farmec SA and Metro Cash & Carry Romania over 9,600,000 let VAT excluded, differences between Farmec SA and Carrefour Romania of over 9,600,000 lei VAT excluded, differences between Farmec SA and Romania Hypermarche (CORA) of over 3,300,000 lei VAT excluded with a „+” sign and over 1,700,000 lei VAT excluded with a „-” sign, differences between Farmec SA and DM Drogherie of over 1,700,000 lei VAT excluded, differences between Farmec, customers and suppliers from Great Britain of over 1,328,000 lei VAT excluded, differences between Farmec, customers and suppliers in Germany of over 444,000 lei VAT excluded, only for the period of 2007-2011, the fiscal inspectors carried out superficial cross verifications because they requested from the economic agents only:

„copies of the account records wherein economic operations were recorded”,

without DGAMC requesting copies of the invoices issued by Farmec and registered with clients, NIRs, purchase and sales registers, 401 and 411 account analytical sheets, analytical balances by suppliers and customers, synthetic balances, CMRs, CMR centraliser, specifying the number of own or rented means of transport, the name of the driver or delegate, their Personal Identification Number and auto transport contracts.

In view of the fact that the observations of the Court of Accounts, as well as the notifications of the undersigned were ignored, both on the occasion of the fiscal inspection of 14.12.2014 and on the occasion of the control completed with the report of 21.06.2017, only the appearance of some verifications was created, because:

(1) the customs inspectors John Gligor, Ioan Zadic and John Rus equally and illegally participated both in formal controls that resulted in the return of the excise duties to Farmec and to the fiscal inspection on the background control of DGAMC at Farmec that was completed by the RIF of 15.12.2014 cancelled by the court as illegal. In conclusion, even if we removed any suspicion on the existance of any private partnership based on demand and supply, you appreciate that the same individuals who have issued decisions to return excise duties to Farmec without Farmec submitting the documents provided by the law, could have requested documents, to carry out actual verifications at Farmec and to observe irregularities in the illicit operations with alcohol which they have actually validated as legal?
(2) the required accounting documents were not requested and
(3) no verifications have been made on the reality of fiscal operations and registrations of deliveries to customers whose finished products contain alcohol,
(4) no verifications have been made if:

the invoices that have been issued by Farmec, cancelled and returned, are registered at clients if these invoices represent between 10% and 15% of all the invoices issued by Farmec and
the products appear to have been reintroduced into the stock of Farmec’s management,

(5) no cross verifications were carried out in relation to the invoices issued by Farmec, which were not cashed, but the invoices issued by Farmec and not cashed were closed in the accounting system by non-deductible expenses, in the of amount of 15,000,000 Euros.
(6) no verifications have been made on the reality of suspiciously fictitious services of more than 80,000,000 lei VAT excluded, money transfers to legal entities and individuals, lawyers, clients in the country and from off-shore bank accounts with an OFF – SHORE tax regime, which have annually reduced the taxable profit, in relation to which we submitted information.

            2.3. The Fiscal Antifraud Directorate General, the central structure of ANAF did not pursue the fact that after 7 months, the Antifraud Directorate Division 7 of Sibiu failed to meet the provisions of the Antifraud Directorate – the Central Structurethat was transferred on the occasion of the petitions of the undersigned no. 24825 of 29.08.2017 (please see Annex 19) and no. 856/14/09/2017 (please see Annex 23);

            2.4. The Antifraud Directorate Division 7 of Sibiu failed to meet the mandatory measures of the Antifraud Directorate, the central structure. The Antifraud Directorate of Sibiu informed me that it is still analyses the financial risk (???) in the context where the undersigned, I have submitted evidence that the officers of Farmec SA formulate requests for the return of the excise duties, without them submitting the documents provided by the Law at item 22 par. 34 of the Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code. Laurenţiu Puşdercă, the Manager of the Regional Antifraud Directorate of Sibiu comes from the customs structure that has issued decisions of return without Farmec SA submitting the documents required by the law, is the brother of Lawyer Adrian Puşdercă, who has contracts in relation to cases where Laurentiu Dan Puşdercă, as Manager, has or does not have the legal measures, for example (see Annex 24).

            2.5. The General Directorate for Integrity of the public servants of ANAF

has been notified as of May 2016, in relation to the fact that officials from several departments of ANAF:

a. have either participated in the return of excise duties between 2007 and 2018, without Farmec SA to present the documents stipulated by the Law at item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms to the Fiscal Code, producing fictitious operations of tax evasion, with the result of defrauding the state and the Farmec company.

The return of excise duties to Farmec was done without verifying whether the ethylic alcohol has been distorted. The accounting documents (see Annex 28 – the explanatory note and accounting documents) revealed that the alcohol, although it was not distorted, has benefited from decisions to return the excise duties in violation of Art. 200 and 206 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code. ANAF has not conducted verifications regarding the use of ethylic alcohol in the manufacturing process nor has it verified the type of the alcohol used in the manufacturing process for each individual product, taking into consideration that Farmec has purchased both excisable and non-excisable alcohol, respectively isopropyl alcohol. The lack of such verification has enabled the company to declare that it has used ethyl alcohol in products for which it has actually used non-excisable isopropyl alcohol. For example, the products in the Triumph range of cleaning products, for the manufacture of which non-excisable alcohol was used at Farmec, and in order to justify the quantity of ethyl alcohol, the company falsely declared that during the controlled period, it used ethylic alcohol for these products and during the period before and after the controlled period for the same products, it used non-excisable isopropyl alcohol, under the conditions where it was specified by product that an original recipe was used, meaning isopropyl alcohol. Only a verification of the quantities of all types of alcohol purchased by the company, correlated with the manufacturing networks and with the use of all types of alcohol in the manufacturing process could determine whether the excisable alcohol was actually used for manufacturing the products of Farmec. It cannot be neglected that the accounting documents clearly show that the ethyl alcohol has not been distorted

b. or participated in formal fiscal controls. Please also read the notification of December 12^th, 2017(Annex 25)

Neither the General Customs Directorate for the Administration of Large Taxpayers nor the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate nor the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF have requested copies from the General Directorate of each file containing the requests of Farmec for the return of excise duties for the period of 2007 and 2018 and the related documents on the consumption in the manufacturing process, the fiscal inspection reports and the decisions to return the excise duties in order to carry out verifications whether Farmec has submitted the documents provided for by the Law at item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code⁶, because the documents submitted by the undersigned reveal that Farmec has illegally benefited from the return of the excise duties without submitting the documents provided by the law (please see Annex 9 – requests for the return of excise duties, reports and decisions for the return of excise duties), reasoning that they would analyse the fiscal risk, have formally solved and invoked the pretext of tax secrecyon informing me in relation to the observations and legal measures (please see Annex 19 – the communications received from the ANAF Directorates).
The Directorate for Integrity has delayed the internal investigation for a period of more than two years

In connection with the internal investigation carried out by the integrity inspectors Georgeta Craciun and Mirela Fitarau, head of the service, I specify the following:

In relation to the situation that the internal investigation did not require from the Directorate of Excise Duties the requests of Farmec for returning the excise duties and related documents concerning the actual consumption of alcohol in the manufacturing process, as stipulated in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code in order to notify the Prosecutor’s Office, I consider that:
(i) The provisions stipulated in Art. 45 par. (1) and (2) of Law 188/08.06.1999 have been violated, in relation to the order of the ANAF President given on the occasion of the undersigned’s petition of 14.02.2018. Please also read the petition (Annex 27).
(ii)The resolution of the notification to the Prosecutor’s Office with the evidence in compliance with Art. 291 par. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been delayed, a situation that leads to the intervention of the prescription for recovering part of the prejudice.
The officials of ANAF invested with the internal investigation have accepted that the investigation would be carried out under the permanent guidance of Adrian Dinu, an officer within the Romanian Intelligence Service brought with a delegation to the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF.
Although the officials for integrity found that it is a practice during 2007-2018 for the officials of the Customs Directorate to return the excise duties without Farmec submitting the documents required by law at item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code in the investigation, they did not require the DGAMC Fiscal Control Directorate to quantify the value of the prejudice.
The officials for integrity overlooked the fact that the DGAMC did not carry out fiscal verifications as a result of the undersigned’s petition of 14.09.2017, without a reply. Please also read the petition of 14.09.2017 (Annex 18)
The officials for integrity have overlooked the fact that L.D. Pusderca-DGAF have classified the petition of 14.09.2017 and ignored the petition of 31.07.2017.
The petition of 06.02.2018 to the Directorate for Integrity (Annex 26) was ignored by officials for integrity. The petition states that it is a practice for L.D. Pusderca to perform works as a manager and his brother is a lawyer of the economic agent. Furthermore, L.D. Pusderca failed to comply with the provision of the Law stipulated in Art. 45 par. (2) of the Law 188/1999 as a result of:
(i) the non-fulfilment of the President’s order on the petition of the undersigned of 14.02.2018 „for the analysis and legal measures, with the proper analysis of all the issues notified.” Please also read the petition in Annex 27.
(ii) failure to meet the order of the DGAF central structure of 31.08.2018
The fiscal officials have also ignored irregularities in the first fiscal control that was formally carried out by the same individuals who participated in the illegal return of excise duties and the second preliminary control of DGAMC which did not took into account the actual cross verifications based on the accounting documents on the reality of the suspiciously fictitious operations
The officials for integrity have accepted the practice of Farmec for more than 10 years, along with customs officials and fiscal officials in relation to fictitious operations, to not carry out fiscal verifications nor criminal investigations within the Prosecutor’s Office.

2.6. The President of the National Agency for Fiscal Administration

The President of ANAF – Dragos Doros was notified on 18.11.2016 with the petition no. 62163 in Annex 285, which we received no answer to. The Vice-President of DGAF was notified by the petition 913116 of 09.05.2016 (Annex 89) in relation to which the DGAF did not carry out fiscal verifications, but sent it to the DNA and no longer tracked the result of the investigations as an injured party.

The President of ANAF – Mrs. Mirela Calugareanu was notified by the petition of 14.02.2018. Please also read the petition of 14.02.2018 (Annex 27)

„Legal measures” were ordered, but the DGAF and the Directorate for Integrity did not fulfil the order of the hierarchical superior, the President of the ANAF

On 03.07.2018, I requested the President of ANAF, Ionut Misa, by petition no. 18 – without answer

I do not know what resolutions and orders launched the President of ANAF on the occasion of directing each notification and petition to the competent directorate nor whether the competent directorates complied and fulfilled the orders of the President of ANAF. I received no reply communications from the president of ANAF, but only formal communications from the Directorate for Integrity of ANAF (see Annex 39 – the communications received in March 2018).

2.7. The Legal Department of ANAF failed to adopt the legal measures as the legal representative of ANAF, a party injured in the criminal prosecution file 3164/P/2012 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest, did not solve and did not act on the requests of the undersigned. The Legal Department did not request the court to restore the file with the thousands of evidence that disappeared from the file, but nor with the entire file consisting of 53 volumes that was at the Prosecutor’s Office instead of two volumes that were sent by the Prosecutor’s Office to the court (see Annex 40 – the communication of the Prosecutor’s Office showing that the file has 53 volumes).

The Legal Department did not use the information submitted in the petitions of the undersigned of 18.05.2016 and 14.09.2016 (please see Annex 4 1) at the Prosecutor’s Office in the criminal trial. Neither the Tribunal of Bucharest, the Legal Department of ANAF did not request that the court requests the criminal prosecution file consisting of 53 volumes following the notifications of the undersigned of 14.09.2016 (please see Annex 41).

2.8. Influencing ANAF through the President of the ALFA Union

Bogdan Iulian Hosu requested by the application of 12.09.2013 registered under the No. 1924 at ANAF to that verifications would be carried out to me, in the companies where I have an interest and to make the shares I have at Farmec unavailable to me, according to the excerpt:

„…we consider that if any deeds of tax evasion have been observed from the minority shareholder, to cause the state to be prejudiced by imposing the initiation of a procedure to maje the shares unavailable, which are held bny this shareholder at SC Farmec SA and the establishment of the possibility of buying them by the shareholders of SC Farmec SA from the state”.

Through Mr. BOGDAN IULIU HOSSU, president of CARTEL ALFA, people from the Turdean family passed a complaint to Victor Ponta, at that time the head of the Government Control Body headed by ADRIAN NASTASE, (Annex 42), which resulted in opening a number of 21 fiscal controls and inspections in the companies where the undersigned and/or my wife have a certain quality.

3. THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.

On 28.02.2018, we sent to the Ministry fo Finance, Mr. Ionut Misu, a hearing request no. 8124 (please see Annex 43), and on 09/02/2018, we sent to the same minister the NOTIFICATION registered under the no. 8125/09/02/2018 (please see Annex 44) – WITHOUT A RESPONSE TILL NOW.
On 03. 07.2018 I sent the Minister of Finance Mr. Orlando Teodorovici two petitions unanswered (Annex 322)

4. THE ROMANIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (SRI)

A. I have not been able to convince individuals in the management of SRI about the existence of some very well-organised groups of interests, which public servants from various institutions, lawyers, current or former intelligence service officers with personal interest, accountants, officials from prestigious audit companies and officials from Farmec are part of, who are participate in a controlled and guided manner to the concerted violation of the law, with the result of obtaining illicit profits, a factual situation that results in a selective operation of national institutions, and certain trials in the courts of law to be transformed into executions by fulfilling orders given in an occult environment, situations that contribute to the deterioration of the national securityand the depreciation of the living climate. Perhaps that is why over 7,000,000 people have left Romania looking for a place in the world where to be respected.

In 2013, General Florian Coldea – as Executive Director of the Romanian Intelligence Service – ordered the transfer of Colonel Simion Ceccan from the SRI-the Division of Târgu Mureş to the management of the SRI-the Division of Cluj.

On 23.06.2014, I talked over the phone with the secretary of Colonel Simion Ceccan, head of the SRI-the Division of Cluj, and I announced that we are to send him a package with the accounting documents that highlight the defraud of the state budget through illegal operations carried out in Cluj County by officials from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations along with officials from Farmec SA. The documents on defrauding the state budget, Farmec SA and in terms of the the group of interests the police, prosecutors, judges, accountants, lawyers, ANAF officials, officials of the Office for the Prevention and Fight Against Money Laundering, officials for integrity, officials from Farmec and alcohol factories and from other institutions, were not picked from the postal service, nor by Colonel Simion Ceccan, Head of the SRI, the Division of Cluj, nor by any of his subordinates(see Annex 45 – proof that the parcel was not picked up)
On 24.06.2014, we retransmitted the document to SRI- the Division of Cluj (see Annex 4 6), but without any concrete result, receiving from the SRI the communication 53175 of 20.08.2014 (please see Annex 47)
On 15.10.2014 we sent the notification to the SRI-the Central Structure (see Annex 48) and I received the communication 53499 of 11.11.2014 (see Annex 49), as a result of the notifications made by the undersigned on defrauding the state budget and the law violations by prosecutors, judges, state officials.
In 2014, I had three appointments with the officers and a service chief from the Romanian Intelligence Service in relation to the violation of the law at ANAF, at the courts of law, at CECCAR. At first, they were very interested in taking the documents and information and afterwards they interrupted the communication with me by saying: „the case is not a priority for the bosses.”
On 27/10/2017, I have submitted to the SRI the notification with additional information, registered under the no. 56130 (please see Annex 50), in relation to which the central structure of this institution did not inform me on the progress of the investigation, although Mr Deputy Georgian Pop – as Chairman of the Permanent Common Commission of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate to exercise the Parliamentary control on the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service – by the communication 38/04.05.2015 (please see Annex 51), informed me that:

„…the case specified by you has been/is the subject of specific measures at the level of the competent institutions of the Romanian state, particularly those that have verification and control responsibilities on the financial-fiscal and customs segment, as well as on the management of public funds”

Regarding the information we have submitted to the S.R.I., the Central Structure of this institution did not inform me via the communication no. 52227/20.11.2017 (see Annex 52) that it had notified the competent institutions, in order to stop and recover the damages caused to the state budget, to Farmec and to the undersigned, since 2007 until now, although in other cases, where there were no „interests of the system”, the Romanian Intelligence Service has drafted many notifications to the national institutions, such as those in 2006 (see Annex 53 – link excerpt).

Excerpt from LUJU of January 16^th, 2017: click here (please see Annex 54)

Excerpt from the LUJU portal written by Răzvan Savaliuc on 03.05.2015: click here (please see Annex 55)

In January 2017, the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice specified the existence of some PROTOCOLS concluded between the SRI and prosecutor’s offices, the MAI or other institutions in Romania (see Annex 56, PROTOCOLS that violated the quality of the institutional act, which must be fulfilled within the limits provided by the Law, because it confers the framework of some officers of the Romanian Intelligence Service to discuss with the magistrates and to intervene according to the personal interest of the officer in favour of one of parties, suggesting the solution, namely the formal resolution or non-resolution of a notification, action or request. This manner in which the state institutions operate is a practice that hinders the national security, only as a result of the fact that certain former or current intelligence service officers have a personal interest. However, the passive attitude towards these groups of interests, deeds of corruption and lack of reaction of the Romanian Intelligence Service institution weakens the national security, since the state’s institutions and authorities must operate according to the Constitution and the law governing the activity of each one of these, and not based on some protocolsthat allow obscure relations between officers and magistrates or officials of the institutions.

Considering the way of concerted and guided manifestation over a period of more than 10 years, when several individuals have succeded in the leading positions of the institutions’ management, it is fully justified to assess that the success in carrying out illicit operations carried out in violation of the law in a generalised and obvious manner, may be due to the intervention of former or current officers, in the management of intelligence services that have a personal interest and who permanently find solutions to promote and maintain certain individuals in public positions, which would contribute to protecting this mechanism of defrauding the state budget, the Farmec SA company and undersigned.

The Romanian Intelligence Service has not published the list of judges, prosecutors and other public officials from other institutions, collaborators, partners of the Romanian Intelligence Service or of some former or current intelligence service officers, a relationship that could have vitiated the solutions that have been adopted or not within the institutional environment.

B. The Roman Intelligence Service had a passive action, similar to that on defrauding Framec and the state budget, and in the case of the petition of Prestige and Galic companies of 26.02.2015 (please see Annex 57, together with the proof of communication to the SRI), which highlights deeds of corruption at the Competition Council and the existence of the distribution of certain amounts of money, a situation that may harm the national security as a result of vitiating the the competitive climate in Romania and of adopting by the Competition Council some decisions depending on extra-institutional reasons and interests.

***

In conclusion, so far, I do not know that the Romanian Intelligence Service to have notified the competent state authorities about the systemic and controlled violation of the Law as a result of some connections and relations in relation to which intelligence service officers have a personal interest.

5. THE PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL WOULD NOT BE EXERCISED

1) The Permanent Commission of the Chamber of Deputies on the control over the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Servicedid not exercise its control. On 02.04.2015, we notified the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of the SRI, through the petition with the registration no. 1277/02.04.2015 (please see Annex 58) and I received the communication no. 38/04/05/2015 from Deputy Georgian Pop, the President of the Commission (please see Annex 59) by which he informed me that: „…the case specified by you has been/is the subject of specific measures at the level of the competent institutions of the Romanian state, particularly those that have verification and control responsibilities on the financial-fiscal and customs segment, as well as on the management of public funds”,

Because we found out that this petition was not the subject of the debate in the plenum of the Parliamentary Commission for the Control over the Activity of SRI, we have promoted the application registered under the no.3038/07.06.2016 with the Chamber of Deputies and sent it by e-mail to all the deputies forming the commission (see Annex 59 – submission of the e-mail and of the request) and therefore the Parliamentary Commission replied to me that the data I requested were of secret nature (see Annex 60 – Commission’s reply no. 240/05/09/2016).

On 30.10.2017, I filed with the Chamber of Deputies the petition registered with no. 4796 (see Annex 61), a petition that was also sent to the e-mail address of each of the deputies of the commission (see Annex 62) and so far, I have not received a solution or answer from the Chamber of Deputies.

In conclusion, in view of the aforementioned considerations, I believe that the lack of exercising the parliamentary control by the SRI and the Committee for Abuses in the Senate and Chamber of Deputies contributes to the non-recovery of the prejudices already produced and allows the defrauding operations to continue even now, without the state institutions to perform verifications in a legal and transparent manner and without solving the notifications of the undersigned, which justifies my appreciation that, in fact, we are rather facing the existence of the control of some officers over the parliamentarians and not of parliamentarians’ control over the activity of some SRI officers.

2) The commissions for the Investigation of Abuses, Corruption and Petitions

As a result of the transmission of the petition (Annex 77) on 17.10.2017, the commissions of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate for the investigation of the abuses, as well as to the chairmen of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, I was not heard, and no parliamentary investigation was carried out.

6. THE NATIONAL OFFICE FOR THE PREVENTION AND FIGHT AGAINST MONEY LAUNDERING

1) On 19.12.2012, the IGPR police officers requested the National Office for the Prevention and Fight Against Money Laundering to provide information on the full circuit of sums in the transfer of which Farmec SA and the names of the individuals who benefited from the money were involved, namely: „What is the full circuit/route of the amounts of money, transfers from the account of the ALLPINGTON INVESTMENT LIMITED company to the end user, by indicating the individual/company to whom/which amounts were paid, the value and the justification of the object of payment/explanations”, (see Annex 63 – Police communication to the ONPCS)

2) The Office for the Prevention and Fight Against Money Laundering, managed at the time by the general Plăiasu Neculae, did not fully respond to the request of the police department and informed the Prosecutor’s Office of incomplete information and documents, wherefrom it results that on 24.04.2008 Farmec SA transferred the amount of 60,000 Euros, specifying that the amount has returned into the account no. BBB376889251101EUR of Alpha Bank Romania, but without specifying the account owner and that on 09.05.2008, the same company has transferred the amount of 640,000 Euros, in relation to which no information and documents have been submitted about the name of the individual who has benefited from the aforementioned amount of money. (please see Annex 64, the response of the Office)

3) On 30.10.2017, I filed with the National Office for the Prevention and Fight Against Money Laundering the petition registered with no. 11226 (please see Annex 65) and received the communication registered under the no. 11226 of 29.11.2017 (see Annex 66), but the National Office did not inform the Prosecutor’s Office and the SRI on the illicit financial operations with non-distorted alcohol and not actually used in the manufacturing process, which is „legalised” by means of money transfers from Farmec SA to offshore bank accounts, although they are not based on real services and have contributed to diminishing the taxable profit, and the money has returned to accounts in Romania for one of the individuals who participated in the agreement of the money transfers.

7. THE COMPETITION COUNCIL

1) The decisions of the Competition Council, as well as of other Romanian authorities, were influenced and determined by extra-institutional interests and reasons, by the interventions of intelligence service officers, lawyers or officials of the US Embassy in Bucharest, according to the correspondence we received from Mr. Robert Veress, an investigative journalist at the „GÂNDUL” newspaper, highlighting the journalist’s question and the US embassy’s response in Romania.

I am also sending you the answer received from the US Embassy to the request made two days ago.

The journalist of Gândul newspaper: “The request was formulated thus:

„Please let us know if, in 2007, Mr. Blair L. Labarge and Mr. Robert J. Tate, economic advisors at the US Embassy in Bucharest, have taken steps of any kind at the Romanian authorities, in particular at the officials of the Competition Council, to protect the interests of Colgate-Palmolive, accused by Romanian companies of violating the Romanian legislation in the field of competition.”

The US embassy response was as follows:

„Similarly to the counterparts in other foreign embassies in Romania, the US attachés on economic matters have the responsibility to ensure that US companies are treated appropriately and fairly, in the same manner as other national or foreign companies, and that a level of equality is maintained in this regard, for the benefit of all investors. When a Romanian government agency is to make certain decisions that could affect the American business interests, we support their fair, rapid and transparent processing, complying with the relevant Romanian and international laws.

The US Embassy Press Office”

As you may observe, the US Embassy indirectly confirms the pressures of the two advisors Blair L. Labarge and Robert J. Tate. Therefore, I believe you need not worry anymore regarding a possible libel suit from this direction.

In case you are not content with our collaboration and shall decide to also share the information with other publications, I kindly ask you to take into account that the aforementioned information (the answer of the US Embassy and the conclusion that emerges thereof) are the exclusive property of Gandul newspaper, until they it is published. Sincerely, Robert Veress, Gândul journalist.”

2) The incompatibility status of Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, with the position of President of the Competition Council:

The first reason of incompatibility arises from the failure to meet the provision specified in Art. 17 par. (3) of the Law 21/1996, valid since 2009 until 29.12.2015 and Art. 15 par. 1 item g) of Law 21/1996, valid from 29.12.2015 until now[8], according to which the president, the members of the Plenum of the Competition Council must have an active, economic and/or legal experience of 10 (ten) years, and Bogdan Marius Chiriţoiu was not fulfilling this condition, as it results from his CV and his wealth statement.

The second reason of incompatibility arises from the failure to meet the provision of Art 17 par. (5) of the competition law valid since 2009 until 29.12.2015, Art. 15 par. (6) of the Competition Law valid after 29.12.2015 until now[9], according to which any member of the Plenum of the Competition Council is forbidden to own consulting companies, directly or through intermediaries or to be part of other Associations that might affect the Decisions as a member and President of the plenum, because the legislator established that the members of the Council Plenum must be INDEPENDENT.

The acting President of the Competition Council, Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, was appointed president of the Competition Council on April 27^th, 2009, when he was an associate and directly had 33% in the Creator Consulting SRL company and 90% in the BMC Consultant SRL company (the administrator of this company being the father himself – Constantin Chiritoiu), both companies having as object of activity declared as: „business and management consulting activities”.

On May 20^th, 2009, becoming aware of the obvious incompatibility with the position in which he was appointed, Bogdan Marius Chiriţoiu summons the general meeting of the associates and declared that he gives up the social shares he had in the two companies by assigning them to his father, namely Mr. Chiritoiu Constantin, which is a legal artifice, because the acting President of the Council has not suspended the activity of the consultancy company, but he transferred it to an illegally interposed individual, in relation to the provision specified in Art. 17 par. (5) stated above

The third reason for the incompatibility is also that Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu is member of the Romanian ASPEN Institute since the same year 2009, but also a member of the National Committee for Development, contrary to the provisions of Art. 17 par. (5) of the Competition Law valid until 29.12.2015 and Art. 15 par. (6) of the Competition Law valid as of 29/12/2015 until now, which prohibit the appurtenance to any economic structure of the individual who deals with the position of president and member of the Plenum of the Competition Council, precisely to protect the independence of the members of the Competition Council.

3) The Competition Council failed to fulfil the decision no. 302/2005 of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest (please see Annex 4) and the irrevocable decision no. 37/2006 of the HCCJ (see Annex 5), which forced this institution to initiate the legal investigation according to the competition, the Court of Appeal observing as „unjustified the refusal of the Competition Council to initiate the investigation, according to the excerpt from the decision 302/2005:

The Court observes that this action in administrative court is permissible according to Art. 1 of Law no. 29/1990 and Art. 52 of the Constitution of Romania, the plaintiff invoking an unjustified refusal to solve its complaint, by accepting it only in part, regarding certain anticompetitive practices and a particular reviewed period”

The Court finds that, by means of the complaint registered with the Competition Council under the no. RS – 198/08.09.2004, the plaintiff has required an investigation to be initiated, by means of which the breach of provisions in Art. 5 and 6 of Law no. 21/1996 by SC Colgate Palmolive Romania SRL would be verified, by turning to anticompetitive practices and abuse of dominant position on the markets of products it supplies, concerning the contracts concluded between…”

However, the Competition Council did not carry out verifications in relation to the anticompetitive practices specified in the complaint of Prestige regarding the violation of the provisions of Art. 5 letters d) and Art. 6 letter c) of Law 21/1996 by Colgate Palmolive Romania, in the context where the Investigation Report, signed by Zoe Radetchi and Roxana Ilie, without carrying out verifications, reasoned that Prestige and Metro are on relevant different markets, because „there are two different relevant markets depending on the distribution channel, respectively the relevant market of the products sold via the cash & carry system and the relevant market of products distributed by the classical distributors”, although the Decision 124 of the Plenum of the Competition Council emphasises in Art. 35 that Prestige and Metro are on the same relevant market (according to the excerpt from the decision), which would have required that the Plenum of the Competition Council would order the investigation to be carried out again by collecting information and documents, as well as by comparing the commercial conditions specified in the complaint of Prestige, in order to fulfil the legal decision adopted by sentence 302 and the Decision 36 of the HCCJ:

„(35) For this reason, it is considered that only part of Metro ‘s purchases should enjoy the same type of discounts as those purchased by Prestige as part of the relevant market of the purchases from CPR.”

4) With the same „protective care” against the interests of the companies violating the Competition Law, officials of the Competition Council have imperatively and threateningly asked us to withdraw the complaints against Colgate Palmolive and Kraft Food and as a result of our refusal, the Competition Council has fined our company with 15,000,000 lei (RON), which was a „payment note” as a result of Prestige’s refusal to withdraw the complaints, but it was cancelled by the decision of the HCCJ, no. 1784 of April 4^th 2014, reasoned and communicated on 16.02.2017.

Moreover, the fine of 3,000,000 Euros, applied by the Competition Council to Colgate Palmolive Romania and cancelled by the Court of Justice through the decision no. 302/2005 and the decision 37/2006, was only a tool to create the appearance of a legal activity of the Competition Council, because this institution refused to carry out verifications on Colgate Palmolive in Romania in relation to the issued notified by Prestige, a legal investigation that would have determined, on the one hand, for the fine to not have been cancelled, which was applied to Colgate and, on the other hand, that Prestige would have had the opportunity to recover its property damage judicially.

5) The Competition Council refused to open an investigation against Kraft Foods (Mondelez International), Unilever România SA, the complaint being registered with the Competition Council under the no. 18/30.03.2007 (please see Annex 3) and was not connected to the investigation launched previously by order no. 73/2005, with the same object and parties, in the case of Unilever, its customers and competitors (please see Annex 67 – request for information from the Rapporteur in the Unilever investigation), doing similarly also in relation to the companies Orkla Foods Romania SA and GlaxoSmithKline SRL, which had a discretionary, anticompetitive behaviour by ignoring the provisions stipulated in Law 21/1996.

6) The Competition Council did not carry out legal verifications on the anticompetitive practices mentioned in the complaint of 2007 formulated against Unilever South Central Europe and its customers.

By the Order of the President of the Competition Council, no. 41/2005 (see Annex 68) the investigation of possible anti-competitive practices was launched ex officio, contrary to the provisions of Art. 5 of the Competition Law no. 21/1996 republished, carried out by SC UNILEVER SOUTH CENTRAL EUROPE SRL Ploiesti, as well as by the customers and competitors of this company and who observed in the agreements between the competitors for setting the shelf prices of some products on the same relevant market, as these prices of the competitors of Unilever, respectively Procter & Gamble and Henkel, are equal.

The investigative team and the case rapporteur of the Competition Council requested documents and information from Galic Prod, hereinafter referred to as Galic (see Annex 69), a context where this company filed a complaint on its behalf against Unilever South Central Europe and its customers regarding the existence of discriminatory operations and policies that were classified under the provisions of Art. 5 and Art. 6 of Law no. 21/1996, a complaint registered with the Competition Council under the no. RS 18/30.03.2007.

In the content of the complaint, Galic also formulated the request to order the connection of its complaint against Unilever in the investigation initiated in respect of the same company through the Order no. 41/07.03.2005, given the object identity between the complaint of Galic and the investigation launched ex officio by the Competition Council (please see Annex 70).

The Manager of the Directorate for Consumer Goods of the Competition Council, Badila Daniela Victoria, refused to relate the complaint of Galic, although this company provided information useful for the investigation with the same object, initiated by the Competition Council in the case of Unilever and the connection would have been in the interest of a full verification of the anticompetitive practices, but the same manager, without having a legal right, carried out his own investigation, in parallel to the investigation initiated previously ex officio, without requesting, from the companies involved, the documents required to establish the anti-competitive practices (see Annex 71 – Note drafted by Daniela Badila).

As a result of this manner to wrongly fulfil his duties, the Manager of the Directorate for Consumer Goods promoted a Notice of Refusal on initiating the investigation in the case of Unilever, as a result of the complaint of Galic, without informing the Rapporteur and the Investigation Team designated by the Council President’s Order no. 41/2005 for the resolution of the Unilever case, its customers and competitors, a refusal by which that manager implicitly manifested his refusal to use the evidence provided by Galic in the complaint, in relation to the anticompetitive deeds.

Although the investigative team and the rapporteur appointed in this case requested information and documents from Galic, regarding the commercial operations with SC UNILEVER SOUTH CENTRAL EUROPE, conducted during the period described in the complaint registered with the Competition Council under no. RS 18/30.03.2007 (please see Annex 3), and the representatives of Galic have responded to the requests of the investigation team within the Directorate for Consumer Goods of the Competition Council. The Director of the Consumer Goods Directorate and the President of the Competition Council unjustifiably opposed the complainant’s complaint to the investigation in the same case regarding Unilever, its clients and competitors.

Following investigations, the Rapporteur has drafted and presented to the President of the Competition Council a note of the proposal for Unilever, its customers and its competitors, which was concluded t on some clues, the existence of discriminatory practices.

In this context, the President of the Competition Council decided to replace Rapporteur Dragos Popescu designated with the investigation ”Unilever, customers and competitors” and further investigation was closed without consulting the Competition Council, a circumstance which favoured Unilever.

7) The President of the Competition Council, by order no. 7/2010, ordered the archiving and concealment of those evidence that was obtained as a result of an IT search that reveals agreements and exclusions from the shelves of some retail networks, as well as the refusal to negotiate:

“by 31.01.2010, regardless of the medium they are on, the documents forming the file of the investigation initiated by order no. 36/2007 shall be archived and shall no longer be used in any other procedure of the Competition Council” (please see Annex 72)

8) The President of the Competition Council refused to solve the complaint of Prestige and Galic formulated in 2011 and registered under the no. RG-17050 (please see Annex 73), as a result of observing some agreements between the large retailers and product category leaders in relation to the practices of excluding the products of certain competitors from the shelf and to the refusal to negotiate with certain economic agents, the existence and constant increase in value and percentage of some shelf fees, contractual clauses that are abusive, non-reciprocal and unequal in relation to the fees charged by retailers in West European countries. The President of the Competition Council, Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, by letter no. 16925 of 13.01.2012 (please see Annex 69), informed me on the refusal to initiate the legal investigation, considering the notification and the complaint of our companies as a mere „communication” (please see Annex 74).

9) Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, the President of the Competition Council, misinformed the European Commission (please see Annex 75 – letter of the Competition Council to the European Commission)

8. PROSECUTOR’S OFFICES

8.1. THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ATTACHED TO THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE (PICCJ)

8.1.A. The inaction of prosecutors of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice regarding the request to take over the criminal file 3164/P/2012 from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest

The Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice was notified several times, and the solutions were formal regarding the violation of the law and the refusal of the prosecutor’s offices to investigate criminal deeds that prejudice the state, the Farmec company and the undersigned.

On 04.08.2014, by request of the undersigned that was registered under the no. 4935 (please see Annex 76), under Art. 325 Criminal Procedure Code, I requested the transfer of the criminal file 3164/P/2012 to the PICCJ, taking into consideration the violation of the law by the prosecutors of PTB, the reasons being specified in the request, and in response I was informed that the request had been sent for resolution even to the prosecutor’s office where prosecutors whose activity contrary to the law were operating, an activity that was the subject of the request to transfer the file to the PICCJ.
On 17 October 2017, I sent the Public Information Note (see Annex 77) which highlights many violations of the law by individuals from the state institutions, resulting in damages of over 60,000,000 Euros, deeds for which the criminal law does not provide the procedure of prior complaint, but in relation to Art. 292 of the Criminal Procedure Code^[10] on the ex officio notification in relation to the offense which the judicial bodies become aware of in any way, the PICCJ did not order, in accordance with Art. 64 par. 1 of Law 304/2004 and has not notified the competent Prosecutor’s Office in relation to the deeds and evidence that were presented in the document.

As response, by the communication no. 1837 of 21.11.2017 (see Annex 78), the Chief Prosecutor of the Department, Mr. Romulus Dan Varga, informed me to send him the description of the facts, but not in a general manner and the numerical code, although on page 2 of the public information note, the document reveals that within an organised group consisting of officials from Farmec SA, with the participation of customs officers from the Directorate for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, „they have exempted the company from the paying excise duties without Farmec SA submitting them the centralising statement of the quantities actually used and the related documents regarding the actual consumption of alcohol not used in the manufacturing process in violation of item 22 (34) of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code^[11] and without the inspectors of that Directorate having carried out cross verifications on the reality and legality of the accounting documents that have been submitted by Farmec on the occasion of each exemption of excise duties”, according to the documents I have attached in Annex no. 7, respectively requests for return, reports, decisions on returning the excise duties, as it results from the request for return specified below (excerpt):

However, taking into account these facts and the evidence attached to the public information note, which gives rise to reasonable suspicion on the existence of an ORGANISED CRIMINAL GROUP created for committing the tax evasion, embezzlement, forgery, use of forgery, fraudulent management, etc., I consider that, according to the provisions of Art. 292 Criminal Procedure Code, the Chief Prosecutor of the Department or the Prosecutors of the Department he/she manages should have been notified ex officio and declined the file for carrying out the criminal prosecution at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice – the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism, in order for the competent judicial body to investigate the deeds.

On 27.11.2017, I have also submitted to the PICCJ (see Annex 79 and the proof of the communication – Annex 80) the request addressed to the DNA wherefrom it results that this Prosecutor’s Office did not give a unique number to the notifications of DGA – MĀI, Antifraud – ANAF and of the undersigned, which aimed at the same deeds, and the DNA violates the provisions of Art. 129 of the Internal Regulations of the Public Prosecutor’s Offices and Art. 110 of the Regulations of the National Anticorruption Directorate, by which it is regulated that: „The registration number shall be accompanied by the indicative „P” (criminal)”, but the PICCJ has sent the request to the DNA as it results from the communication no. 13061/21.12.2017, which was sent to me under the signature of the Prosecutor, Head of the Department (see Annex 81), without ordering the compliance with the procedure and issuance of the case number with the indicative „P” in order to allow the investigation of the criminal deeds specified in the notifications between 2014 and 2017, which were attached to the request.

8.1.B. The inaction of the PICCJ against the criminal deeds of the officials of the Competition Council,although it was also notified by the undersigned companies through the petition of 26.02.2015 (by e-mail, see Annex 82 the petition and the proof of submission) and by the DNA (see Annex 83).

The PICCJ was not notified ex officio, according to Art. 292 of the Criminal Procedure Code and did not carry out verifications in relation to the deed of abuse of office of the officials of the Competition Council, stipulated and punished by Art. 248 of the former Criminal Code and by Art. 297 of the New Criminal Code, consisting in the fact that they did not launch the investigation stipulated by the law, as a result of the complaint of the undersigned companies and failed to solve the complaint of 19.12.2011, in compliance with Art. 50 letter c) of Law no. 21/1996.

The PICCJ considered in a wrong or interested manner, that the deed of abuse of office that was subject of the file 1198/P/2007 (single old no. 9016/P/2005) is one and the same deed as that which occurred in 2010 through:

– the issuance of the order no. 7/2010 (see Annex 72) by which the President of the Competition Council ordered the archiving of evidence regarding anticompetitive deeds to no longer be used in any other legal procedure, according to the excerpt: „by January 31^st, 2010, the documents that form the file of the investigation initiated by the order no. 36/2007, regardless of the medium they are on, shall be archived and no longer used in any other procedure of the Competition Council„

– the refusal of the Competition Council President, Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, to fulfil the occupational obligations set forth by Art. 40 par. 1 of Law 21/1996^[12], respectively to initiate the legal investigation that was required as a result of the complaint registered under the no. 17050/19.12.2011, deeds reasoned under the pretext of the „consideration” that the complaint was only a mere „communication” according to the letter of the Competition Council (please see Annex 84).

Laura Codruta Kovesi , as General Prosecutor at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, by the resolution no. 3626/c/2007 (please see Annex 85), she requested the criminal file no. 9016/P/2005 from the competent Prosecutor’s Office, respectively the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 1, with the result that the accused individuals would be removed from the criminal prosecution and the criminal case to be closed after a few weeks, without criminal investigations carried out in the case, although in the resolution, the general prosecutor Kovesi Codruta mentioned that the file is complex, according to the excerpt from the resolution: the case „is complex and represents a high degree of difficulty”. Taking over and closing the case, without any other criminal prosecution resulted in violating the right to property of the undersigned company, although in the file at the competent prosecutor’s office which the file had been taken from by the PICCJ, the financial accounting expertise was carried out, which found that only for a period of 6 months the prejudice of the undersigned company is of 2.1 million lei VAT excluded (item 2.4 of the complaint of 09.03.2012).

8.2. THE DIRECTORATE FOR INVESTIGATING ORGANISED CRIME AND TERRORISM (DIICOT)

On 17.10.2017, I sent to DIICOT the document under the name of „Public Information Note” (please see Annex 77), which reveals, according to Art. 289 and 290 Criminal Procedure Code, the constitutive elements of several crimes the investigation of which is the competence of this prosecutor’s office, including the deed of creating an organised crime group, specified in Art. 367 Criminal Code, a group set up to act in a coordinated manner over a period of more than 10 years, for the purpose of committing more than one offense, namely forgery in documents, use of forgery, tax evasion, money laundering, embezzlement, so that in compliance with the provisions of Art. 292 Criminal Procedure Code, DIICOT HAD THE OBLIGATION TO BE NOTIFIED EX OFFICIO.

8.3. THE NATIONAL ANTICORRUPTION DIRECTORATE (DNA)

A. The inaction of the DNA regarding the fraudulent actions of criminal nature committed by officials from Farmec SA and some customs officials, protected by officials from ANAF, prosecutors and judges, with the consequence of not recovering the damages exceeding 60,000,000 Euros, which, in terms of their gravity, the organised and continued character justifies the assumption of the existence of corruption deeds also or assimilated thereto.

1) The lack of any criminal investigation and the non-resolution by the DNA prosecutors of the complaint of 01.08.2017 (see Annex 94) regarding the increase in the share capital at Farmec SA by 1,000,000 shares at the price of 2.5 lei per share, a price undervalued more than 30 times compared to the accounting value, creates for the officials of Farmec SA the premise that they are above the law, and for the judges – who are invested by law with the resolution of the civil actions, in cancelling some illegal decisions at Farmec SA, which have been proposed and ordered by the administrators Turdean and Pantea and arise from the repeated violation of the civil law, it is assumed that, in the case of Farmec, the Romanian Law and the European Law have a facultative and not mandatory consent by the state institutions, which are bound to remove the deviations from the law by the officials of Farmec.

The increase in the share capital at Farmec SA on 19.10.2016 was done with the limitation of the undersigned to an undervalued price, Farmec and the undersigned registering a prejudice that exceeds 16,000,000 Euros. The managers of the Farmec company have created the appearance of a legality as a result of the fact that the increase was done under the conditions of the issuance prospectus (please see Annex 200) and the issuance prospectus reveals the increase by the limitation threshold that is specified in the statutes of Farmec SA. Although the increase in the share capital of 19.10.2017 was done under the conditions of violating Art. 217 and 220 of Law 31/1990[13], as well as in disregard of the provision specified in the European Law, respectively the Second Council Directive, which in Art. 33 par. 4 prohibits the limitation in the statutes, according to the excerpt:

„The right of pre-emption may not be restricted or withdrawn by the statutes or instrument of incorporation.…”

The action pending cancellation of the decision is subject to the civil case 1021/1285/2016. In the file, the simultaneous provisions have not been complied with, regarding the random assignment of the file on the same day as the date of the file entry to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, with the result of distributing the file to the magistrate Razvan Rares Costea, who rejected the requests for evidence in the file, as well as the requests for suspending the trial until the resolution of the criminal case 2485/300/2011, according to the indictment, which is to determine whether the legal share capital in 2002 should have been 809,314 shares. The petition for recusal (see annex 198) was rejected in the context where the judge of R.R. Costea considered there were no reasons to abstain. In the file, the request of 24.04.2018 to the President of the court, Razvan Rares Costea, (Please see Annex 328).

Written Notes (Annex 329) and Written Notes (Annex 330) have been filed, about the plaintiff’s criticism in relation to the written notes filed by the lawyer of Farmec SA (please see Annex 331).

The history of the above legal arguments outlines the premise of the solution of the judge’s rejection of the action pending cancellation of the decision of Farmec shareholders’ of 19.10.2016, even if the European Law and the European Directive were obviously breached.

The object of the civil file no. 442/1285/2017, the action for cancelling the AGEA decision of 18.05.2016 at Farmec SA as a result of limiting the right to subscribe through the statutes, sentence no. 1957/06/12/2017 was ordered in the case by the magistrate Ancuta Pavelescu. The magistrate’s decision was made with the non-observance of the law and the provision stipulated in Art. 33 par. 4 of the Second Council Directive prohibiting the limitation by statutes. The judge of first instance did not draft the sentence in the file 442/1285/2016 with the non-observance of the provision stipulated in Art. 346 par. 5 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides drafting the sentence in 30 days, a circumstance in relation to which my right provided by the law for the protection of the property right is encumbered. The magistrate’s husband is a DNA prosecutor.

After a civil decision is issued, even if it does not sanction the violation of the law by officials at Farmec, the DNA prosecutors shall be able to issue a solution based on the aforementioned civil decisions.

From the perspective of the aforementioned considerations, one may observe that there is a connection of casualty between the chronology of the following activities:

The initiation and performance by the Farmec officials of illicit activities that prejudice the patrimony of Farmec, the undersigned and the state budget, with the representation that it violates the European Law and legislation;
The initiation and execution by the undersigned of some civil actions in cancellation, criminal complaint, denunciation and notifications to the DNA regarding the violation of the criminal law;
The non-attribution by the DNA of the number with the indicative „P” in the criminal file, in connection with which the complaint of the undersigned was filed, notifications of the ANAF-DGA and the MAI-DGA and the denunciation of the undersigned;
Failing to start the criminal prosecution „in REM” and „in PERSONAM”;
The lack of any criminal investigation, regarding the administration of evidence with documents, hearing the undersigned, as injured party, suspects and witnesses;
The rejection of the requests for evidence of the undersigned, which contributes to finding out the truth and pronouncing civil court decisions to reject the shares of the undersigned, even if the magistrates have the representation that the Law has been violated, both regarding the performance of illegal actions by the officials of Farmec, as well as during the course of the proceedings, starting with the cumulative non-observance of the provisions governing the random assignment of the files, but on the same day as the date the file is registered with the court; the rejection of the requests, the rejection of the requests for evidence that help to find the truth;
In this context, one foresees a solution of not starting the criminal prosecution that is easy to forecast, based on the civil court decisions, rejection of the actions of the undersigned, in relation to prejudicing Farmec and the undersigned by over 75,000,000 lei, regarding the illegal increase of the share capital, in violation of the law, by limiting the undersigned to an undervalued price of 2.5 lei/share and in relation to prejudicing Farmec and the state budget by more than 211,000,000 lei as a result of the excise tax refunds during 2007 – 2018 without Farmec submitting the documents stipulated in the law on the actual consumption of alcohol and without Farmec actually using the entire quantity of non-excisable isopropyl alcohol and undistorted refined alcohol under the excise duty exemption.

2) The lack of reaction from the DNA prosecutorsagainst the reported deeds and non-assignment of the indicative „P” for the DGA notifications within the MAI, the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate of ANAF and of the undersigned between 2014 and 2017 regarding the same deeds of corruption or assimilated thereto, as well as the failure to carry out criminal investigations by this specialised institution results in the continuation of the frauds, the non-recovery of damages and the encouragement of state officials to not carry out the required verifications and to not order the legal measures, and the institutions, prosecutor’s offices and courts that should watch in finding the truth and to the finding the violation of the law by the officials of Farmec SA with the participation of other officials, have been transformed into an „INSTRUMENT” by means of which the frauds and the abuses of the officials of Farmec SA are validated as legal, in in relation to the circumstance that, during the civil or criminal trials, the magistrates violate the legal provisions governing the conduct of any civil or criminal trial and reject the requests and actions of the undersigned one after another.

The National Anticorruption Directorate, managed by Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruţa Kovesi, was notified by the DGA of the Ministry of Interior, the Antifraud Directorate of ANAF and by the undersigned on the same deeds of corruption of some officials from Farmec SA, with the participation of customs officers from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, who refunded excise duties to Farmec SA between 2007 and 2018, without this company submitting the documents regarding the actual consumption stipulated in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code⁶ (see Annex 9 – requests for returns, return reports and return decisions) and failed to carry out verifications on the actual consumption in the manufacturing process of the alcohol, proven with invoices issued by Farmec, registered to the customer and the manufacturing recipes on the consumption and type of alcohol used, with the consequence causing a damage that exceeds 276,000,000 lei, the equivalent value of over 60,000,000 E.

We formulated and submitted to the DNA, to the attention of the Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruţa Kovesi, the following notifications, additions, complaint, denunciation and demands, to no avail so far:

(1) On February 16^th, 2016, I filed submitted to the DNA – the Central Structure, the NOTIFICATION registered under no. 3166/2016 (see Annex 86), a number under which the ADDITION of July 20^th, 2016 (please see Annex 87), on the existence of solid indications on committing criminal deeds, likely to attract the research competence of the National Anticorruption Directorate, namely:

illegal operations with excisable alcohol, carried out by officials of FARMEC SA with the participation of officials from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations, for the participants in the fraudulent actions to obtain significant unfair benefits, but also with the consequence of seriously prejudicing the state budget and the patrimony of the company;
failure to fulfil or wrong fulfilment of the job tasks by individuals within the judicial bodies or other state institutions, with the consequence of favouring the fraudulent actions of the FARMEC officials and customs officials achieved in order to obtain undue benefits, violations of the legal norms in exercising the attributes the public position likely to justify the reasonable suspicion of possible corruption deeds, under the conditions of revealing a relational influencing system created by FARMEC officials over a period of more than 15 years, by involving politicians, customs officials, fiscal control inspectors, accountants, police officers, prosecutors, judges, as well as officials of refined alcohol manufacturing companies;

This NOTIFICATION fulfilled all the requirements of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code for the creation of a criminal case and the commencement of the criminal prosecution in rem regarding the deeds described, in relation to the solid indications and some of evidence mentioned therein, but, inexplicably, this legal procedure was not carried out and I was not informed on the method of resolution.

(2) ANAF – Fiscal Antifraud Directorate General, under no. A_DAF 12840/26.05.2016 (see Annex 88), informed me that the memorandum I formulated, under the title „Continuation of illegal operations with alcohol in a joint stock company, as a result of trafficking in influence„, registered with ANAF under the sole number of petitions 913116/09.05.2016 (see Annex 89) and subsequently to the Antifraud Directorate General under no. A_DAF 12840/09.05.2016, „has been sent to the National Anticorruption Directorate for competent resolution”, an institution which the memorandum of the undersigned registered under no. A_DAF 36202/22.11.2016 (please see Annex 90) was also sent to, with the same reasoning, that the aspects notified are the competence of the criminal prosecution bodies, respectively the DNA.

However, these notifications regarding possible corruption deeds and which were considered by ANAF – the Fiscal Antifraud Directorate General as being within the competence of the National Anticorruption Directorate, were not registered as criminal files, where, according to the law, criminal prosecutions should have been done in rem.

(3) M.A.I. By letter no. 834287/D.P./S.R.P. of 05.12.2016 (see Annex 91) – the Anticorruption Directorate General informed me that the petition of the undersigned, registered under the aforementioned number „was submitted to the National Anticorruption Directoratefor competent resolution”, on the grounds that the judicial police officers of the M.A.I. – the National Anticorruption Directorate have the competence to carry out, under the conditions stipulated by law, „the criminal investigations ordered by the competent prosecutor regarding the crimes stipulated by the Law no. 78/2000… …committed by the personnel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs”.

(4) The Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, under no. 13061/2017 of 21.12.2017 (please see Annex 81), informed me that my petition (e-mail of 29.11.2017, at 3:15) addressed to the MAI and remitted to the P.Î.C.C.J. under the no. 41242/SRP/2017 (please see Annex 92), registered following the work with the no. 13061/2017, „has been issued to the National Anticorruption Directorate, for competent resolution”, specifying that for any information related to the petition, I am to address this institution, which it was sent to for competent resolution.

I did not receive a response to this petition either, from the National Anticorruption Directorate until now.

(5) Following the request of the undersigned to notify me if a criminal case had been filed with the DNA based on the direct notification of 16.02.2016 or of on the complaints addressed to the MAI – the Anticorruption Directorate General and ANAF, which were submitted by these institutions to the DNA for competent resolution, the National Anticorruption Directorate, under the signature of department Chief Prosecutor Gheorhe Popovici, sends me my letter no. 1349/VIII-1/2014 (???) of 26.04.2016 (please see Annex 93), by which I am informed that by examining the notifications, „it did not result that any corruptions have been committed”, but „there resulted matters aiming at the disciplinary liability of magistrates, which is why they have been directed to the Judicial Inspection”.

I am also recommended that, to the extent that I understand to make a complaint or a denunciation on committing some crimes that the attract the competence of the DNA, they shall include the requirements specified in Art. 289 par. (2) Criminal Procedure Code, respectively the description of the deed and indication of the means of evidence, if known.

Examination of this response, in relation to the content of the referrals referred to, makes it easy to ascertain that the Anti-Corruption National Directories wrongly and outside the legal framework „redirected” them to the SCM Judicial Inspection, at least for the following reasons:

the notifications did not concern exclusively the deeds of certain magistrates, but violations of the legal norms and procedures by the public servants within the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the National Agency for Fiscal Administration, as well as fraudulent deeds undertaken by officials of FARMEC SA, whose deeds cannot be subject to a disciplinary investigation under the competence of the Judicial Inspection
in the notifications, factual situations and circumstances were described, likely to create the reasonable suspicion regarding their circumscription as criminal deeds, including of possible deeds of corruption or deeds assimilated thereto, which lead to the research competence of the DNA, thorough indications and even some probation elements in this respect are specified, so that the non-constitution of a criminal file and the performance of minimum investigations in relation to the issues notified are a way of action for the DNA prosecutors located outside the criminal procedural framework.
even if the notifications also concerned deeds that would have been the competence of other criminal investigation bodies, as long as they also referred to possible deeds that attracted the competence of the DNA, the prosecutors of this structure of the Ministry of Public were bound to create a criminal case, to order the start and performance of the criminal prosecution in remand, insofar as the reasonable suspicions on the corruption deeds would not have been confirmed, they had the legal possibility to order the rejection of the file in favour of the prosecutor’s office considered to be competent to investigate the deeds that are not part of the DNA competence.

(6) On 01.08.2017 I submitted to the Hearing Bureau of the DNA a „COMPLAINT and a DENUNCIATION”(registered under the same number 3166/2016 (see Annex 94) as the NOTIFICATION of 16.02.2016, in relation to which I had already received the aforementioned answer), containing facts and thorough indications and probation elements known to support it, within 75 pages and 58 annexes, conforming myself to Art. 289 and 290 Criminal Procedure Code, the same documents being sent also via e-mail, on 10.08.2017.

Given that we have not received any confirmation of the registration of a criminal case with the object that notification of the DNA with „COMPLAINT and DENUNCIATION”, under the no. 16272/20.10.2017 I registered with the Hearing Bureau of this institution a request for the management of „EVIDENCE and PROBATION ELEMENTS”(see Annex to 95) in proving the prior notifications and the denunciation.

I have not been informed and I am not aware at this time whether a criminal case has been formed as a result of the complaint, denunciation and request for the aforementioned evidence.

(7) On 17.10.2017, by e-mail (see Annex 72), I sent the press release to the DNA, called „FARMEC SA Cluj-Napoca = corruption, robbery, fraud and discrimination in an EU member country = Romania!”.

As it does not explicitly result, I assume that this notification refers to the communication I was sent by the DNA under the no. 665/VIII-1/2017 on 13.11.2017 (please see Annex 96), according to which the notification „was submitted to the County Police Inspectorate of Cluj – the Financial Crime Investigation Service – Complex Investigative Office, with reference to the notification no. 606273/26.10.2017 (case no. 297/P/2016 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Cluj)”, and I must specify that I cannot understand what „the notification no. 606273/26.10.2017” represents and what it refers to, but also how it is possible that a notification registered on 23.10.2017 to be sent after a notification registered afterwards, on 26.10.2017.

(8) On 11.29.2017, by e-mail (see annex 97), I wrote a petition by means of which I requested to be informed on the situation of each of the requests, notifications, complaints and denunciations sent directly to the DNA in 2016 – 2017 or redirected by ANAF and MAI.

As a result, by letter no. 771/VIII-1/2017 of 11.12.2017 (see Annex 98), the National Anticorruption Directorate informs me that the registration of only 2 (two) works was observed as a result of the notifications of the undersigned, „respectively the work 1349/VIII 1/2014, which was directed to the Judicial Inspection, since issues concerning the disciplinary liability of the magistrates resulted from the notifications formulated and the work no. 665/VIII-1/2017, which was forwarded to the County Police Inspectorate of Cluj”, without giving me any answer on the other petitions, particularly in relation to the criminal complaints and criminal denunciation.

This communication submitted by the DNA, where the absence of any file pending before this judicial body results from, files created as a result of my notifications is obviously inconsistent with the observation of the Directorate for judicial inspection for prosecutors of the CSM mentioned in the Resolution of 09.01.2018 (please see Annex 99), which states that „the work with no.175/VIII-1/2016regarding the notification of the petitioner regarding the fraudulent mechanism of the state budget and the patrimony of SC Farmec SA Cluj, which derives from the acquisitions of alcohol in the excise duty exemption regime,”, „is under work on the docket of the Department for the Fight Against Crimes Assimilated to Corruption Crimes”, following to be informed on the solution adopted at the end of the verifications.

(9) Thorough indications and evidence result from the aforementioned complaints, notifications and requests that officials from Farmec SA have formulated requests on the excise duty return without submitting the documents referred to at item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code⁶, according to which „For the restitution of the excise duties, users shall submit to the territorial fiscal authority the request for excise duty exemption, accompanied by: c) the proof of the quantity used for the purpose which the exemption is granted for, consisting of a statement centralising the quantities actually used and the related documents”(see Annex 9), as well as the fact that the officials from the Department for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations have drawn up the reports for the return of excise duties and refunded the excise duties since 2007 and until now, without having carried out verifications on the reality of the actual consumption of alcohol in the manufacturing process, subsequently the officials of Farmec SA have compensated the excise duties refunded with the VAT due monthly to the state budget, law violations observed by the Court of Accounts.

However, the fact that the customs officials of ANAF participated together with the officials of Farmec to defraud the state budget and the patrimony of Farmec does not exclude the existence of an ORGANISED CRIME GROUP that is based either on giving or receiving amounts of money, or on trafficking the influence by heads or individuals from outside the institution, former or current intelligence service officers who have a personal interest and promise to keep certain officials in office or to promote leadership positions within institutions in Romania or in Brussels.

Regarding the fact that subsequently persons from the institutions of the competent state, ANAF officials, prosecutors, intelligence officers, police officers, accountants, judges, inspectors from the Judicial Inspection, officials from the Office for Combating and Preventing Money Laundering constantly to contribute to finding the truth, legal measures to stop fraud and to recover damages, as a result of unsolved or formal resolution of complaints have formally solved or have not solicited complaints, complaints and requests of the undersigned, the following reasons cannot be excluded :

or receiving amounts of money from Farmec SA, as specified by the managers and administrators of Farmec SA in some phone conversations, that they pay „INCENTIVES” for everything to be in their favour, as it results from the notes of rendering some phone conversations between the administrators, which reveals their influence of a solution in the Tribunal of Satu Mare and the payment of incentives to achieve favourable solutions in institutions, according to the excerpt (Annex 100):

“The Accused PANTEA PETRU IACOB: Well, you! 2003, 2004, who say you influenced so that we win at SATU MARE (Note: the case no 7386/1285/2010 was on the docket of the Tribunal of Satu Mare)

PANTEA LUCIAN: Yes.” (excerpt from the minutes conveying the phone conversations – page 8)

“The Accused Turdean Liviu: Now it would be good. My opinion, you speak to Lucian, because I have no power, you are Lucian’s dad after all, Mircea is leaving…

The Accused Pântea Petru Iacob: I did. You know what Lucian told me? And that’s what they all say, and Mircea and the other one is definitely against… she’s not interested, because she doesn’t respond. That she took such measures, but you understand, with such measures to stimulate, so that all will be in our favour.” (excerpt from the note of conveying the phone conversations – page 9).

Although I have informed the DNA that the transcription of the phone conversations between the administrators of Farmec, carried out by the police officers of the IGPR-DICE is incomplete regarding the existence of corruption deeds in which people from state institutions are involved, the DNA did not order the transcription of a total of 4 CDs with such conversations thereon.

either the intervention of former or current intelligence service officers, having a personal interest, who have consistently requested the individuals in institutions to not carry out verifications, to not order legal measures and even to not solve or formally solve notifications, in exchange for keeping management positions or in exchange for the promise of better management positions within institutions in Romania or in Brussels.

(10) The first criminal complaint registered with the DNA – the Department of Bihor (see Annex 101), which was the subject of the criminal case 92/P/2012, was solved by not initiating the criminal prosecution, without carrying out at all the investigations and criminal prosecutions required, in the context where from the previously shown note of rendering the phone conversations of the company’s administrators, strong indications resulted that the decision of magistrate Marta Rita Sălăjan, pronounced in the civil case no. 7386/1285/2010 at the Tribunal of Satu Mare, regarding the cancellation of the illegal increase in the share capital in 2002-2003 was influenced by granting „incentives”, and the panel of judges who solved the complaint against the order of not starting the criminal prosecution ignored these issues and arguments presented in the written notes submitted (see annex 102) and specified the ordinance of the DNA, by the sentence no. 25/27.02.2013 (see annex 103)

(11) In 2012, the National Anticorruption Directorate launched a criminal investigation against prosecutor Ramona Ciobanu, whom the criminal case „Farmec” no. 3164/P/2012 of PTB has been assigned to; and starting the criminal prosecution at the DNA against this prosecutor coincided with the fact that first – prosecutor of PTB, Alexandru Georgescu, transferred the criminal cases, at that time under the supervision of prosecutor Ramona Ciobanu, including the file „Farmec”, to the supervision of prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan, who, having the rank of court house prosecutor, was brought by delegation from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the court house of Bucharest Sector 2 where she had handled the same file in order to adopt a classification solution regarding the tax evasion deeds in a continuous form, which was actually even ordered by ordinance of 13.01.2015 (see Annex 104).

(12) The notification of the undersigned to the DNA also includes information revealing that the police officers Cătălin Ciongaru and Alexandru Popescu, along with the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan – currently a DNA prosecutor at the same department where the complaints and notifications of the undersigned are not under work, as well as the DGA-MAI, DGA-ANAF – have favoured the defendants in the file, a situation that cannot exclude a personal interest, taking into account the following considerations:

(i) thousands of pieces of evidence have disappeared from the criminal file, in the absence of which the prosecutor’s office and court solution of classification is illegal and the prosecutor A.C. Lancranjan failed to resolve the request for completing the file with the missing evidence (see Annex 105), respectively :

the communication of IGPR to Reckit Benckiser (see Annex 106) for the cross verification if the invoices submitted by Farmec are false in terms of the reality of the consumption of 1,500,000 litres, as well as the documents that were provided as a result of the police’s communication
the documents from Farmec SA that were requested through the communication of the prosecutor Cristian Gabriel from this company (see Annex 107)
the documents that were taken from Farmec SA during the search on 25.07.2011 (see Annex 108 – the search report)

(ii) did not solve the requests of the undersigned for the probation of the facts which are the subject of the criminal investigation and for which the criminal prosecution was started, contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code incidental on that date;

(iii) failed to conduct criminal investigations in relation to the observations of the Court of Accounts concerning the violation of the law by customs officials who returned the excises duties to Farmec SA, in the absence of any verifications and have accepted the conditions requested by the officials of this company, with the consequence of prejudicing the state budget continuously;

(iv) the police officer Ciongaru Cătălin intervened over the phone on the expert named Mândru Gheorghe, to deliver the expertise without the documents that had been requested by the experts through the experts’ requests of 21.03., 10.04., 27.05., 08.07. 01.08 and 05.08.2013 (see Annex 109), and the policeman Alexandru Popescu intervened at Tiberiu Trandafir, president of CECAR, in order to provide the quality audit of the expertise report in the absence of the opinion of the expert party Violeta Radu;

(v) it was ignored that the reports in the file reveal a quantity of 1,500,000 litres of refined alcohol, which has not been distorted, in violation of the procedure stipulated in Art.200 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code, so that some of the alcohol would not be used in the manufacturing process (see Annex 28 – the note with the explanations and accounting documents that show that the alcohol was not distorted) and, on consequently, the Directorate for the Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations granted exemptions has illegally granted exemptions and refunds of excise duties.

3) The department managed by prosecutor Marius Bulancea within the National Anticorruption Directorate refused to process the notification of MAI-DGA for 1,335 days since December 17, 2014, the notification of MAI-DGAF for 627 days since 24.11.2016, the notification of the undersigned for 907 days since 16.02.2016, the complaint of the undersigned for 377 days since 01.08.2017 and 296 days since the request for evidence and probation elements since 20.10.2017 until 12.07.2018.

During this three-year period, the National Anticorruption Directorate did not issue an indicative „P” failing to comply with the Internal Regulations of the prosecutor’s offices in Art. 129 and the regulations of the National Anticorruption Directorare in Art. 110 regulating that: „The registration number shall be accompanied by sign ”P” (criminal)”, as a result of the complaints of the undersigned, DGAF-ANAF and DGA-MAI on favouring the criminal by the police officers and the prosecutor A.C. Lancranjan. Please also read about the National Anticorruption Directorate (Chapter V, item 8.3).

After three years, on July 11^th, 2018, the criminal file no. 418/P/2018 was also registered in the records of criminal cases. Through the ordinance of 16.07, it was ordered to the DNA – to start a criminal prosecution in REM in terms of committing the crime of abuse of office if the public servant obtained for themselves or for another individual a benefit, measures provided by Art. 297. par. 1 of the Criminal Code, related to Art. 13[14] of Law 78/2000.

After a month, Prosecutor Mihaela Beldie Canela, by ordinance of 21.08.2018 (see annex 321), classified the case without having conducted the criminal investigation, ignoring the evidence I have submitted to the DNA without having administered in the file the requested evidence, without hearings, without motivation.

Against the ordinance that was signed by the prosecutors Mihaela Beldie Canela and Marius Bulancea, I filed a complaint on 25.09.2018. Please also read the complaint in Annex 343.

4) The ordinance signed by the prosecutors Mihaela Beldie Canela and Marius Bulancea is the result of the absence of any criminal investigation and was written without any reasoning regarding the criminal deeds and coincides with the validation within the institutional framework by the DNA of the violation of the law by the officials of Farmec, public officials of ANAF, but also with the protection of the judges who have assigned the files of certain magistrates failing to meet the legal provisions stipulated in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 on the random assignment of files.

The end result consists in ignoring and protecting the officials of Farmec:

Between 2007 and 2018, they asked for requests for the return of excise duties without submitting the documents stipulated in the law on the actual consumption of alcohol and the officials of ANAF issued decisions of return, ignoring even the observations and orders of the Court of Accounts regarding these operations
they have violated the provisions of Art. 216 and 2017 of Law 31/1990 and Art. 29 of Directive 2012/30/EU of the European Parliament on the occasion of the proposals and meetings of of the general assemblies of shareholders of 19.10.2016 and 11.05.2017 whereby the share capital was increased by one million shares at an undervalued price of 2.5 lei/share, under the conditions of the issuance prospectus (see Annex 200) which limits the subscription threshold of new shares to 190,000 shares, although the undersigned legally held at that time 272,000 shares (see Annex 1 – shareholder certificate). The prejudice of Farmec and of the undersigned as injured party exceedings 16,000,000 Euros as a result of the price per share underestimated over 30 times compared to the accounting value or to the actual market value per share.

B. The inaction of the National Anticorruption Directorate on the corruption deeds of the Competition Council officials and of the officials of those institutions that ignored the abuses of the Competition Council.

Claiming that the activity of the National Anticorruption Directorate is selective is also justified by the circumstance that, in the case of the notifications of Galic and Prestige, it has not been notified ex officio and no criminal investigations have been carried out regarding potential corruption deeds committed in relation to receiving amounts of money by individuals from the families of certain officials of the Competition Council, from economic agents related to the ongoing investigations at this institution, as it results from the information specified in the petition of 26.02.2015 to the DNA (see Annex 110).

1) Prestige and Galic sent the petition of 26.02.2015 (see Annex 110 and its annexes) to the DG Justice and to the Committee for Petitions within the European Parliament in Brussels, but at the same time it was also sent to the National Anticorruption Directorate of Romania, according to the e-mail excerpt with the list of the institutions which the petition was communicated to (see Annex 111)

The information presented in the petition justifies the suspicion that there are connections of financial interest between state officials of the Competition Council, with lawyers and trading companies the activity of which has been the subject of preliminary investigations or investigations within the Competition Council, and the decision-making process of this national authority has been influenced in the sense of not solving or poorly solving the complaints regarding anti-competitive deeds and practices, which cannot exclude:

(a) direct connection between the amounts of money received indirectly by officials of the Competition Council – amounts transferred to companies in Romania and companies headquartered in countries with an OFF-SHORE tax regime, by economic operators concerned by notifications addressed to this institution into the account of some companies which have not been specified in the officials’ annual wealth and interest statements – and the results of the investigations conducted by this national authority, where those public officials were institutionally involved by decision-making acts favourable to some economic operators related to which there have been many indications and evidence regarding the violation of legal provisions and competition principles;

(b) the existence of a system for distributing the amounts granted as financial “incentives”, “commissions” to economic agents who were involved in preliminary investigations of the Competition Council, between the individuals in the group that participated directly or contributing to adopting and maintaining some decision-making acts regarding the non-initiation of investigations in the case of anticompetitive deeds and practices, non-sanctioning or sanctioning in a lower or greater amount of the value of fines stipulated in the Law, an assessment justified by:

the underground connection between (a) the significantly high amount transferred to the account of a company belonging to the son of a member of the Plenum of the Competition Council by the economic agents whose object of activity is to trade fuels and to carry out infrastructure works and (b) the conditions in which at the Competition Council, there have been investigations and grants within the Competition Council regarding dispensations related to the resale of fuels and the construction of roads
ensuring legal assistance to these economic agents by „prestigious lawyers”, the only individuals in the system who have „deciphered” the importance of the Romanian Competition Council and have even participated to the amendment of the Competition Law and its Implementation Regulations, creating the environment favourable for the continued operation on the market of the anticompetitive practices by the economic agents they represent.

(c) The existence of a parallel system of “motivation” of certain public servants from various national institutions, which explains the systemic way of the DNA to solve the notifications selectively.

In 2007, the undersigned companies notified the Romanian President by the petition called „Open Letter” and he rejected the document at the National Anticorruption Directorate, which started the criminal investigation under the supervision of prosecutor Cristudor Dumitru, so that a police officer went that year to the headquarters of the undersigned companies for further hearings and information, but after a long time, he informed us only by phone that the chief prosecutor of the department did not approve the performance of criminal investigation further, as there are significant people involved.

Not taking into consideration the fact that the DNA was disinvested and did not carry out any investigations at all, the petition of the undersigned companies being wrongly submitted to the PICCJ (see Annex 112), I have not received any communication until today that verifications would have been carried nor what their result was.

2) The repeated failures to comply with the law and with certain court decisions by several national institutions do not exclude the existence of interests, extrainstitutional reasons and CORRUPTION DEEDS in relation to which I provided information, the petition of 26.2.2015 in relation to favouring certain economic operators exercising a dominant position on the Romanian market, regarding the possible influence, including financially, of individuals with decision-making positions within the Competition Council:

(1) there is the information that, through the PULP FICTION SRL company, belonging to his son and not mentioned in his annual wealth statement, Neményi P. Iózsef Nándor, member of the Plenum of the Competition Council plenary, received:

– Between 2008 and 2012, annually, the amount of 1,300,000 lei VAT excluded from the OMV PETROM company, which is over 1,600,000 Euros VAT excluded for the period of 2008 – 2012;

– Between 2007 and 2008, over 21,000,000 lei VAT included, the equivalent value of more than 5,000,000 Euros VAT excluded, from the BECHTEL International INC company. The press link reveals: „The American magazine Foreign Policy has published an investigation that claims that the representatives of Bechtel might have bribed American diplomats in order to acquire works on highways in Eastern Europe, including Romania.”

(2) GHEORGHE MUSLIU, Vice President of the Competition Council and Chairman of the Antitrust Department between 2004 and 2007, immediately after resigning from this position through the COMPETITION CONSULTING SRL company, received an amount of more than 400,000 lei from the Tuca Law Firm, Zbârcea and Asociaţii, and later became an associate partner of this law firm, which defended the interests of Colgate Palmolive before the Competition Council, also in the period when Gheorghe Musliu, by signing the Decision of 30.09.2009 not to start the investigation in the cases of Colgate Palmolive and Kraft Foods (currently called Mondelez International), as a result of the complaints of Prestige no. 198/2004 and 200/2004, has favoured the companies represented by the aforementioned law company, through the institutional acts to refuse opening some legal investigations on the anticompetitive practices of these multinational companies.

(3) Colgate Palmolive SRL Romania transferred more than 1,500,000 lei to the law firm Tuca, Zbârcea and Asociaţii for the services provided for the disputes related to the Competition Council since the period when the vice-president of this institution was Gheorghe Musliu, who also had the position of President of the Antitrust Department.

(4) there is information that, via the Translation Agency CHAMPOLLION SRL, from the same Tuca, Zbârcea and Associates law firm, which represented the interests of Unilever South Central Europe and Colgate Palmolive before the Competition Council and the courts, between 2007 and 2011, the amount of more than 40,000 Euros was received by the husband of IRINA PETHO – legal councillor within the Competition Council – under the conditions where Irina Petho asked the court to reject the requests for evidence, including the evidence with expertise, in the files where the Competition Council did not carry out investigations in the cases of Unilever and Colgate Palmolive as a result of the complaints of the undersigned companies Prestige and Galic.

(5) the company „Mușat și Asociații”, one of the law firms having a dominant position at the Competition Council, transferred to CHAMPOLLION SRL more than 150,000 lei to the husband of Irina Petho, legal councillor at the Competition Council, who requested in court the rejection of the evidence required, in the trial between the undersigned company Galic Prod and Unilever Romania SRL.

(6) Cristina Butacu, manager of the Legal Division of the Competition Council, an independent institution according to Art. 17 of Law 21/1996 (but not also in reality) is part of the team of the Freedom House NGO, which is funded also by the Embassy of France in Romania, the Embassy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Romania, the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Romania, Embassy of the United States in Romania, the American Cultural Center, the Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation (BST), the Agency for Governmental Strategies, the European Commission, OLAF, Trust for Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe, USAID, the U.S. Department of State, according to the website www.freedomhouse.ro, and receives sponsorships from the companies Antalis, Banc Post, British American Tacacco, GSK (Glaxo Smith Kline), EcoRom Ambalaje, Ogilvy, Philip Morris, Rompetrol, Vodafone, UniCredit Tiriac Bank, among which there are also European and American companies that have connections with investigations of the Competition Council.

Cristina Butacu fails to mention her membership to the Freedom House NGO in her wealth and interest statements, as set out in Annex 120, and in the legal documents that were promoted at the Competition Council, the Legal Department in the petitions and requests of the undersigned companies, the Legal Department had a behaviour that favoured corporations, a circumstance in relation to which we cannot exclude the fact that the activity of this department was vitiated by Cristina Butacu’s financial relationship with the aforementioned NGO and with the interests of its members, sponsors and funders.

3) Files wherein the National Anticorruption Directorate carried out the criminal prosecution on the corruption deeds of certain officials of the Competition Council, but for unknown reasons and interests, it did not notify the court:

A. On 16.05.2017, the prosecutors of the DNA carried out IT verifications at the headquarters of the Competition Council and at the home of Marius Bogdan Chiritoiu, President of the Competition Council, and according to the information in the press, it appears that suspicious connections between him and Irina Socol are investigated, yet the finality of these legal steps is not known.

B. In September 2015, Laura Codruţa Kovesi, chief prosecutor of the DNA, and Bogdan Marius Chiritoiu, President of the Competition Council, signed a protocol (see Annex 114 – press release of the Press Office) reasoning the formation of a cooperation framework that would ensure the mutual support and exchange of information necessary to carry out the investigations performed by the two institutions, but such a protocol is not specified in Art. 34 of Law no. 21/1996 governing the activity of the Competition Council nor in Art. 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code governing the criminal investigation activity.

Or, from the perspective that there are legal provisions that allow the Competition Council to obtain information only in during an investigation, and the criminal legislation forces the holder of evidence regarding a crime to provide it to the Prosecutor’s Office, I appreciate that these protocols can facilitate the acquirement of information outside the interest and limits of an investigation or criminal investigation, with the consequence of influencing the final solutions of some cases, depending on certain institutional or personal interests.

C. The National Anticorruption Directorate was not notified ex officio, according to Art. 292 of the Criminal Procedure Code, regarding the information in the press (see Annex 115): The „fief of Chiriţoiu – the Competition Council killed the investigation related to the sale of the rights to broadcast football matches for the amount of 45,000,000 Euros, to RCS&RDS by the Professional Football League, without a tender. Although it has been established that the LPF has violated its commitments through anticompetitive deeds, it was left to escape with a modest fine of about 20,000 Euros without reopening the investigation and applying a fine of tens of millions of Euros”

4) The Protocols concluded between the National Anticorruption Directorate and the Romanian Intelligence Service (see Annex 116) created the framework and allowed certain intelligence officers with a certain personal interest to intervene as needed in the activity DN A, for the benefit of one of the parties, namely to decide that some information about corruption acts should not be investigated within DN A, including those regarding officials of the Competition Council.

8.4. THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ATTACHED TO THE COURT HOUSE OF SECTOR 2 IN BUCHAREST (PJS2)

The First Prosecutor of the Court House of Sector 2 has appointed Octavian Tiba as case prosecutor, and after he has requested information from the General Customs Directorate concerning the requests for the return of excise duties and the decisions for the return of excise duties to Farmec SA, he ordered his replacement and the distribution of the „Farmec” file to the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan.

From the communication issued by the IGPR – DICE under the no. 1836397/21.09.2016 (see Annex 117), one can observe that the classification solution has been discussed prior to issuing the ordinance of the Prosecutor’s Office of 19.10.2016, or this „discussion” between the police and prosecutors regarding the classification solutionexceeds the provisions stipulated in Art. 321 and 332 of the Criminal Procedure Code and can be interpreted as an act of negotiation and AGREEMENT based on extrajudicial reasons and interests.
After the date when the classification ordinance was ordered for one of the deeds notified, the criminal file no. 14382/P/2010 was sent to the IGPR – the Economic Crime Investigation Directorate, accompanied by an ordinance that contains the documents of criminal prosecution ordered to be carried out, but the file was assigned to the same prosecutor Adrian Petrescu who participated in the extrajudicial discussion on the classification solution for the abuse of office, and it has been kept for more than 18 months unprocessed and I was not heard in the case.

8.5. THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ATTACHED TO THE TRIBUNAL OF BUCHAREST (PTB)

1) The file 14382/P/2010 was requested from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2 in Bucharest, registered under the no. 3164/P/2012 within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest and the measure of starting the criminal prosecution was ordered for the deed of tax evasion and the file was assigned to the prosecutor Ramona Ciobanu and it was afterwards was transferred to the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lăncrănjan, a court house prosecutor, who was brought by delegation to the PTB, also transferring to this prosecutor other files, from other prosecutors, where a certain solution was desired, an aspect that can be observed after an analysis of the measures and solutions ordered in these files taken over by the prosecutor A.C. Lăncrănjan.

It is significant that the prosecutor A.C. Lăncrănjan followed the Farmec criminal case to two different prosecutors’ offices, originally at PJS2 and afterwards to the PTB, and ordered the classification solution for the deed of tax evasion by the ordinance of 13.01.2015 (see Annex 104), under the conditions where:

in the case file there was the request by which the prosecutor was informed that thousands of pieces of evidence have disappeared and the completion of the file with the missing evidence was requested (see Annex 105)
three requests for evidence have not been solved in the file (see Annex 118)
the requests of the experts since 21.03., 10.04., 27.05., 08.07., 01.08., 05.08.2013 (see Annex 109) concerning the documents required to prepare the expertise and which emphasise the output of the products containing alcohol, from the management, requests not filed by the police officers,
the policeman Catalin Ciongaru spoke to an expert over the phone to deliver the expertise without the invoices on the output from management regarding the evidence of the actual alcohol consumption in the manufacturing process
the expertise was required to be redone because it was not drafted by the appointed expert, but by the opponent, through the author Anca Budeanu, employee of the expertise office Vulpoi & Toader Management (please see Annex 119 – excerpt from the electronic root), without the accounting documents requested by the experts, in the requests for documents of 21.03., 10.04, 27.05, 08.07, 01.08, 05.08.2013 (see Annex 109)

2) The first prosecutor of PTB subsequently rejected the performance of any legal investigation in connection with the criminal deeds as a result of not solving the requests for evidence and rejecting the complaints related to the violation of legal procedures, to the observations of the Court of Accounts and to the fact that Farmec does not show to the Directorate for Monitoring the Excise Duties and Customs Operations the documents specified in item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code.

The requests and complaints were filed with the PTB under the no. 703/08.05.2014, 956/26.06.2014, 1372/02.10.2014, 87/22.01.2015, 849/25.06.2015 (see Annex 120) and received as reply the communication no. 3443/VIII-3/21.10.2016 and of 25.07.2016 (see Annex 121), the prosecutor’s Ordinance of refusal (see Annex 122), the undersigned’s letter of 17.10.2017 which reveals the tax evasion deeds which were not subject to the investigation within the PTB and the communication of the Prime prosecutor of 01/15/2018 (see Annex 123).

8.6. THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ATTACHED TO THE TRIBUNAL OF CLUJ (PT CLUJ)

8.6.1. Through the ordinance no. 14382/P/2010 of 16.05.2016 (see Annex 124) the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Sector 2 disjointed and sent the following deeds to the competent authority for investigation and settlement, to the PT of Cluj:

(1) the fraudulent compilation of the documents and accounting records regarding the patrimony of FARMEC, taking into account that there is evidence revealing:

not using the whole quantity of purchased alcohol for the manufacturing process
non recording in the accounting system the refined and distorted alcohol
issuing unpaid invoices which, according to Art. 390 and 394 do not appear to be registered with NIRs at the customers in the country and abroad
the registration in the accounting system of invoices that are not registered at the suppliers
drafting of accounting deduction notes that do not reflect the actual operations

(2) the transfer of amounts into the account of companies wherein the administrators of Farmec have control, including through offshore bank accounts

(3) the deeds of customs and tax officials who contributed to refunding excise duties to FARMEC in the absence of any cross verifications on the alcohol consumption, according to the report of the Court of Accounts in 2013

(4) the deeds of tax officials who did not carry out investigations as a result of the injured party’s notifications about illegal operations and on the other hand, they created the appearance of a fiscal control through the tax inspection report of 15.12.2014, forcing FARMEC to the amount of 67,000.00 lei.

8.6.2. By the ordinance no. 14382 of 19.10.2016 (see Annex 124) PJS2 sent to the PT Cluj for investigation, the criminal deeds aiming the transfer of money into the account of certain companies, including offshore companies, wherein the Farmec administrators have control, the payment of sums for fictitious or over-valued services, the payment of lawyers from the account Farmec for the services provided to other individuals, the fraudulent actions of Farmec officials and customs officials when carrying out the alcohol operations, by which the return of excise duties was obtained without the verification of alcohol consumption in the manufacturing process, which are circumscribed to the essential features of the offenses of:

tax evasion, stipulated by Art. 9 par. 1 letters b) and c) of Law 241/02005
money laundering, stipulated by Art. 29 par. 1 letters a) and c) of Law 656/2002
embezzlement, stipulated by Art. 295 Criminal Code, related to Art. 308 par. 1 Criminal Code

8.6.3. Formally, on 19.10.2016, only after 416 days after as of the date of the ordinance of PJS2 on 19.10.2016, the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Cluj ordered the start of the criminal prosecution only for the money laundering crime, although it had the obligation to verify in a reasonable time and to observe that the notification document meets the requirements of the law, that there was none of the cases of preventing the exercise of the criminal action, provided by Art. 16 par. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The formal activity of PT Cluj, regarding the causes aiming the officials of Farmec SA, is also revealed by the circumstance that criminal prosecution actions were not carried out in the case no. 297/P/2016 within 740 days as of 16.05.2016, although I arrived to the Prosecutor’s Office and requested the case prosecutor to be heard, but he refused the hearing of the undersigned, the injured party. In the case file, no evidence was administered with documents that contribute to finding the truth.

8.7. THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ATTACHED TO THE COURT HOUSE OF PITEŞTI

In the file no. 3680/P/2017, Mrs. Doina Lăcrămioara Popa, the case prosecutor of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Pitesti, approved the request for evidence of 06.11.2017 (see Annex 125), through the ordinance of 08.11.2017 (see Annex 126), the prosecutor considering that „taking into account the request formulated, it is observed that the evidence with documents is thorough and useful to the case, which is why the request shall be admitted”.

In relation to the circumstance that although Art. 303 par. 2 of the Criminal Code states that „The orders given by the prosecutor in relation to conducting the criminal investigations are mandatory and have priority…”, the case officers did not request the evidence documents in the case from Farmec SA. On 28.02.2018 we filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office (see Annex 127) and on 06.03.2018 the case prosecutor communicated my order to reject the complaint (see Annex 128). After 170 days as of the date of the Prosecutor’s Ordinance of 0 8.11.2017, neither the police officer nor the prosecutor requested Farmec SA to bring the evidence to the file, despite the imperative provisions of Art. 303 par. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, do not exclude an agreement with the individuals who have the evidence that would result in ignoring the aforementioned provisions.

In relation to the fact that the accounting professionals Mirela Pintea, Marcel Vulpoi and Ioan Culda damaged my legitimate interests and caused me a patrimonial prejudice, as a result of the fact that they presented an expertise with conclusions that do not correspond to the reality, it results that only the documents requested by the undersigned and consented by the prosecutor as evidence may contribute to solving the crime of perjury (Art. 273 index 2 Criminal Code).

In relation to the fact that forgery in official declarations (Art. 326 of the Criminal Code) committed by the unreal observations of the expertise caused the legal consequences favourable to the officials of Farmec SA and taking into account that this forgery shall be proven only based on the same evidence that was ordered by the prosecutor, through the Ordinance of 11.08.2017, it is reasonable that I assume that something or someone intervened to block the submission of that evidence in the case file, evidence that the case prosecutor considered to be conclusive.

8.8 The Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Buftea.

The criminal file with sole number. 4354/P/2009 was not solved by the Prosecutor’s Office of Buftea and received no answer even after 10 years

As a result of the notification of the Prosecutor’s Office by the Financial Guard, the General Commissariat (please also read the notification of the Guard in Annex 343) and of the complaint of Prestige about the non-registration of 137 invoices in the accounting system by Carrefour after merging with Artima by absorption.

Prestige paid to Carrefour the equivalent value of 500,000 Euros, in the form of shelf fees for a large number of products. Later, Carrefour refused to sell the products.

Prestige paid Artima, the equivalent value in RON of more than 100,000 Euros. After Carrefour’s merger with Artima by absorption, the Artima stores becoming „Carrefour Expres”, the Carrefour company refused to send orders any longer to Prestige, did not record a number of 137 invoices in the accounting system, which had been issued by the Prestige and have not been paid. Through a fiscal control, the Guard found that the invoices had not been recorded in the accounting system (see Annex 343), noticed the Prosecutor’s Office but the criminal investigation did not exist. Later, Carrefour transferred only part of the money to Prestige.

The Judicial Inspection of the Superior Council of Magistracy, on the occasion of the annual controls, left unobserved the fact that the criminal file no. 4354/P/2009 is still not processed at the Prosecutor’s Office of Buftea.

On the occasion of the travel of the undersigned to the Police of Ilfov, the head of the Fraud Investigation Department, asked me: „If I know what Carrefour is..?”

8.9 THE JUDICIAL INSPECTION IN THE SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF MAGISTRACY

A. The judicial inspection ignored the failure by the magistrates to comply with the legal provisions governing the civil and criminal trial, in the cases that aimed at or were the subject of defrauding the State, Farmec and the undersigned.

The prosecutors’ offices and the legal court have their role established by law to sanction the deviations from the law occurred in the civil society, but in fact, the judicial institutions have validated the violation of the law by officials from other institutions, by failing to solve the notifications, the complaints and requests or by formal solutions. Although according to Art. 133 par. 1 of the Constitution of Romania

Although the „Superior Council of Magistracy is the guarantor of the independence of justice”, from the perspective of the annual reports of judicial inspection and of the RESOLUTIONS by which the formal resolution of some notifications was done, one may observe that, in fact, the JUDICIAL INSPECTION within the CSM, by the manner of solving the complaints, it manifests its inability and proves its uselessness to the abuses of magistrates, tolerating the violation of the law by the Romanian judicial institutions.

For example, the judicial inspection within the CSM has accepted the violation of the law and of some fundamental rights by magistrates when solving or failing to solve the following notifications from the undersigned and from the companies Prestige and Galic:

1) On 24.10.2017, I filed the complaint with the judicial inspection of CSM, under the no. 7671 (see Annex 129) regarding the refusal of the DNA to register and issue a number with the indicative „P” to the notifications of the undersigned, DGA -MAI and of ANAF Antifraud, to conduct criminal investigations and to respond to my requests and, as a result of this situation, I filed the request to be notified by the Judicial Inspection on these data, a request registered under no 7672/24/10/2017.

On 02.02.2018, I received the classification resolution no. 7672/IJ/1619/DIP/2017 of 09.01.2018, signed by the Chief Inspector, Dr. Lucian Netejoru, and prosecutor inspector, Cornel Ioana, obviously ungrounded and illegal, in relation to the fact that the aforementioned petition of the undersigned refers to the fact that the DNA did not assign a number with the indicative „P” to the notification of 16.02.2016 (see Annex 86) and the completion of 07.07.2016 (see Annex 130), to the complaint and the denunciation of 01.08.2017 (see Annex 94) and to the probation request no.16272 of 20.10.2017 (see Annex 95), although was also notified by the DGA-MAI about the same deeds, through the communications no. 544748/17.12.2014 and 758034/09.05.2016 (see Annex 131), but also by the DGA – Antifraud within the ANAF, according to the communication no. 36202/24.11.2016 (see Annex 132), but none of these notifications received a number with the indicative „P” and no criminal investigations were carried out, although they concern the same FRAUD of the state budget, of Farmec and of the undersigned, with a total loss of over 276,000,000 lei.

These documents are acts of notifying the criminal prosecution bodies and were drafted in compliance with the requirements specified in Art. 288-290 Criminal Procedure Code, so that the National Anticorruption Directorate should have assigned them numbers with the indicative „P” and proceed according to Art. 305 and following in the Criminal Procedure Code, an obligation specified in Art. 110 of the Operating Regulatons of the DNA and by Art. 129 of the Internal Regulations of the Prosecutor’s Offices, but violated by the DNA and tolerated by the Judicial Inspection within the CSM.

The resolution of the inspector prosecutor Cornel Ioana practically validates as legal the attitude and activity of the DNA prosecutors to not assign a unique number and to not carry out criminal investigations, in relation to the specification that: „Regarding the report no. 175/VIII-1/2016 on the petitioner’s notification regarding the mechanism to defraud the State Budget and the patrimony of SC Farmec SA Cluj deriving from the acquisitions of alcohol in the regime of excise duty exemption, it is pending and being processed by the department on fighting against corruption crimes, assimilated to the corruption crimes, after the completion of the verifications, following to be informed on the Solution adopted” and to the fact that recording a complaint/denunciation as „REPORT” is not provided in the criminal procedure code, the case prosecutor and the inspector prosecutor adding to the law.

Thus, it is observed that the Resolution of the Judicial Inspection DOES NOT ANALYSE AT ALL my request and my complaint regarding the verification and communication to me of the unique number of the criminal prosecution file and it is obviously ungrounded given that, in the absence of the unique registration number for the notifications on the criminal deeds, according to Art. 45 letter c) of Law 317/2004, had to „order the commencement of the prior disciplinary investigation” and to carry out this investigation in relation to the prosecutors guilty of failing to comply with the legal provisions.

2) On 24.10.2017, under the no. 7672/IJ/2017, I registered with the judicial inspection of CSM the complaint against the judges and prosecutors who have violated the legal proceedings, a situation that contributed to the violation of the right to a fair trial (see Annex 133), complaint which I attached the document to (see Annex 77) communicated on 17.10.2017 to several individuals from institutions, NGOs and the press.

On 15.11.2017 CSM – the Judicial Inspection told me the solution to classify the complaint by the Resolution (see Annex 134) signed by Alin Bogdan Alexandru, reasoning that the recommendation to formulate a new complaint was not signed too, under the terms of Art. 10 of the Regulation on the Norms for Carrying out Inspections by the Judicial Inspection, erroneously accepting that the complaint has not been signed, although it may be easily observed that it is signed (see Annex 133).

In addition, taking into account the serious aspects of a controlled and guided way of operating the civil and criminal trials as a result of the repeated violation of legal procedures governing the way of conducting a fair trial, the Judicial Inspection has failed to fulfil its obligation to be notified ex officio, according to Art. 74 letter e) of Law 317/2004, according to which „it verifies the notifications addressed to the Judicial Inspection or is notified ex officio in relation to the inappropriate activity or conduct of judges, prosecutors, including of those who are members of the Superior Council of Magistracy and of assistant magistrates of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, or in relation to the violation of their professional duties;”

3) On 11.12.2014, I registered a complaint with the JSB Judicial Inspectorate under the number 27254 (see Annex 135), by which I notified the following violations of the law by Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan, a prosecutor with a delegation to the PTB, Alexandru Georgescu, First Prosecutor of the PTB, and Tiberiu Nitu, General Prosecutor of the PICCJ, regarding the file 3164/P/2012 of PTB:

3.1) the disappearance of thousands of pieces of evidence from the aforementioned criminal case (see Annex 105 – request for recompletion), respectively documents that were not brought back to the file and were not taken into account in the classification solution given by the ordinance of 13.01.2015 by Prosecutor A.C. Lancranjan (see Annex 104). The request for file recompletion (please see Annex 105) had no result, as prosecutor A.C. Lancranjan, the first – prosecutor Alexandru Georgescu and the prosecutors of the General Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (see Annex 76 – the request to the PICCJ of 01.08.2014) did not order that the missing thousands of pieces are brought back, following to maintain the classification solution, although it is illegal, in the absence of the thousands of pieces of evidence that have gone missing from the file.

3.2) in the same complaint, I also notified the judicial inspection on the following deviations committed by the prosecutors:

– at that time, the first prosecutor of PJS2 unjustifiably transferred the file from the prosecutor Octavian Tiba to another prosecutor, in the context where the case prosecutor requested from the Customs Directorate information useful to the criminal case.

– prosecutor A.C. Lăncrănjan followed the Farmec case to two different prosecutor s offices, the file being transferred to two prosecutor’s offices from the rightful prosecutors to the prosecutor A.C. Lancranjan, who ordered the classification solution, without solving the requests in the file and without conducting a full criminal prosecution, ignoring even the deeds of the customs officials highlighted in the report of the Court of Accounts in 2013.

– prosecutor A.C. AC Lăncrănjan also ignored other essential aspects in determining the truth in the case, namely that the expertise was not drawn up by the appointed expert, but by the expert party of Farmec SA, through the author Anca Budeanu (see Annex 119 – the Electronic Root), employee of the Expertise Office Vulpoi & Toader Management, under the conditions of the intervention of the police officer Cătălin Ciongaru, to be carried out without the documents of output from the management required by the experts through the requests for documents on 21.03., 10.04., 27.05., 08.07., 01.08., 05.08.2013 (see Annex 109), but also the fact that, under these conditions of unlawfully conducting the expertise, the appointed expert Mândru Gheorghe and the expert of Farmec, Vulpoi Marcel, confirm the absence of the denaturant in the alcohol purchased under the excise duty exemption regime, contrary to Art. 200 of the Fiscal Code, and the opinion of the expert Violeta Radu reveals a prejudice of 8,280,667.26 Euros.

The Judicial Inspection behaved as if it had not read the complaint of the undersigned:

– the resolution does not retain or analyse my notification in any way, regarding the disappearance of thousands of pieces of evidence from the file 3164, a violation of the law in relation to which prosecutor A.C. Lăncrănjan, the first prosecutor of the PTB and the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the ICCJ (see annex 76 – the complaint to the PICCJ of 04.08.2014) – did not order the legal measure.

– in this way, the judicial inspector, name unknown, who pronounced the resolution of the judicial inspection no. 5600/IJ/1460/DIP of 20.01.2015 (Annex 136), and chief inspector Rica Vasiliu CRAVELOR, have violated themselves the criminal law because, according to Art. 291 of the Criminal Procedure Code, had the obligation to immediately notify the criminal prosecution body and to take measures for that traces of the crime, the material evidence and any other means of evidence (thousands of documents) missing from the file would not disappear for good, taking into account that through my notification, they became aware of committing a crime for which the criminal action is initiated ex officio.

4) On 11.12.2014, I registered with the Judicial Inspection the complaint under the no. 1/27253/11.12.2014 (see Annex 137) regarding the non-observance of the procedures in the civil file no. 3414/1285/2011 of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, chaired by Flavius Motu, the godfather of Ani Cristian – manager of Farmec SA, in the sense that the file was distributed in violation of the procedure provided by Art. 83 of the decision of CSM, no. 387/2005, respectively it was assigned on the same day it was inputted to court for the case would be assigned to Judge Oros Voichita Laura, a magistrate who received from Farmec SA a unique prize in the amount of 10,000 lei (see Annex 138 – the wealth statement), and subsequently rejected my requests for evidence in the file.

The judicial inspection, through the resolution that does not specify the name of the judicial inspector, but only a signature (see Annex 139), does not solve the violation of the procedure to assign the file on the same day as the date of its input into the court, with the consequence of assigning it to a certain individual, nor the other deviations from the legal procedure, ordering that the judge would make all efforts to find the truth in any file, according to Art. 129 par. 5 of the former Civil Procedure Code.

5) On 11.12.2014, I registered a complaint with the Judicial Inspection of the CSM, under the no. 1/07252 (see Annex 140) regarding the violation of the law in the criminal case no. 2485/300/2011 of the Court House of Sector 2 in Bucharest by which I notified the following:

(a) the violation of the procedure to randomly assign the file in compliance with the provisions of Art. 139 of Law 304/2004 and Art. 98 of the CSM Decision 387/2005, which must be met throughout the performance of the trial.

(b) Judge Florentina Ivancioiu has delayed drafting the sentence for a period of 363 days, violating the provisions stipulated in Art. 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provide the obligation of reasoning the decision within 30 days since the verdict.

The resolution of the Judicial Inspection no. 5599/IJ/4311/DIJ/2014 (see Annex 141) orders the classification of the complaint, through a judge inspector who has not specified his name, reasoning that after the holder of the panel of judges starting the parental leave, the leading board has made the decision 43/11.29.2012, meaning that the permanence judges would be placed in the case, respectively Alina Guluțanu and Marian Virgil Moise, by rotation. Starting with the term of February 2012, Judge Ivancioiu Florentina became the holder of the judge panel, as established by the leading board by the decision no. 7/06.02.2013, a judge who even solved the case on 23.12.2013. In relation to the term of drafting the sentence after 363 days since the verdict, the judicial inspection notes that the situation is justified by the competition of some objective factors related to the complexity of the causes and the high volume of activity.

Therefore, please note that the judicial inspection has tolerated the fact that the criminal case no. 2485/300/2011 has been assigned to a permanence judge, in violation of the principle of continuity, only with the purpose to get necessary time to bring the magistrate Florentina Ivancioiu from the Court House of Constanta, whom the file would be assigned to, in violation of the provisions of Art. 139 of Law 304/2004^[15] on the obligation of random assignment until the resolution of the case, with the result of adopting an unlawful and ungrounded solution of acquitting the administrators of Farmec in terms of the crime of abuse of office in aggravated form, by which my legal interests has been damaged, my percentage legally held from the share capital of Farmec’s was fraudulently reduced from 34.5% to 8%, I was deprived of collecting the dividends I deserve, amounting to approximately 2,000,000 Euros, but also as with the consequence of delaying the trial of the case, as a result of reasoning the sentence after 363 days and not within the 30-day term stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code.

6) In relation to the same file 2485/300/2011, similar procedural irregularities occurred also at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, in relation to which I requested the Ministry of Justice, the Commission for the analysis of notifications formulated in the disciplinary liability of judges and prosecutors and the Department of Auxiliary Legal Professions, to notify the judicial inspection on the violation of the principle of continuity provided by Art. 11 of Law 304/2004^[16] (see Annex 142)

The provisions of Art. 139 and Art. 139 of Law 304/2004^[17] have also been violated in the sense that it was not aimed to ensure the continuity of the panel of judges at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – the Criminal Division II, as the file 2485/300/2011 was distributed for resolution to the panel of judges consisting of the magistrates Cristiu Ninu Luminiţa and Lupaşcu Dan, as it results from the conclusion of the hearing of 17.03.2015, and was handled by that panel until the term of 23.02.2016, when it was transferred to the panel of judges consisting of the magistrates Badescu Irina Raluca and Strâmb Codruţa.

If the change of Judge Dan Lupaşcu from the panel of judges was justified by his retirement, the change of Judge Cristiu Ninu Luminiţa has no justification, in violation of the aforementioned legal provisions regarding the continuity for the resolution of the case, because this magistrate continued to carry out her activity within the same criminal division of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest until now.

The file was at the panel of judges of Bădescu Irina Raluca – Strâmb Codruţa for resolution, until the deadline of 19.09.2017, when it was transferred to the panel consisting of magistrates Luminiţa Cristiu Ninu and Corina Cornelia Gheorghisan, and on 09.01.2018, the panel of judges was changed again, the file 2485/300/2011 returning again to the panel of judges consisting of judges Irina Raluca Badescu and Codruța Strâmb.

7) On 21.11.2014, I registered with the Judicial Inspection of the CSM the complaint under the no. 1/25596 (see Annex 143), whereby I notified the violations of the law at the Court of Appeal of Craiova in the files 7386/1285/2010 and 1613/54/2014 respectively:

(a) the assignment of the file 7386/1285/2010 was done in violation of the procedure provided by Art.93 of the CSM Decision 387/2005^[18] concerning the obligation to assign the file on the same day as the date of its entry into court, in relation to the circumstance that I have requested data related to the assignment of the file according to the date of entry into court, but the Court of Appeal of Craiova did not send us evidence of the date of file entry to the court and the date of its registration in the general register nor the file record or the assignment record, but only informed us that we cannot be provided with these documents, taking into account that they also refers to other files and that the file has been registered on 24.01.2014 and on the same date it was automatically assigned.

This situation fully justifies the suspicion that the violation of randomly assigning the files resulted in the file reaching a certain panel of judges consisting of the President Constantin Popescu and judges Mariana Mot and Sanda Lungu, who, in an obviously unlawful and unjustified manner, rejected the exception of lacking material competence and in substance, rejected the action of the undersigned.

(b) In the file 1613/54/2014, the procedures provided in Art. 83 and 93 of the CSM Decision 387/2005^[19], with the result of assigning the file to the panel of judges consisting of Ochea Neli, Moleanu Ecaterina, Lotus Gherghina, who rejected the undersigned’s request for review, this statement being justified by the fact that I requested information about the assignment of the file according to the date of its entry into court, but the Court of Appeal of Craiova did not send to us any excerpt from the general register of the court, nor the file record or the assignment record, but only a communication it cannot provide these documents to us, taking into account they also refer to other files, with the specification that the file was registered on 02.10.2014 and was randomly assigned on 03.10.2014 (see Annex 144).

In relation to this file, the judicial inspector whose name is unknown specified in the resolution that the one-day delay of the random assignment is justified by the „standing” of the case, as a result of the fact that the file was kept in the folder for the next day, according to the statement on the page 4, par. 2 of the resolution.

Or, in the context where Art. 83 of the CSM Decision 387/2005 does not provide to be held in the folder till the next day, the only reason why the file has been „standing” in the folder was that it the next day was waited for, in order to achieve the „dedicated assignment” to the panel of judges consisting of Ochea Neli, Moleanu Ecaterina, Lotus Gherghina, who would adopt the solution favourable for the opponent.

8) On 29.03.2016, I registered with the Judicial Inspection of the CSM the complaint (see Annex 145) in relation to the existence of some thorough indications revealing that the judicial investigation in the file no. 3414/1285/2011 on the docket of the Specialised Tribunal of Argeș is biased and prejudices me, informing that:

(a) the trial judge unjustifiably removed the evidence with the accounting expertise, repeatedly tolerates that the second expertise, ordered in relation to the legality of the general meeting quorum of SC Farmec SA, to be carried out in the absence of the accounting documents and of other documents not submitted by the company, thus violating the legal provisions.

(b) in an unjustified and biased manner, the trial judge considered that there are sufficient documents in the file in order to conduct a thorough expertise and a decision is issued, wrongly applying the order of the ICCJ to transfer the file.

(c) the ICC itself violated the procedure for the random assignment of the files in relation to the request for transferring the file 3414/1285/2011 and that there are connections between individuals from the entourage of the administrators of Farmec, individuals from the management of the ICCJ and SCM, however, the complaint has not been analysed and resolved so far, the Superior Council of Magistracy refusing to act on my request.

9) The Judicial Inspection of the SCM has not informed me so far about the final resolutions adopted in relation to the notifications received from the Ministry of Justice as a result of the undersigned’s complaints, namely:

the notification no. 45092/19/05/2017 in relation to which, by the communication no. 45092/19.01.2018 (see Annex 146), I was informed that the Ministry of Justice understood to send it to the CSM – the Judicial Inspection regarding the violation of the law in the file 3414/1285/2011 by the magistrate Costinel Staiculescu (see annex 147 – the complaint of the undersigned to the Ministry of Justice)
the notification of 05.05.2017 in relation to which, by the communication no. 40335/31/01/2018 (see Annex 148), I was informed that the Ministry of Justice understood to send it to the CSM – the Judicial Inspection regarding the violation of the law in the file 1129/1285/2016 by the magistrate Flavius Moțu, president of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj (see annex 149 – the complaint of the undersigned to the Ministry of Justice)
the notification no. 63168/15.07.2017 in relation to which, by the communication no. 63168/17.08.2016 (see Annex 150), I was informed that the Ministry of Justice understood to send it to the CSM – the Judicial Inspection regarding the serious deviations committed at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest in order to replace the panel of judges in the file 2485/300/2011, in violation of the law (see Annex 151 – the complaint of the undersigned to the Ministry of Justice).
On 30.03.2018, the Judicial Inspection submitted to us the resolution no. 7671/IJ/3407/DIJ/2017 (please see Annex 152) as a result of the complaint of 17.10.2017 (Annex no. 77) and the complaint of the undersigned against the resolution of CSM of 04.05.2018 (Annex 153).

B. The Judicial Inspection similarly also ignored the violation of the law by the magistrates who have validated the abuses of the officials of the Competition Council regarding the selective investigations and the discretionary application of fines against certain companies that have defrauded the budget and the competitive climate and the business and living environment in Romania.

10) The Judicial Inspection follows the same „pattern” to protect the magistrates who violate the European Law, as follows:

(a) The complaint of Prestige of 12.06.2012 notified the following irregularities:

The violation of the principle of continuity as a result of transferring the file 27411/2/2005 from Judge Gheorghe Grecuto Judge Magdalena Diana Bulancea, although Judge Gheorghe Grecu continued to work at the Court of Appeal until 2010, the result being the rejection of the conclusive evidence, the unjustified admission of the exception of the lack of interest invoked ex officio by the court and by the intervener Colgate Palmolive and the rejection of the action of the plaintiff Prestige in substance, which aimed at reopening the investigation and the fulfilment of the decision of the Court of Appeal no. 302/22/02/2005 on forcing the defendant, the Competition Council, to start and conduct a legal investigation based on evidence;
The infringement of the right to defence of the undersigned companyPrestige also a result of the fact that it was prevented by the trial judge to become aware of the evidence with documents that were accepted by the panel of judges and were filed by the Competition Council, under the pretext that they are SECRET (!! ??);
The violation of the right to defence of the undersigned company, Prestige, as a result of rejecting all the evidence requested, evidence with documents, evidence with witnesses and expertise, by which the right to a fair trial are violated, a right guaranteed by the European Commission through the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

(b) By the resolution no. 2295/IJ1797/DIJ/14.09.2012 (please see Annex 154), without a full analysis, the Judicial Inspection answers that the changes of the panel of judges was done in compliance with the provisions of Art. 26 par. 1 letter b) and Art. 22 par. 1 letters c) and d) from the ROI and that they have been approved by the decisions no. 15/11.09.2009 and no. 41/22.12.2010 of the Management Board of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest.

Art. 22 par. 1 letters c) and d) and Art. 26 letter b) of the Internal Regulations of the courts of law regulate how the panels of judges are created and how the panels of judges can be changed, the exceptional situation in which this change is possible, as well as the need for approving these changes by the Management Board.

Only that the Judicial Inspection did not indicate in the decision (see Annex 154) what was the exceptional situation that required the takeover of the file from the judge Gheorghe Grecu and the assignment of the case to a newly appointed judge, given that the latter had to takes only the files of the retired judge, Carata Glodeanu, whom he replaced, through the decision of the Judicial Inspection, according to the excerpt:

„The distribution of judge Bulancea Diana Magdalena was done according to the Decision no. 452/12 March 2009 of the Plenum of the Superior Council of Magistracy, following the dismissal of judge Carata Glodeanu Constanta Floriana by retirement (Decree of the President of Romania no. 52/1 April 2009, published in the Romanian Official Journal no. 226/7 April 2009.”

In fact, Judge Carata Glodeanu left from the Court of Appeal of Bucharest by retirement, and Diana Magdalena Bulancea was appointed in her place, by the latter was assigned the files of judge Gheorghe Grecu for resolution, among which there was also the file between Prestige Trading and the Competition Council on the investigation of Colgate-Palmolive, although according to internal regulations, the newly appointed judge had to be assigned the files of the retired judge for resolution, whom she replaced at the Court of Appeal, by the Decision 452 of the Judicial Inspection of 12.03.2009, was appointed at the Court of Appeal.

The unlawful replacement of the rightful judge Gheorghe Grecu with Judge Magdalena Bulancea was done by the CSM with the RESULT of rejecting my evidence in the case, to violate our right to defence by invoking some documents which we could not defend ourselves against and in relation to which we are not even convinced that, in reality, the „secret” documents have existed in the file.

In reality, there were no documents in the file in relation to which judge Magdalena Bulancea has specified to be “secret” (see Annex 155 – the conclusion), this magistrate created the appearance of „EVIDENCE” in the file to justify the issuance of a decision, which is unlawful and ungrounded because it was ordered in violation of the right to defence and the violation of the principle of orality and contradiction, respectively in violation of Art. 14 par. 5 and Art. 15 the old Civil Procedure Code, the evidence in the file cannot be secret for the parties for that cause, this being the reason why the judge assigned initially has been replaced in violation of the law.

The Judicial Inspectorate mistakenly notes that we have brought into discussion the solution pronounced, which is subject to appeal, and not the procedural violations of the panel of judges, namely the violations of the rights to defence and the unlawful way of managing the evidence, so that it refused to perform any verifications.

11) The complaint registered under the no. 16845/12.06.2012 (please see Annex 156) was NOT solved so far by the Judicial Inspection;

In relation to this petition, in the supplement of May 11^th, 2012 to the complaint addressed to the European Commission, I attached the complaint of the undersigned company Prestige, addressed to the Judicial Inspection in relation to which I have requested the European Commission to submit it to this national institution, in order to exercise the powers of investigation and to apply the legal measures and sanctions as a result of the violation by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest of the principle of the continuity and random assignment, as well as of other procedural norms, in the aforementioned file.

We consider that if the Judicial Inspection, by the resolution no. 2295/IJ/1797/DIJ/2012 of 14.09.2012 (see Annex 154) would not have formally solved the complaint concerning the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – which UNJUSTIFIABLY replaced a judge in the case, in violation of the provisions stipulated in Art. 11 and Art. 139 of Law no. 304/2004 and which entails the unjustified violation of the principle of continuity and the principle of random assignment, as well as of other procedural rights and legal norms, with the consequence of failing to comply with the property right of the plaintiff Prestige and the right to a fair trial, it would have been avoided to issue the sentence no. 4229/25.06.2012, obviously illegal and ungrounded, by which it has been ordered, according to the excerpt:

„Admits the exception of lack of interest of the plaintiff SC PRESTIGE TRADING SRL in terms of the head of claim in action on forcing the defendant for damages in connection with the obligation of the defendant the COMPETITION COUNCIL to reopen the investigation in relation to the alleged non-compliance by SC COLGATE PALMOLIVE SRL with the provisions of Art. 5, par. (1) letters a) and d), Art. 6 letters a), b), c), g) of the law no. 21/1996, invoked by the intervener for its own interest, SC COLGATE PALMOLIVE SRL. Rejects this head of claim, as left without interest.”

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

Please note that lack of reaction and transparency of the Minister of Justice within a reasonable period, which would contribute to remedying the slippages and to complying with the right to a fair trial that would protect the property in relation to the undersigned’s notifications on the violation of the law by judges, prosecutors and judicial experts, taking into account to the following considerations:

1) On 26.05.2016, I have registered with the Ministry of Justice the complaint no. 47913 (please see Annex 157), regarding the assignment of files to various courts, without response from the Ministry of Justice.

In the files 155/1285/2013, 659/1/2013, 5136/1/2012, 8167/1/2011, 1312/1/2015, 7386/1285/2010, 1613/54/2014, I have requested the courts, namely the ICCJ, the Tribunal of Alba, the Tribunal of Satu Mare, the Court of Appeal of Oradea, the Tribunal of Mehedinti and the Court of Appeal of Craiova to send us the proof of the assignment of the files to the panels of judges, but the courts did not answer to us, so we notified the Ministry of Justice to request the courts to comply with this legitimate right and inform us on the proof of assigning the cases to courts on the same day as the date of entry, with excerpts from the output and input holograph register of each case in the court that can prove that the assignment of the cases was done according to the law.

2) On 15.07.2016, I have registered with the Ministry of Justice the complaint no. 63168 (please see Annex 150), by which I requested the Minister, as a member of the CSM, to notify the judicial inspection on the serious deviations committed at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest in order to replace the panel of judges in the case 2485/300/2011 in violation of the legal provisions regarding the continuity of the panels of judges and the violation of the provisions regarding the random assignment of the files throughout the criminal proceedings in relation to the following aspects:

aon t the deadline of 23.03.2016, the panel of judges consisting of judges Luminiţa Cristiu Ninu and Dan Lupaşcu, was replaced by judges Bădescu Irina Raluca and Strâmb Codruta, and if it was natural to replace Judge Dan Lupaşcu as a result of retirement, there was no justification to also replace the Judge Cristiu Ninu Luminiţa
The judge Strâmb Codruţa comes from the Tribunal of Satu Mare, a court in relation to which there are indications that the representatives of Farmec have taken „STIMULATING” measures to achieve some favourable solutions in cases the object of which consists in commercial disputes with the undersigned, according to the phone conversations between Turdean Liviu and Pântea Petru Iacob, legally intercepted in the criminal file no. 3164/P/2012.

The Ministry of Justice informed me that a copy of the memorandum was sent to the commission for the analysis of notifications formulated on the matter of disciplinary responsibility of judges and prosecutors from the Ministry of Justice (but I have received no response so far?!)

3) On 16.02.2017 I registered with the Ministry of Justice the complaint no. 14563 (please see Annex 158) on the violation of the legal provisions governing the civil trial by JudgeCristina Roxana Bărăila from the Specialised Tribunal of Argeş, without receiving any ANSWER from the Ministry of Justice, although I have noticed serious deviations committed by the magistrate, namely:

The judge rejected the objections submitted by the undersigned, ignoring the fact that I have provided many pieces of evidence that the expertise does not reflect the reality and that, in the absence of the registers provided by the law in the Decision 885/1995 and Art. 177 Law 31/1990, the expertise cannot be drawn up, especially since the court itself has ordered that these registers would be filed, but the defendant Farmec failed to comply with the magistrate’s orders and did not file the register of shares, and the register of shareholders does not contain the payments, contrary to the provisions of Art. 177 par. 1 of Law 31/1990.
on 22.06.2016, the judge ordered that the expert of the case should prove that all the documents came to the possession of also the party experts, according to the excerpt: „… to the extent that the experts’ opinion was not in that file, the expert of the case to prove that all the documents also came into possession of the party experts.”.
the judge specified in the conclusion of 06.12.2016 (see Annex 159) that the appointed expert took into account the register of shares, and the defendant company specifies, according to the court conclusions, that it does not have the register of shareholders.

4) On 05.05.2017, I registered with the Ministry of Justicethe complaint by which I requested it to exercise the disciplinary action against judge Moțu Flauvius, President of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, given his connections with the CSM, because he is an expert who works in this institution and I have doubts about the impartiality of the Judicial Inspection in the investigation of his disciplinary deviations, given the following aspects notified:

Moţu Flavius committed several disciplinary deviations, because, as President of the court, used his position to solve the issues of the managers of Farmec SA, whom I am in a state of dispute with, in the cases pending before the court he was managing at that time, given that the aforementioned is the godfather of Ani Cristian, manager of the defendant company Farmec SA, which in the context of this magistrate’s refusal to refrain from judging the litigations between the undersigned and Farmec SA justifies the doubt regarding his impartiality in solving these cases
although he was aware that a judge from the Tribunal he was managing received the amount of 10,000 lei from the opponent, respectively from Farmec SA, the same magistrate maintained the judge in the panel of judges that judged the civil case in which the defendant was the company he had received the amount of money from.

By the communications no. 40335/26.01.2017 and no. 40579/26.01.2017 the Ministry of Justice informed me that my notification has been sent to the Judicial Inspection without informing me what the Ministry of Justice had observed – the Commission for analysing the complaints made in the material of the disciplinary responsibility of judges and prosecutors to exercise the disciplinary action according to Art. 44 par. 3 of Law 317/2004 and not the Judicial Inspection. (????)

5) On 19.05.2017 I registered with the Ministry of Justice the complaint no. 45092, through which I requested it to exercise the disciplinary action against the judge Staiculescu Costinelfrom the Specialised Tribunal of Arges under Art. 44 par. 3 of Law 314/2004, taking into account the following reasons:

the existence of the suspicion regarding the reason and legality of the transfer of judge Staiculescu Costinel to the Specialised Tribunal of Argeş, under the conditions where he has manifested an unjustified haste in the case 3414/1285/2011, in the sense that he has judged and rejected all the requests filed in the case in only 5 daysafter the transfer to this court, a period of time when he would have obviously not had sufficient time to study the file and these requests;
non-observance of the provisions regarding the random assignmentof the file to the panel of judges consisting of Judge Staiculescu Costinel, under the conditions of the existence of some justified doubts regarding his impartiality.

Although I have formulated this complaint precisely because of how the Judicial Inspection of SCM exercises its duties in relation to the notifications of the undersigned regarding the deviations from the law of some magistrates judging the litigations with Farmec SA, by the communication no. 45092/19.01.2018, the Ministry of Justice informed me it understood to send my notification precisely to the Judicial Inspection of the CSM (please see Annex 146), and until now, as it was predictable, the CSM did not inform me on the result of the investigations performed.

6) On 20.02.2018, I registered with the Ministry of Justice the request under the no. 16269 (please see Annex 160), by which I requested to be informed on the notification document sent to the Judicial Inspection of the CSM by the Ministry of Justice, which includes the observations of the institution on each of the three cases attached (please see Annex 161) as well as the communications or response resolutions received from the Judicial Inspection by the Ministry of Justice, taking into account that the communications of 14.12.2016, 30.01.2018, 19.01.2018 (see Annex 162) by which this ministry informs me that the Judicial Inspection of the CSM has been notified following the petitions of the undersigned

The Ministry of Justice has solved part of the complaints of the undersigned in great delay and we have not communicated to one another the observations on the violation of the law by the courts, judges and experts.

7) On 28.02.2018 I sent the complaint to the Ministry of Justice via e-mail (please see Annex 163) regarding the deviations of expert Marilena Ghitain the file 1514/1285/2012 to the Tribunal of Constanta (?).

10. THE COURTS OF LAW

Between 2005 and 2011, the High Court of Cassation and Justice ordered the relocation of 38 cases as a result of the undersigned’s requests since it observed the existence of some influences in several courts of law in Cluj and in the country. If until the 2012 the courts of law have admitted, by irrevocable court decisions, 34 actions promoted by the undersigned, out of a total of 43 trials concerning the illegal decisions of the officials of Farmec SA, subsequently, ALL ACTIONS PENDING BEFORE THE COURTS WERE REJECTED, although the courts had unnecessary actions under cancellation to save on the same subject, and in the context of public data and information, it justifies the appreciation on the existence of a justice that is selective, controlled and systematically directed by former or current intelligence service officers, who have a personal interest in certain illicit and state defrauding operations.

10.1. THE HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE

A. The infringement of the law and European law in the ICCJ, concerning the frauds of Farmec SA

1) The management of the High Court of Cassation and Justice has assigned to certain panels of judges four requests for the relocation of the civil cases no. 3414/1285/2011, in violation of the procedures of assigning the file on the same day as the date of the file entry to the court, specified by Art. 83 and 93 of the CSM Decision no. 387/2005 and Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004, with the purpose and the result that the file would be relocated from the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj to the Specialised Tribunal of Argeş and assigned to the President of the Tribunal, Mrs Ruxandra Ionescu, for the trial, in violation of the provisions of assignment on the same day as the date of the file entry to the Court. In fact, it was my „EXECUTION”, the fulfilment of certain extrajudicial orders and agreements, there was no civil trial within the limits of the law and under the empire of the provision stipulated in Art. 129 par. 5 old Civil Procedure Code^[20] regarding the obligation of judges to contribute to finding the truth.

The aim and the result sought was to protect the interests of the officials of Farmec SA from not finding the truth about the fact that a number of shares was not subscribed and not paid by the shareholders and about the frauds of the company and state budget.

My „EXECUTION” in the file no. 3414/1285/2011 coincided with the damage to my legitimate interests guaranteed by the law and European Law and the patrimonial damage with the amount of 75,680 lei, the equivalent value of an expertise signed by Mirela Pintea, Marcel Vulpoi and Ioan Culda, which does not reflect the reality while the experts Violeta Radu and Elena Văduva, party of the plaintiff, have not been able to prepare their opinion because they have not received the documents from Farmec, even after the Specialised Tribunal of Arges fined the company and ordered it to send the documents in electronic format and drafted a justifying note in relation to the impossibility of signing the expertise report and to the formulation of the separate opinion (Please see Annex 164).

Thus,

Following the requests of the undersigned on 28.06.2017 and 2.08.2017, the ICCJ did not submit an excerpt of the court’s general register to us, with the date of entry into court of the requests, the date of random file assignment with excerpt from the ECRIS system.

In relation to the file 3414/1285/2011, three requests for relocation were made by the undersigned as a result of the legitimate suspicions arising from the fact that the magistrate Oros Voichita Laura received the amount of 10,000 lei from the company as a unique price and Mr. Flavius Iancu Moțu is the presiding judge and the GODFATHER of Ani Cristian, one of the company’s managers.

The first request for transferring the file 3414/1285/2011 of the undersigned in the file no. 8167/1/2011 of the ICCJ, a panel of judges consisting of Judges Moglan Raluca, Nestor Beatrice, Susanu Rodica(see Annex 165);
The second request for transferring the file 3414/1285/2011 of the undersigned in the file no. 5136/1/2013, the panel of judges consisting of Judges: Curelea Lavinia, Nicolae Adina, Tarcea Iulia (please see Annex 166);
The third request for transferring the file 3414/1285/2011 of the undersigned in the file no. 659/1/2013, the panel of judges consisting of the following Judges: Susanu Rodica, Floarea Elena, Aurelia Rusu (please see Annex 167).

The undersigned’s three requests for relocation have different reasons

Farmec SA has formulated a single request for transfer (the fourth in the file no. 3414/1285/2011), after the aforementioned three requests had been rejected, one request that was admitted (in the ICCJ case no. 1312/1/2015 by the panel of judges consisting of the following judges: Constantin Brânzan, Marian Buda, Voicheci Eugenia) although it does not include reaons of legitimate suspicion (please see Annex 168).

From the perspective of the aforementioned considerations, I legitimately emphasise the suspicion that the transfer of the civil file 3414/1285/2011 from the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of Pitesti, on 29.04.2015, by the panel of judges consisting of magistrates VOICHECI, Constantin Brânzan, Marian Buda, was carried out in order to reject all the requests for evidence from the file, to remove the evidence with the expertise regarding the undergoing management release, to give decisions favourable to the administrators of the joint stock company, in violation of the right to defence, the right to a fair trial and the right to property, the file being sent to courts in Pitesti for trial, taking into account that they are favourable to the company Farmec SA.

The panel of judges to which the request for transfer has been assigned to in simultaneous violation of the provisions stipulated in Art. 83 and 93, from the Decision of the CSM no 387/2005 and Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004, from the perspective of the fact that the ICCJ did not prove (see Annex 169 – the communications received from the ICCJ) with documents, as a result of the undersigned’s petitions (please see Annex 170) on the date of entry of and filing the case in the ECRIS system on the same day as the date of entry to the courts for the four aforementioned requests for relocation.

B. Violation of the Law and European Law at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, regarding the protection of anticompetitive practices,

in relation to which I have registered a patrimonial prejudice, and the right to property has been breached.

2) The High Court of Cassation and Justice blocked the authority of the Competition Council to carry out investigations in the case of Colgate Palmolive, its customers and competitors, which was opened by the order 36/2007 of the Competition Council, and by the decision of the HCCJ no. 2502/12.05.2009 this order was cancelled (see Annex 171), under the conditions where the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, by sentence 1634/28.05.2008 (please see Annex 172), rejected the request of Colgate Palmolive to force the Competition Council to close the investigation.

The panel of judges consisted of the judges Camelia Bratu, Adriana Denes and Dana Iarina Vratires, the latter being a member of the managing board of the Romanian-American School ASEBUS (according to the excerpt – please see Annex 173), a circumstance that does not exclude a connection of interest likely to contribute to violating the Decision no. 2502/12/05/2009 of the ICCJ, in a sense favourable to the Colgate Palmolive company.

3) The High Court of Cassation and Justice violated the right to defence of the undersigned company Prestige, the principle of orality and contradiction, by the decision no. 2576/17.05.2007 (please see Annex 174) in the context where the applicant was unaware of the reality and content of the evidence in the file with the aim and the result of rejecting the appeal of Prestige.

The Court of Appeal of Bucharest rejected Prestige’s request with the object of forcing the defendant the Competition Council to initiate an investigation in the case of Kraft Foods Romania (now Mondelez Romania) for anticompetitive deeds proven with evidence.

The decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice rejects the appeal of the plaintiff PRESTIGE, although, through the Conclusion Notes, the company has informed on the flagrant violation of procedural rules and a limitation of its right to defence as a result of the impossibility of acknowledging all the evidence of the case, including the fact that a legal decision is made without PRESTIGE knowing the evidence in the file, which violates the principle of contradiction, of orality, which leads to ruling a court decision in violation of plaintiff’s (Prestige) rights to defence.

By rejecting the action of PRESTIGE, the courts validated the refusal of the Competition Council to initiate an investigation in the case of Kraft Foods and its customers, but the decisions have been adopted based on some documents in relation to which it has been pretended to have been filed (!?) by the Competition Council, without allowing the plaintiff company to determine whether this evidence existed in reality, to become aware of the content of the documents and to support its request with evidence formulated in relation to these documents, thus infringing the right to defence and the right to a fair trial of the plaintiff, Prestige.

The Competition Council’s mere invocation of the confidentiality of the documents, before the courts of first instance and appeal, as a result of the fact that Kraft Food deemed them as confidential, it is not sufficient and likely to justify the action ruled by the courts to deprive the plaintiff PRESTIGE of the right to defence in relation to the documents which it was not allowed to access, so much the more as it has been acknowledged in the judicial framework that the procedure was not fulfilled, which is stipulated by Art. 44 par. (3) of the Competition Law on finding the secret or confidentiality of some documents, data or information in the file of the case.

4) The Decision of the ICCJ no. 2326/05.20.2014, by which the appeal of Prestige was rejected regarding the cassation of the sentence of the Court of Appeal which admitted the exception raised ex officio by the trial judge, concerning the our company’s lack of interest, Prestige, as the Competition Council no longer has the right to initiate an investigation and enforce the legal sanctions.

Or, in the context where the defendant the Competition Council opposed this exception specifying that it can initiate an investigation with the verification of the anticompetitive practices, which would include the entire period so far and to also fulfil the court decision regarding the initiation of the investigation, the court did not had a legal basis to block the right and obligation of the Competition Council established by law to initiate a legal investigation, but also by the legal decision on forcing the Competition Council by the Court of Appeal to initiate a legal investigation, but which is unfulfilled so far.

10.2. THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BUCHAREST

A. The violation of the law at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest in cases concerning deeds of defrauding the Farmec company and the undersigned.

1) At the Court House of Sector 2 in Bucharest, in order to issue the sentence in the criminal case no. 2485/300/2011, judge Florentina Ivancioiu was brought from the Court House of Constanta, whom the case was assigned to, in violation of the provisions specified in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 governing the random assignment of the file throughout the trial, and the magistrate ordered an acquittal solution and motivated the sentence after 400 days.

2) At the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, after the case was postponed for ruling, on 05.27.2015 the file 2485/300/2011 was re-docketed, the court ordering ex officio the performance of a financial and accounting expertise, but after this order, the panel of judges has been replaced twice, in violation of the provisions of Art. 11 and Art. 139 of Law 304/2004 governing the principle of continuity and the obligation to randomly assign the file during the criminal trial, according to which „the trial activity is carried out in compliance with the principles of random assignment of files and continuity, except for the situation where the judge cannot participate in the trial for objective reasons.”

The replacement of the appeal panel of judges consisting of judges Cristiu Ninu Luminiţa and Lupaşcu Dan with the judges Bădescu Irina Raluca and Strâmb Codruta was done in violation of the legal provisions stipulated in Art. 11 and Art. 139 of Law 304/2004 imperatively governing the random assignment of files throughout the trial and the continuity of magistrates in the file. The replacement of both judges is not justified and is not objective, from the perspective of the circumstance that the magistrate Cristiu Ninu Luminița was replaced, although she continued to work as a judge in the same criminal divisions of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest.

The second replacement of the panel of judges on the term of 09.19.2017 was done again in violation of the legal provisions governing the principle of continuity and the random assignment of the files, the panel of judges consisted of Bădescu Irina Raluca and Strâmb Codruța being replaced by the panel of judges consisting of Cristiu Ninu Luminiţa and Gheorghisan Corina Cornelia.

3) At the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, the file no. 30272 was assigned to the panel of judges consisting of Francesca Vasile, Adriana Bajan and Iuliana Ciolca, who rejected the appeal of the undersigned and issued the acquittal decision only for the criminal deed which at that time the prescription did not intervene, by decision 52 of ..01.2011. The file was assigned to the aforementioned panel of judges, in in violation of the provision stipulated in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004. The criminal trial lasted 11 years, a situation that led to the intervention of the prescription related to only the criminal deeds of abuse of office in serious form, the magistrates mentioned above pronounced the acquittal solution for deeds in respect of which the prescription did not intervene at that date. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) observed the violation of the undersigned’s right to a fair trial and forced Romania to pay the amount of 5,000 lei, in the file 28962/2004.

B. The violation of the law by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest regarding the protection of anticompetitive practices and the failure to comply with a final and irrevocable court decision by the Competition Council and the Court of Appeal Bucharest.

(1) The Court of Appeal of Bucharest, by sentence 4229/25.06.2012 (please see Annex 176), rejected the action of the plaintiff Prestige Trading, in contradiction with the Competition Council, a decision ordered under the conditions where:

(2) The Court of Appeal, during the trial, has violated the provisions governing the principle of continuity, because on June 18^th, 2012, it unjustifiably transferred the civil file no. 27411/2/2005 from the Judge Gheorghe Grecu to Judge Magdalena Diana Bulancea, although Judge Gheorghe Grecu continued to work within the Court of Appeal of Bucharest – the Department of Administrative Court.

(3) The Court of Appeal of Bucharest has wrongly applied the decision of the Superior Council of Magistracy no. 452/12.07.2009 (see annex 177), by which the transfer of magistrate Diana Magdalena Bulancea from Iasi to Bucharest was ordered, instead of magistrate Carata Glodeanu, as a result of retirement, and not instead of magistrate Gheorghe Grecu, so that the assignment of the files from judge Gheorghe Grecu to the judge Diana Magdalena Bulancea was done in violation of the CSM decision and of art. 11 and Art. 139 of Law 304/2004, which governs the principle of continuity and random assignment.

(4) The Court of Appeal of Bucharest breached the principle of orality and contradiction, because it made the decision based on some evidence the plaintiff Prestige Prestige did not know. The evidence in the file was considered to be „secret” for the plaintiff and was submitted to the court at my request by the defendant the Competition Council in relation to which the Court assessed it is conclusive evidence.

In relation to this circumstance, the Court of Appeal of Bucharest violated the plaintiff’s rights to defence.

(5) The Court of Appeal of Bucharest did not order legal measures in the civil case no. 27411/2/2005, in order to fulfil the final and irrevocable decision no. 302 of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest (please see Annex 4) and the irrevocable decision no. 37 of the ICCJ (please see Annex 5), which order the Competition Council to initiate an investigation and investigate aspects of illegality specified by Prestige in the complaint to the Competition Council, because it did not solve the petition of the plaintiff’s action, which refers to forcing the defendant the Competition Council to reinitiate the investigation, to comply with the aforementioned decision of the Court of Appeal and to investigate the anticompetitive facts specified in the complaint of Prestige to the Competition Council.

By sentence no. 302 the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, the unjustified refusal of the Competition Council to initiate the legal investigation is observed, according to the excerpt:

„The Court observes that this action in administrative court is permissible according to Art. 1 of Law no. 29/1990 and Art. 52 of the Constitution of Romania, the plaintiff invoking an unjustified refusal to solve its complaint, by accepting it only in part, regarding certain anticompetitive practices and a particular reviewed period”

The Court finds that, by means of the complaint registered with the Competition Council under the no. RS – 198/08.09.2004, the plaintiff has required an investigation to be initiated, by means of which the breach of provisions in Art. 5 and 6 of Law no. 21/1996 by SC Colgate Palmolive Romania SRL would be verified, by turning to anticompetitive practices and abuse of dominant position on the markets of products it supplies, concerning the contracts concluded between…”

(6) The Court of Appeal of Bucharest, through the judge Magdalena Bulancea, proposed ex officio, and the lawyer of Colgate-Palmolive embraced the exception of the Competition Council’s lack of interest to apply fines, even in the context where the lawyer of the Competition Council opposed this exception, stating that he agrees to carry out the analysis of the anticompetitive deeds in a continued form till now.

The rejection of the action by sentence no. 4229/25.06.2012 (see Annex 176), by admitting the exception raised ex officio, is unlawful and ungrounded (see Annex 178 – Written Notes of the Competition Council and Annex 179 – written notes of Prestige) and caused serious injury to the legitimate interests of the plaintiff Prestige, as well as the violation of the right to property, which was not protected by a fair trial, since it was not allowed for the Competition Council to initiate a legal investigation, to investigate what the Court had previously ordered by irrevocable decision and not yet fulfilled until now, namely the anticompetitive deeds, preventing Prestige to promote in the court the request for damages to repair the prejudices and injuries that had been caused by these anticompetitive practices.

10.3. THE TRIBUNAL OF BUCHAREST

A. The violation of the law at the Tribunal of Bucharest, with the consequence of protecting the frauds of Farmec SA

1) The solution for maintaining the classification ordinance issued by the prosecutor Alexandra Carmen Lancranjan regarding the deed of tax evasion at Farmec SA, ruled by the Tribunal of Bucharest in the criminal file 12283/3/2016, is unlawful and ungrounded because it was adopted only based on 2 volumes of the criminal prosecution file, under the conditions where it consisted of 53 volumes (please see Annex 40 – the communication of the prosecutor’s office, which reveals that the file no. 14382/P/2010 has 53 volumes) and the undersigned, on the hearing of 14.09.2016, I have sent to the court the request for re-docketing the case, ignored by Judge Mihai Valentin, as well as the order of the magistrate who previously led the panel of judges, namely Elena Popescu, who, on the hearing of 22.06.2016, she decided to request from the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest the whole criminal prosecution file (see Annex 180). The criminal file no. 12283/3/2016 between the ANAF as an injured party and the officials of Farmec SA, as respondents-defendants, was assigned to the judge Mihai Valentin in violation of the procedure provided for in Art. 11 and Art. 139 of Law 304/2004 governing the random assignment of the file during the trial.

2) The criminal file 30272/3/2007 of the Tribunal of Bucharest was assigned after a three-week waiting period (see Annex 1 81 – the reply from the Tribunal), in violation of the procedure provided for in Art. 93 of the Decision of the CSM no. 387/2005 on the assignment on the same day as the date of filing it to the court.

B. The violation of the law at the Tribunal of Bucharest in the case 23011/299/2007by maintaining the ordinance for the removal from the criminal prosecution of the president and the members of the Competition Council Plenum, adopted in the criminal case no. 9016/P/2005, which was taken over from the competent prosecutor’s office through the decision of the general prosecutor at the time, Mrs. Laura Codruta Kovesi, (see Annex 85 – Laura Codruta Kovesi’s resolution to take the file) and was closed without carrying out any criminal prosecution by the PÎCCJ, although the initiation of the criminal prosecution was ordered at the PJS2 as a result of the conclusions of the expert’s report, which revealed a prejudice of 2,100,000 lei.

The criminal file 23011/299/2007 was assigned in violation of the provisions of Art. 11 and 139 of the Law 304 regarding the random assignment of files on the same day as the date of filing it on the docket of the court, provided for in Art. 83 and 93 of the CSM Decision 387/2005, to the panel of judges panel consisting of magistrates Voica Valerica – president, Alexandru Niculina and Daniel Gradinaru.

10.4. THE COURT HOUSE OF SECTOR 1 IN BUCHAREST

Two different files, but with the large stake and personal interest of some intelligence service officers, were assigned to the same magistrate Georgiana Tudor in violation of the random assignment procedure provided by Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004, in the case of the criminal file 17522/299/2005, and in the case provided by Art. 83 and 93 of the CSM Decision 387/2005, in the case of file 23011/299/2007.

A. The criminal file 17522/299/2005, having as defendants officials from Farmec SA, who were sued through the indictment drafted by the General Prosecutor’s Office (see Annex 182) for several deeds on the law regarding the company’s share capital law and the administrators’ refusal in terms of recording 90,000 shares in the register of shareholders was assigned to judge Mariana Constantinescu and after 9 hearing terms, on 17.04.2006, she was replaced by the magistrate Georgiana Tudor, in violation of the provision stipulated by Art.11 and Art. 139 of Law 304/2004 governing the random assignment of files throughout the trial.

As a result of the request for the manner of assigning the file no. 17522/299/2005 (see Annex 183), the Court House of Sector 1 did not prove to me that the file has been randomly assigned, that is to have provided an excerpt from the general register of the court, but instead it sent me only a report and the file number did not result from it, and the documents are not certified for compliance (see Annex 184).

B. The criminal case no. 23011/299/2007, on the injured party Prestige and officials from the Competition Council, as respondents-defendants, and having as object a complaint against the prosecutor’s ordinance of non-indictment, as a result of the decision of Laura Codruta Kovesi, General Prosecutor of the PICCJ, since 29.08.2007 (see Annex 85), to take over the file and to close it without carrying out any criminal prosecution, although the reason for taking over „the complexity of the file” was assigned to the same magistrate Georgiana Tudor, in violation of the random assignment procedure, and the Court House of Sector 1 did not provide us with evidence to invalidate this.

10.5. THE SPECIALISED TRIBUNAL OF CLUJ

At the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, those magistrates who, in a controlled and directed way, are entrusted with „taking care” of the cases of Farmec SA, do not aim at performing the judicial process in compliance with the law, but only how to refuse the requests in the files.

My right to property is not protected in a fair trial, the decisions in the trial are made in a different context, the Constitution, the Law and the European Law remain only a frail promise written in the law books, in cases where certain former or current intelligence service officers and politicians have a personal interest, as a result of defrauding the Farmec company, the state budget and the undersigned.

The Specialised Tribunal of Cluj was headed by judge Flavius Iancu Motu between 01.01.2012 – 01.01.2018. The Magistrate Flavius Motu is the GODFATHER of Ani Cristian, one of the managers of Farmec SA. As president of the court, he assigned the „Farmec” files to himself or to PARTICULAR colleagues subordinated, in violation of the procedure provided by Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 on the random assignment of files. The objective pursued, as well as the result thereof are obvious, the action during the progress of the trial to reject my requests and to reject my actions I have formulated, even by admitting the exception of my lack of interest raised by the opposite party.

As of January 2018, the President of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj is judge Rares Razvan Costea, who in 2016 was brought by delegation and the civil case 1021/1285/2016 was assigned to him, by simultaneously failing to comply with the provisions stipulated in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004.

Later, magistrate Razvan Rares Costea was promoted to the position of president of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj in January 2018.

Although Art. 57 Par. 6 of Law 303/2004[21] allows only one extension of the six-month mandate, Razvan Rares Costea has already benefited from three delegation mandates obtained in violation of the law, given by Mrs. Denisa Baldean, the president of the Court of Appeal of Cluj. On the date of delegating judge Razvan Rares Costea, there were 9 (nine) requests for the transfer to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, among which Judge Ana Aldea, who had been serving as judge for 19 years in the magistracy and Mr Razvan Rares Costea who had been serving as judge for only 6 years.

Judge R.R. Costea was a sole candidate and acquired the position of president of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj. Other skilled and professional magistrates also work here, who have not even been candidates for the president position, but, „accidentally”, the Farmec files are no longer assigned to them either.

For example, magistrate Nicoleta Kosa approved the expertise in the case no. 1433/1285/2010. Because the officials Farmec observed that there is no extra-institutional way to communicate with Mrs magistrate Nicoleta Kosa, they filed in the case a request for acquiescence to the plaintiff’s reasons of illegality (see Annex 243) for waiving the evidence with the expertise that would have been done correctly based on the documents brought to the file and not based on the impressions and consents and subsequently to be signed by the appointed expert. The solution was consequently a positive one. Other files between the undersigned and Farmec were not even assigned to the said judge anymore.

Instead, Judge R.R. Costea was brought by delegation and the file 1021/1285/2016 was assigned to him in violation of the provisions of Art. 11 and 139 of the Law 304/2004 regarding the random assignment with the result of rejecting the requests for evidence and rejecting the action for cancellation of the AGEA decision of 19.10.2016 of illegal increase, by limiting the right of the undersigned to subscribe for new shares and the violation of the provisions stipulated in Art. 216 and 217 of Law 31 governing the legal conditions for the increase by limitation! (it does not matter whether the limitation is done in the statutes or on the occasion of the decision to increase)

Subsequently, the judge was promoted to the position of president at the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj.

At the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, my „EXECUTION” was prepared in several civil cases with a frightening ignorance of the Law, in relation to the abuses of the administrators of Farmec SA, a circumstance to which the provisions of the Constitution and European Law remain only a promise.

Coincidences or actions initiated and prepared within the institutional context?

1. Judge Flavius Iancu Motu is the GODFATHER of one of the managers of Farmec SA and as a president of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, he has assigned[22] the file 1129/1285/2016 to himself, in violation of the provisions stipulated in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004, with the result of judging the interests of the employees of Farmec SA in conditions favourable to them.

Judge Iancu Flavius Motu, as a result of the GODFATHER-GODCHILD personal relationship and of the friendship with the manager ANI Cristian, member in the management of the company which I have a litigation with, an individual who has a crucial contribution in the faulty way of company’s activity, an illegal activity subject to this ACTION to attract the liability of the individuals in the management of the joint stock company, has violated the legal obligation stipulated in Art. 43 par. 2 Civil Procedure Code, to refrain, knowing that there is a reason of incompatibility in regards to him.

On the hearing of 17.05.2017, magistrate Flavius Motu did not abstain, and a judge subordinated to the court president Flavius Motu rejected the request for recusal (see Annex 185).

From this perspective, each of us still has the possibility to analyse the documents that have been and shall be the subject of the debates in the case and to determine according to the decisions made on the previous hearing terms and shall be made at the following hearing terms in the file and to determine if judge Flavius Iancu Motu rejects or admits the requests in the file as GODFATHER of one of Farmec managers or as a magistrate. The admission or rejection of the requests from the file results in finding the truth according to which legal steps may be ordered in the joint stock company or finding ingenious solutions that result in the hiding the truth and continuing the abuses of Farmec SA.

On 15.12.2016, Action 1 (see Annex 186) was recorded and on 11.01.2017 Action 2 (see Annex 187) was also related thereto. Subsequently, documents were filed to prove the action and the requests for evidence on 08.05.2017 (see Annex 188) and on 18.09.2017 (see Annex 189).

On the hearing term of 14.02.2018, judge Flavius Iancu Motu rejected the plaintiff’s request through a lawyer, that of appointing a curator (see Annex 190) in compliance with the provisions of the law specified in Art. 56 par. 2 and Art. 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure[23]. The conclusions of 22.01.2018, 12.02.2018, 14.05.2018 and 22.05.2018 were drafted after more than six months.

The result of the collaboration between the defendant’s lawyer and Flavius Iancu Motu is obvious and has the effect of delaying and preventing the finding of truth based on documents that may be brought to the file, but also of blocking any legal way to make a wrongful act right and to recover the created prejudice in the account of Farmec.

The provision specified in Art. 42 par. 1, 2 and 13 Code of Civil Procedure[24] was not met by the magistrate Flavius Iancu Motu (see Annex 191 – the decision made by the conclusion on the hearing term of 22.01.2018, because he held Horea Turdean in the position of manager at Farmec SA in the context where Mircea Turdean, the brother and Mihaela Turdean, the wife are defendants in the action of employing the liability and the recovery of some amounts of money into the account of the joint stock company. Again, by this provision, the judge Flavius Motu favoured defendant individuals in violation of the law, which is easy to predict to happen again during the trial.

Thus, the resolution of the case is delayed, from the perspective that, although two years have passed since the date of filing the action to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, a period when the request for evidence with documents and the request for evidence with expertise were not solved and ordered in relation thereto, on finding the truth in the case, regarding the frauds of the officials of Farmec SA, because the file still oscillates between the indications lawyer Claudiu Brehar gives to the court on each hearing on what the judge should do and ex officio requests submitted by the magistrates, which, summed up, contribute to not solving the civil case based on the documents that are to be filed in order to find out the truth.

Magistrate Iancu Flavius Motu transferred his file and suspended the trial in the case

Judge Flavius Iancu Motu with the triple quality of president of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, who is the WEDDING GODFATHER of Ani Cristian (manager of Farmec SA, the defendant in the case), president of the management board, has assigned the file 1129/1285/2016 to himself the next day following the entry date of the file at the court registry, respectively the action of the undersigned entered the court on 14.12.2016 at 12.33 (see Annex 192 – excerpt from e-mail transmission), and the file was recorded in the general register of files and assigned on 15.12.2016 at 9.21 (see Annex 193), documents received from the court.

Thus, the magistrate Flavius Motu, as president of the Specialised Tribunal at the time, assigned the civil case 1129/1285/2016 to himself, in simultaneous violation of the provisions specified in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2014[25], from the perspective of the fact that the file was not distributed on the day of entry to the court, but on the next day. The one-day waiting period resulted in the passage of time needed for other files to be inserted into the ECRIS system during this time, and my perception is that the Farmec file „waited” for Mr. Flavius Motu’s turn to come, in order to be inserted into the ECRIS system. As such an interest could not have been of the undersigned, I believe that I am not mistaken to believe that this manger of assignment was pursued by the opponent party, and that he is convinced that if the file reaches in the panel of judges of Flavius Motu, my requests and my action shall be rejected or the proceedings shall be suspended.

On 22.01.2018, the trial judge brought to discussion the exception of the lack of interest that has been formulated by the defendant through the statement of defence. My lawyer filed WRITTEN NOTES on the deadline of 02.04.2018 (see annex 194) and on the deadline of 14.05.201 8, WRITTEN NOTES in relation to the exception of the plaintiff’s lack of interest and the on deadline of 21.05.2018, I filed WRITTEN NOTES in relation to the rejection of the request to suspend the trial (see Annex 195). But on the deadline of 14.05.2018, the lawyer Claudiu Brehar, the defendant’s lawyer, convinced the court bring into discussion on the hearing term of 14.05.2018 the request for the suspension of the trial, even if the plaintiff proved his legitimate, even proved interest.

By the decision given in the public hearing (see Annex 196 – excerpt from the portal), judge Flavius Motu suspended the trial in the file; the conclusion was drafted after 6 (six) months, although I presented the information requested by the magistrate in the last written note on the deadline of 26.06.2017 (see Annex 196)

2. The file 1021/1285/2016 has not benefited from a random assignment either, but it benefited from a directed assignment to a particular judge.

The case was assigned to the judge Rares Razvan Costea by the judge Flavius Motu, the GODFATHER[26] of Cristian ANI (the significant person in the decision making process of FARMEC SA), with the cumulative non-observance of the provisions stipulated in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 303/2004, each of the provisions contributing to the performance of a fair trial.

Thus, the file 1021/1285/2016 entered to the court on 11.11.2016 at 1.42 PM (see Annex 197 – E-mail transmission excerpt) and was entered into the Ecris system the next day, in violation of the procedure provided for in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 303/2004

The one-day waiting period resulted in the passage of the time required for other files to be inserted into the ECRIS system, files that entered the court after the date and time when the action entered, which I have inserted on 11.11.2016 at 1.42 PM.

Under these circumstances, we cannot speak of a random assignment of the file, but only of a controlled and directed entry of file 1021/1285/2016 into the ECRIS system.

In file 1021/1285/2016, we have shown that these irregularities and doubts about the impartiality of Judge R.R. Costea, but this was not in a position of equidistance in the sense that he did not abstain, and my request for recusal (see Annex 198) was rejected by to a judge subordinated to him, which was already expected to happen.

The judge rejected all the exceptions, all the requests for evidence and the evidence with the accounting expertise from the file, all of which are obviously useful and conclusive in solving the case, wanting to judge as fast as possible my request for cancelling an illegal decision to increase the share capital of Farmec SA of 19.10.2016. It is inadmissible the speediness the judge wishes to proceed to a superficial analysis of the validity of an extremely important juristic act for Farmec SA and its shareholders: the increase of the share capital by issuing 1,000,000 shares, an increase made in violation of Art. 216 and Art. 217 of Law 31/1990[27] and Art. 33, par. 4 of the Second Council Directive of 2012, which explicitly prohibits the limitation of the right of preference in the statutes of the joint stock company, according to the excerpt:

„The right of pre-emption may not be restricted or withdrawn by the statutes or instrument of incorporation…..”

The file has as object the action of cancelling the AGEA Decision of 19.10.2016 regarding the illegal increase to a price of 2.5 lei per share, an issuance price undervalued by more than 30 times, causing a loss to the company of more than 161,000,000 lei, a prejudice to the undersigned of more than 50,000,000 lei by preventing the participation to the increase in the share capital. The action under cancellation (see Annex 199) of the AGEA decision to increase by 1,000,000 shares at the price of 2.5 lei/share, according to the issuance prospectus regarding the AGEA decision of 19.10.2016 (see Annex 200). Or, in this context, the fact that the President of the Court of Appeal of Cluj, Mrs. Denisa Baldean, brought Judge Rares Razvan Costea to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj by delegation, with the direct consequence of involving the judge in the file 1021/1285/2016, cannot be accidental.

Rejecting and ignoring the evidence that have been requested in the case by Judge R.R. Costea

The judge rejected the requests for evidence with documents and the evidence with expertise
The judge in the case considered it necessary to verify the reality of the quorum presented by Farmec in the table of attendance and approved the EVIDENCE IN THE FILE to bring the register of shareholders to the file, which is by the communication that was issued on 20.09.2017 (see Annex 344), by which the Tribunal requested from the Registrul Miorita SA an excerpt from the register of plaintiff’s shareholders, which would contain the information provided in Art. 177 par. 1 letter a) of Law 31/1990.

Registrul Miorita did not present the register of shareholders requested by the court, which would contain, according Art. 177 of Law 31, the shareholders and shareholders’ payments into the accounts of shares (see Annex 345 – the response communication from Registrul Miorita). Registrul Miorita SA belongs to the said Mirel Borodi. Farmec has transferred 45,000,000 to the company that belongs to his brother Marcel Borodi (please also read about Borodi, Chapter VI, item 13.2).

Judge Costea tacitly gave up this evidence, which would have had the role to highlight the reality of the quorum presented by Farmec in the minutes of the AGA meeting of 19.10.2016 and the illegitimacy of the individuals mentioned by Farmec in the table of attendance on the occasion of the decision of 19.10.2016 in terms of the fact that there is no evidence that the individuals specified in the register of shares have made the payments for the account of shares.

By sentence 1191 of 27.06.2018, drafted in September 2018, the judge R.R. Costea rejected the action in cancellation, ignoring the written NOTES of the plaintiff’s lawyer (see the Annex) and the RESPONSE (see the Annex) to the written conclusions formulated by the defendant.

In conclusion, this is not a trial, but an „EXECUTION„, because we cannot dissociate the causality connection between the rejection of the action by Judge Costea and the following considerations that prefigured the decision of rejection given by the sentence 1191/27.06.2018, which was taken in another context two years prior to this.

(1) Denisa Baldean, the President of the Court of Appeal of Cluj, bringing judge R.R. Costea from another Tribunal, by delegation

(2) non-compliance with the law by the president of the Court of Appeal as a result of granting three delegation mandates to Judge R. Costeawhile the law allows only two delegation mandates

(3) Denisa Baldeanpreferring Judge R. Costea, with 6-year experience as magistrate compared to other judges who had a 19 year experience

(4) the assignment of the file 1021/1285/2016 by preferring judge R.R. Costea, failing to observe the provisions stipulated in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 regarding the random assignment of the files, with the result of rejecting the action by sentence 1191

By the sentence 1191 of 2018, Judge R.R. Costea rejected the action in cancellation of the Agea decision to increase the share capital at Farmec SA by 1,000,000 shares since 19.10.2016

The decision was proposed and ordered by the administrators Turdean and Pantea for their benefit at the price of 2.5 lei per share, a price undervalued over 30 times compared to the accounting value, by limiting the undersigned to subscribe shares, in violation of Art. 216 and 217 of Law 31/1990 and Art. 29 of the Second Council Directive that prohibits the limitation of the statutes of the company. The decision was illegal because the provisions of the aforementioned provisions of Law 31 were not complied with, respectively in the case of limiting the undersigned’s right to subscribe, through the issuance prospectus. Please also read the issuance prospectus – Annex 200. The company should have had a quorum of three-quarters of the subscribed share capital, an administrators’ report that would present the price per share, and the limitation of the right of preference to be withdrawn by the administrators’ decision (Art. 217 law 31)

Surprisingly, Judge R.R. Costea notes on page 23 of the sentence that „the procedure for subscribing the new shares does not include measures to withdraw or limit the plaintiff’s right of preference„

I specify that on 19.10.2016, I had 272,318 register of sharesed in the register of shareholders and the threshold for limitation in the statuses of Farmec was 190,000 shares.

Or, according to the issuance prospectus, the undersigned, I was allowed to subscribe from the new increase, up to a maximum of 190,000 shares, according to the excerpt from the issuance prospectus:

„the number of new shares that may be subscribed in exercising the right of preference shall be calculated in compliance with what has been specified above and the provisions of Art. 8 par. 6 of the company’s instrument of incorporation, by which it is established that a shareholder cannot own more than 190,000 shares of the company”

Par. 2 on page 2 and par. 1 on page 3 of the procedure of subscribing (Annex 200) the shares explicitly regulates that the shares subscribed over the limit of 190,000 shares are not allocated. Another express limitation of the shareholders’ right of preference is Art. 216, 217 of Law 31/1990[28] harmonised with the provisions of Art. 29 (4) of the Second Council Directive[29] governing that the right of pre-emption cannot be restricted or withdrawn by statutes or instrument of incorporation.

As a result of the non-observance of the law, the company has suffered a prejudice of more than 16,000,000 Euros, the undersigned a prejudice of more than 5,500,000 Euros, and the shares issued in violation of the law were done for the benefit of Turdean and Pantea.

(5) the rejection of the requests for evidence and ignorance of the evidence that was considered by the magistrate to be conclusive and useful to the case

(6) Judge RR Costea rejected the action of the undersigned as a result of admitting the exception of the res judicata on prohibiting the limitation threshold in the statutes of Farmec, but took into account only legal decisions favourable to the opposite party with the intent and outcome of favouring the opposite party and ignored the legal decisions with res judicata on AGA decisions to increase the share capital by limiting the undersigned’s right to subscribe and the AGEA decision on the limitation threshold in the statuses (see Annex 348 – sentence 53/2009 and Annex 349 – Decision 36/2010 of the Court of Appeal of Galati)

Thus, the sentence of 53/2009 of the Tribunal of Cluj regarding the AGEA cancellation on 27.09 and on 06.12.2007 reveals on page 12:

„Another reason for absolute nullity of the contested decisions, appreciated as grounded by the court, is the violation of the imperative provisions of Art. 216 and 217 of Law 31/1990. Thus, the legal texts mentioned specify that „The shares issued for the increase of the share capital shall be offered for subscription, primarily to the existing shareholders, proportionally to the number of shares they own” respectively: „the right of preference of the shareholders may be limited or withdrawn only by the decision of the extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders „.

inţă.The Board of Directors, respectively the directorship, shall make available to the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders a written report specifying the reasons for the limitation or withdrawal of the right of preference. This report shall also explain how to determine the value of issuance of the shares”

„The decision shall be taken in the presence of the shareholders representing ¾ of the subscribed share capital, with the majority of shareholders’ votes present”

“The plaintiff has justly notified that the provision of the commercial companies law is reiterated in Art.

29 par. 4 of the Second Council Directive of 13.12.1976, which establishes that „the right of pre-emption cannot be restricted or withdrawn by statutes or the instrument of incorporation. However, the general meeting may decide on this. “The management or management body must submit to this meeting a written report reasoning the limitation or withdrawal of the right of pre-emption and justifying the proposed issuance price”

„The court finds that the right of preference thus arises in a special report – such as the right of pre-emption (the individual right that allows the holder to manifest their first option), having an egalitarian function, aiming at maintaining a certain status quo among the shareholders”

„In relation to the imperative nature of these provisions, it follows that the limitation or removal of the right of pre-emption can only be done based on a decision of the extraordinary general meeting. The fact that the decision to limit the right of preference is an extraordinary one is also underlined by the quorum imposed for the validity of such a decision (the decision shall be validly made only in the presence of the shareholders representing ¾ of the subscribed share capital with the majority of votes of the shareholders present)

„In this case, the appealed increase of capital was done subject to the limitation of the shareholders’ right of preference (there being a superior threshold of 280,000 shares that could be held by a shareholder) without fulfilling the imperative requirements of Art. 217 of LSC (written report of CA, justification of the issuance price and the quorum of ¾) „

The decision 36/11.05.2010 of the Court of Appeal of Galati regarding the AGEA cancellation on 27.09.2007 and 06.12.2007:

Pages 4, 5: „The appeal is not grounded. Neither the reason for the appeal regarding the wrong appreciation of the Tribunal that the provisions of Art. 216 and 217 of the aforementioned Law have been violated is not founded either.

In relation to the content of Art. 216 „the shares issued for the increase of the share capital shall be offered for subscription, primarily to the existing shareholders, proportionally to the number of shares they own”; Art. 217 par. 1: „the right of preference of the shareholders may be limited or withdrawn only by the decision of the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders”, par. 2: „the Board of Directors, respectively the directorship, shall make available to the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders a written report specifying the reasons for the limitation or withdrawal of the right of preference. This report shall also explain the manner of determining the issuance value of the shares”, par. (3) “The decision shall be made in the presence of the shareholders representing ¾ of the subscribed share capital with the majority of votes of the shareholders present „and the text of Art. 29 par. 4 of the Second Council Directive of 13.12.1976, which stipulates that: “the right of pre-emption cannot be restricted or withdrawn by statutes or instrument of incorporation”. However, the general assembly may decide on this. The management or management body must submit to this meeting a written report reasoning the limitation or withdrawal of the right of pre-emption, justifying the proposed issuance price” it follows that the limitation or removal of the right of pre-emption can only be done based on a decision of the extraordinary general meeting, with a quorum representing ¾ of the subscribed capital, based on a report of the board of directors, which would reason this decision and justify the proposed issuance price (meaning the rated value of the shares plus an issuance bonus, which would be equal to the rights of the shareholders lacking the right of pre-emption with those of the shareholders who were allowed to participate in the increase), in other words, an increase of the share capital made under the conditions of limiting or eliminating the right of pre-emption can only be done with the issuance bonus”

„The Court notes that the contested decisions, by which the right of pre-emption was removed, by limiting the number of shares held by a shareholder, do not meet any of these conditions, the quorum at the meeting of 27.09.2007 being 67.43% and at the meeting of 06.12.2007 being by 69.19% lower than the legal one. It rejects the appeal declared by Farmec”

Finally, no matter how much perseverance judge R.R. Costea would have manifested, to create the appearance of legality on reasoning the sentence 1191/27.06.2018 to reject the action of the undersigned, there are two legal aspects that cannot be overcome

the increase by 1,000,000 shares occurred by limiting the undersigned’s right to subscribe for new shares at a limitation threshold of 190,000 shares illegally specified in the statues of Farmec, while the undersigned legally held 272,000 shares, and in this case, the judge did not sanction the failure of Farmec SA to comply with the provisions of Art. 216 and 217 of Law 31/1990
the limitation in the statuses may only be valid for the transactions between shareholders in terms of the shares held by each individual but it is forbidden to limit in the statuses a shareholder’s right to subscribe new shares from the new issuance.

3. In the file 1121/1285/2016, no random assignment existed, by transferring the case from judge Voichita Oros to judge Simona Ivanescu, in non-compliance with Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004

The request for recusal of magistrate Simona Ivanescu (see Annex 201) resulted in fining the undersigned by the magistrate Iulian Pacurar (see Annex 202 – conclusion) in the circumstances where previously, Mr. Iulian Pucurar was fined by CSM and as a result of the notification of the undersigned, regarding the fact that he drafted the sentence no. 6791/20.12.2011 AFTER THREE YEARS. Again, it is quite clear to me that the magistrate Pacurar acted under the impulse of the anger caused by the measure applied by the CSM, and the solution he gave to the recusal request is also the result of the same position in relation to the undersigned.

Or, under the conditions where the random assignment provided for in Law 304/2004 in Art. 11 and 139 throughout the trial would have been complied with, the file no. 1121/1285/2016 would not have been assigned to the lady magistrate Simona Ivanescu, the recusal request of Mrs. Ivanescu would not have been necessary and the ACTION of the undersigned would have benefited from an impartial judgment and would have no longer been rejected.

4. The file 3414/1285/2011 has been assigned to the magistrate Voichita Oros (Grunea) in violation of the provisions specified in Art. 83 and 93 of the CSM Decision 387/2005 and Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004, under the conditions where the magistrate Voichita Oros received from Farmec the amount of 10,000 lei, a unique prize.

The magistrate has „randomly” appointed a judicial expert in the file, namely Mirela Pintea, who is the daughter of Dan Pintea – the vicepresident of the Romanian Federation of Locomotive Drivers, affiliated with the Alfa Cartel whose president is Bogdan Iuliu Hosu. Through the request to ANAF, Bogdan Hosu requested that I would be inspected by the companies where I have an interest and that my shares held at Farmec SA would be frozen, according to the excerpt:

„.. we consider that if any deeds of tax evasion to prejudice the state by the minority shareholder were observed, it would be required to initiate a procedure of freezing the shares held by this shareholder at SC Farmec SA and of establishing the possibility of buying them by the shareholders of SC Farmec SA from the state”.

Mirela Pintea has signed an expertise with Marcel Vulpoi that did not reflect the actual operations on the subscription of the shares by the shareholders who paid the shares and the payments of the shareholders for the account of shares and requested me the amount of 75,000 lei as a fee. In the case, the prosecutor’s office of Pitesti ordered the initiation of the criminal prosecution for the deed of false testimony in relation to the expertise in the file.

Flavius Motu rejected the request for abstention of magistrate Oros and refused to notify me of the conclusion.

5. In the criminal case no. 442/1285/2017, magistrate Ancuta Pavelescuviolated the provisions of the law stipulated in Art. 217 par. 1) of Law 31/1990 and Art. 33 of the Second Council Directive 2012[30], which prohibits the limitation threshold in the statuses of the joint stock company, with a six-month delay compared to the deadline to draft the 30-day sentence referred to in Art. 346 Code of Civil Procedure, the judge reasoned the sentence (see the Annex), in relation to which I formulated the appeal (see the Annex), and the case is to be tried by the Court of Appeal of Cluj or another Court of Appeal.

The subject of the case is the action in cancellation of the decision of 11.05.2017 of the shareholders of Farmec SA (see Annex 203 – Action in cancellation) which refers to the limitation threshold included in the statutes on owning shares by a shareholder (respectively by the undersigned) to the share capital of Farmec SA. The action in cancellation in the file 1021/1285/2016 has a close connection with the final decision to be made in the file 442/1285/2017.

6. The file 1110/1285/2016 was assigned to the magistrate Ancuta Pavelescu with the simultaneous violation of the disputes provided in Art. 83 and 93 of the CSM Decision 387/2005 and in Art. 11 and Art. 139 of Law 304/2004 with the result of rejecting the action. Judge Ancuta Pavelescu was also brought by delegation to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, her husband being a prosecutor at the DNA – the department of Cluj.

The examples may continue, regarding the violation of the law at the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj in relation to the litigation between the undersigned and the officials of Farmec SA, headquartered in Cluj.

Failure to comply with the European Law and the Constitution of Romanian is favoured in the absence of the investigations by the National Anticorruption Directorate regarding possible deeds of corruption as a result of the repeated violation of the law by the magistrates, as well as the protocols concluded between the Romanian Intelligence Service and the judicial institutions, a circumstance in relation to which we cannot exclude that these magistrates might enjoy the privilege of exemption from the sanctions provided by the law, based on partnerships and collaborations with certain intelligence service officers, who have a personal interest in Farmec in terms of maintaining illicit operations with the social capital and the patrimony of Farmec SA.

10.6. THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CLUJ

(1) In the file no. 802/1285/2016, through the panel of judges consisting of Andrei Axente Irinel and Mrs. Roxana Mihaela Veres, the Court of Appeal of Cluj has violated my right to a fair trial by rejecting the request (see Annex 206 – request and related annexes) regarding the notification of the High Court of Cassation and Justice on a matter of law, the clarification of which depends on awarding of a solution on the main issue of the matter on trial in relation to which the High Court of Cassation and Justice was to take a decision to solve a legal problem, under conditions where there is no unitary judicial practice, in the sense that the court ruled contradictory legal decisions. The law problem refers to the way of interpreting the secret vote within the general meetings of shareholders in the joint stock company.

The Court of Appeal of Cluj rejected my request (see Annex 206) which was based on the provision of Art. 519 and 520 Code of Civil Procedure, to notify the ICCJ in order to rule a prior decision in order to solve this issue of law, reasoning that the issue is not new. However, the High Court of Cassation and Justice has not ruled previously on this matter of law and contradictory legal decisions have been ruled in court, in relation to which, according to Art. 519 and 520 Code of Civil Procedure^[31] only the High Court of Cassation and Justice can clarify these issues of law.

(2) The President of the Court of Appeal of Cluj, Lady Judge Denisa Baldean, brought judge Razvan Rares Costeaby delegation to the case 1021/1285/2016 to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj.

The subject of the file is the action of cancellation of the AGEA Decision of 19.10.2016 regarding the illegal increase at a price of 2.5 lei per share, undervalued by 30 times, causing a prejudice to the company of over 161,000,000 lei and to the undersigned a prejudice of more than 5,000,000 Euros (25,000,000 lei).

Judge Razvan Rares Costea was appointed president of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj by delegation, after January 2018. Although Art. 57 Par. 6 of Law 303/2004^[32] only allows an extension of the six-month mandate, Razvan Rares Costea has already received three delegation mandates obtained in violation of the law.

The Court of Appeal of Cluj has violated the law on the occasion of delegating the magistrate R.R. Costea for the third time, and the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj has assigned the file 1021/1285/2016 to magistrate R.R. Costea by violating the provisions stipulated in Art. 57 Par. 6) of Law 303/2004.

On the date of the delegation of judge Razvan Rares Costea, 9 (nine) requests for transfer to the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj existed, among which Lady Judge Ana Aldea, who had been serving as judge for 19 years in the magistracy and magistrate Razvan Rares Costea who had been serving as judge for only 6 years.

In relation to the aforementioned considerations, the approval by Mrs. Denisa Baldean, the President of the Court of Appeal of Cluj for judge the Razvan Rares Costea to be brought first as judge by delegation in violation of the Law of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, subsequently R.R. Costea was the SOLE CANDITATE for the position of president of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, the file 1021/1285/2016 was to be assigned to the magistrate R.R. Costea in violation of the provisions stipulated in Art. 83 and 93 of the CSM Decision 387/2005 and Art. 11 of Law 304/2004, the rejection of the requests in the file by R.R. Costea, the rejection of the request for recusal of the magistrate R.R. Costea are arguments that make me believe that there is a causal connection between the lady president of the Court of Appeal of Cluj and the appointment of Judge R.R. Costea as president of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj by delegation, the rejection of the applications of the undersigned and the actions of the Specialised Tribunal and the Court of Appeal of Cluj.

As the Specialised Tribunal and the Court of Appeal of Cluj are in the same building, the files were transferred from the Tribunal to the Court of Appeal at the appropriate date and time when the turn of the appropriate panel of judges came in the ECRIS system.

THE MATTER OF LAW SUBJECT TO CLARIFICATION

Shareholder’s intention in the joint stock company as an accumulation of the shareholders’ wills is exercised by them particularly through voting. A particularity of the vote for certain situations expressly stipulated by the legislator is its secrecy. Thus, Art. 130 Par. (2) of Law no. 31/1990 (Law of companies), stipulates that:

„The secret vote is mandatory for the appointment or revocation of the members of the board of directors, respectively of the members of the supervisory board, for the appointment, revocation or rejection of censors or financial auditors and for making the decisions on the liability of the members of the administration, management and control bodies of the company”.

Related to this legal text, the matter of law that should be dealt with by the High Court of Cassation and Justice has to do with the extent of the secrecy of the vote. In other words, the question that arises is whether the secrecy of the vote is limited only at the time of its expression, or also extends in the stage of counting the votes and even beyond this moment?

CONDITIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY

In order to notify the Supreme Court on a matter of law to be dealt with, the legislator provided a number of conditions of admissibility, detailed in Art. 519 and Art. 520 Code of Civil Procedure:

Art. 519 Code of Civil Procure: “During the trial, should a panel of judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, court of appeal or of the tribunal, vested with the settlement of the case of last resort, observe that a matter of law, the clarification of which depends on on awarding of a solution on the main issue of that matter on trial is new and the High Court of Cassation and Justice has not ruled and is not the subject of an appeal in the interest of the law undergoing settlement, it shall be able to request the High Court of Cassation and Justice to issue a decision to give resolution of principle to the matter of law which it has been notified with.”

(3) The examples at the Court of Appeal on the violation of the Constitution, the Law, and the European Law may continue, regarding the violation of the Right to property, which is not protected by the Right to a fair trial.

10.7. THE TRIBUNAL OF CONSTANTA

1) In the civil file 5494/1285/2009, Judge Luminita Dan, Civil Division II, on the deadline of 18.09.2012, she caused me an injury of the interests but also the patrimonial prejudicewith the amount of 42,650 lei, the expert’s fee before judging the request for the cancellation of the expertise,

because she brought into discussion and approved the request of the appointed expert for raising the fee (please see Annex 207 – the conclusion of 18.09.2012) by 39,650 lei (the equivalent value of 10,000 Euros) before the magistrate would judge the request for the cancellation of the expertise (see Annex 208 – the request of the undersigned of 17.09.2012), in the context where the judge was informed that the expert had drafted the expertise in violation of Art. 208 old Code of Civil Procedure on summoning the party, as well as before judging the request to suspend the trial until the the resolution of the criminal case file 2485/300/2011 (see Annex 209) filed by the plaintiff on 02.04.2012, 170 days before, a request that was subsequently admitted to the file by another magistrate

In fact, the Tribunal of Constanta ordered me to pay 39,650 lei, without a just cause, as a result of the order of the Tribunal of Constanta, this money was collected from my personal account, in addition to the amount of 3,000 lei, without the judge judging the request for cancellation of the expertise (see Annex 210) whereby the trial judge should have first established the reasons regarding the nullity of the expertise, namely the violation by the expert of the procedure provided for in Art. 208 Code of Civil Procedure on the plaintiff’s summons and the fact that the expertise enjoyed the quality audit approval without the opinion of the expert party of the plaintiff, who was neither summoned nor did he receive from the company the documents he had requested.

My opponents „convinced” the trial judge to follow „the FARMEC MODEL” regarding the performance of some „EXPERTISES” by the opposite party, which do not reflect the actual operations, without real documents, but based on extrajudicial reasons, thus causing me an injury of the interests and a patrimonial prejudice and to subsequently persuade judges to accept the expertise in the file as evidence, expertise in relation to which the appointed expert failed to fulfil the legal procedure of summons, the expertise does not solve the objectives set by the court, it does not contain the accounting documents that were requested by the expert based on which the expertise was drawn up, the expertise does not reflect the reality and does not contain the opinion of the expert party of the plaintiff, because he was not summoned to carry out the expertise together with the appointed accounting expert and did not receive documents from Farmec.

2) In the civil file 1514/1285/2012, Judge Adrian Oprea failed to fulfil his own decision,which he had ordered on the hearing term of 26.01.2018, did not order the legal measures for filing the evidence (documents and expertise) which he considered to be conclusive and useful to the civil case.

How much can a vigilante still trust the honour, probity, honesty, professional correctitude of that magistrate who fails to comply with his own decision in the file????

The object of the file is the action for cancellation of the AGEA Decision of 06.08.2012. In order for the magistrate to find out about the relationship of the quorum specified in the minutes of the meeting (subscription and payment requests of the shareholders into the account of the shares) and the legitimacy of the individuals specified in the table of attendance, during the judicial investigation, which lasted 35 trial deadlines, judge Adrian Oprea ordered:

In the conclusion, he ordered the defendant on the hearing term of 06.26.2013 (see annex 230) and of 16/12/2013 to file the register of shares and register of shareholders prepared according to the law, which would contain the payments. The defendant Farmec did not file the register of shares under the excuse it does not have it and the register of shareholders was filed without paymentin violation of the provisions stipulated in Art. 177 par. 1 of Law 31/1990[33] governing that the register of shareholders would be held with the payments of the shareholders for the account of shares;
the judge did not fine the company, nor did he order it provide the registers in legal form, EVIDENCE in the FILE in relation to which the judge considered at the previous hearings that the evidence is conclusive and useful to clarify that civil case 1514, although I proved with documents to the court that at Farmec there is the register of shares and the register of shareholders with payments, respectively the Statutes of Farmec and the job description sheet (Annex 33 7) of the individual who drafted both registers according to the Law,
On the hearing term of 20.06.2014, the judge ordered the evidence with the expertise and set the objective 1 of the expertise: “The identification of the owners and payments made for the account of shares used for expressing the vote on 06.08.2012 and the verification of the compliance with the legal provisions in terms of the accounting, on the transactions with the defendant company’s shares, since the date of privatisation until 06.08.2012”
The evidence with the expertise was to establish based on the accounting documents,

the reality of the requests for the subscription of shares that have been used to vote;
in this regard, the expert party Violeta Radu reveals in the expertise that Farmec has submitted requests for the subscription of only 246,467 shares of 649,318 shares issued on the date of company’s privatisation
the reality of the shareholders’ payments for the account of shares.

In this respect, the register of shareholders with the shareholders’ payments for the account of shares is missing, evidence in the file. There are also missing accounting documents, payment orders and receipts that would reveal the proof of shareholders’ payments for the account of shares, but there is evidence that the shares were paid by Farmec SA. I exemplify – payment orders from Farmec to the Farmec Pas Association (see Annex 7) and excerpt from the register of shareholders as a total of approximately 82,000 shares have been kept at the disposal of the Farmec Pas Association (see Annex 338) and have not been paid by the shareholders, but afterwards most of the shares were transferred on the names of Turdean and Pantea and their family members and were used for voting during the AGA on 06.08.2012.

the legitimacy of the individuals specified in the table of attendance on the occasion of AGEA on 6.08.2012 in the context where there are 167 individuals who bought shares and who violate the provisions stipulated in Art. 8 of the Statutes of Farmec:

„the nominative shares are transferrable only between shareholders…. the shares acquired under the conditions of this instrument of incorporation may be transferred to third parties only through legal inheritance”

The expert appointed by the Tribunal, Marilena Ghita, through the communication of 21.02. 2017 (see Annex 3 39), requested the documents from the defendant Farmec, which are required to do the expertise. Farmec has not submitted the documents in electronic format on stick or via the website established for the documents required for the expertise.
At several hearing terms, the appointed expert Marilena Ghita has informed Judge Adrian Oprea, verbally and in writing, that she has not received the documents she has requested from Farmec (see Annex 340 – the expert’s communication to the Tribunal on the hearing term of 21.02.2017 and that without the register of shareholders with payments she cannot run the expertise, according to the excerpt from the expert’s communication:
“…3. The necessary documents, without which the objectives of the expertise cannot be responded to: the register of shares, the register of shareholders with the payments in the form requested under the GD 885/1995 (which is to include the names of the shareholders, the transactions with shares, the serieial numbers of the shares, the payments made, the type, the number and the date of the documents by which the payments have been made….”.
and according to the expertise excerpt, the expert specified on page 19:

„I mention that, in respect of the payment documents, the defendant has not provided the experts with all the documents by which the payments were made (deduction payrolls, bonus payrolls, receipts, payment orders, etc.)”

The judge did not fine Farmec, according to Art. 187 (1) letter e) the old Code of Civil Procedure[34] and did not force it under Art. 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file the register of shares, the register of shareholders with the shareholders’ payments for the account of shares, evidence not filed requested by both the magistrate and the expert, as well as all the documents requested by the expert, regarding the subscription requests, the shareholders’ payments and the legitimacy of the individuals that the expert asked for and did not receive.
On the hearing of 26.01.2018, Judge Adrian Oprea has ordered to the appointed expert to Intal at his professional headquarter with the party experts and lawyers of the parties and to request the documents necessary for the expertise and not yet received and the defendant to send them in electronic format
Between the hearing terms, the appointed expert did not call the parties, failed to fulfil the aforementioned decision, given on the previous deadline, but was instructed to say on the next deadline they can conduct an expertise without the documents they previously considered to be necessary, though by the communication of 21.02.2017, they informed the court that the objectives of the expertise cannot be responded to without the register of shares and the register of shareholders with payments the form required by the Law, according to the excerpt from the aforementioned appointed expert’s communication.

On 16.02.2018 the judge Adrian Oprea has been infofmed by the plaintiff for the hearing term of 21.02.2018, in relation to the fact that expert and the defendant did not comply with the previously given legal decision through the following two requests:

the party expert Violeta Radu filed the request of 16.02.2018 (see Annex 212), by which she indicated to the court that the appointed expert failed to comply and call the party experts and the lawyers, nor did the defendant company prove it provided the expertise with the documents not receivedand attached the list of documents not received (see Annex 213) to the request addressed to the court, as well as the documents that had been requested by the appointed expert in previous requests (see Annex 214) and have not yet been received, but in relation to which there is evidence that Farmec owns them but refuses to submit them, for example the register of shares, the register of shareholders with payments, according to the GD 885/1995 and Art. 177 of Law 31/1990[35], where the type of document, document number, the date, and the value of the shareholders’ payment would be shown. The company did not submit the shareholders’ accounting payment documents, for the account of shares that certify the shareholders’ payments (payment orders, receipts).

on the same day, the plaintiff filed the request (see Annex 215) by which he has informed the court that the orders given by the judge on the previous hearing term have not been fulfilled, in accordance with the failure to meet the decision of 26.1.2018 and the undersigned, I have informed and asked the judge to fine the Farmec company and the appointed expert and to order providing the expertise with the documents that have been requested by the appointed expert and not yet received and to set a reasonable deadline for drafting the expertise

Because on the hearing of 21.02.2018 judge Adrian Oprearefused to order the legal actions that would determine the fulfilment of his own order, which he had given on the hearing of 26.01.2018, we have requested, based on Art. 230 the Code of Civil Procedure a request to change the hearing term (see Annex 216) to order the defendant Farmec the legal measures on providing the experts with the documents not received, before the expert would present in the file the responses to the objectives of the expertise, in the absence of the documents that the expert considered as necessary but did not receive them.
In the absence of the judge’s orders that would lead to the compliance with the decision he gave on the hearing term of 26.01.2018, on 5.04.2018, the appointed expert Marilena Ghitafiled the incomplete „expertise” (see Annex 217), which states on page 19 that she has not received all the documents, according to the excerpt:

„I mention that in relation to the payment documents, the defendant has not provided the experts with all the documents by means of which the payments have been made (deduction payrolls, bonus payrolls, receipts, payment orders, etc.) taking into account that until the date of this Report, the expert is not in the possession of all the documents regarding the payments, despite the actions taken on the hearing term of 26.01.2018, the expert informed the court that he is unable to formulate a pertinent response regarding the payment of the shares…”

Thus, as the expert Marilena Ghita points out in his communication to the Tribunal on 22.01.2018:

„However, the expert is unable to formulate a clear and complete opinion on the component 1.2 of the objective 1 – „The identification of the payments made into the account of the actions used”, justified by the impossibility of finalising the actions of reconstructing the analytical evidence in a reasonable time horizon”,

Thus, for reasons and arguments that exceed the civil case, the judge agreed that the expertise does not solve the objectives of the expertise no. 1 and implicitly the objective no. 4, as they have been set by the court, which were requested by the appointed expert because the defendant company did not provide the expertise with the documents, which would prove the payment of the shares by the shareholders, nor the analytical accounting records by each individual shareholder regarding the payments, did not submit the register of shares at all, although the GD 885/1995 establishes (see Annex 218 – the table heading governing the way of bookkeeping) and the register of shareholders submitted does not contain the payments and is not drafted in compliance with Art. 177 of the Law 31/1990 and the GD 885/1995.

On the hearing term of 24.04.2018, I, the plaintiff, have filed the request (see Annex 219) by means of which I requested that the expertise is re-performed, fining the defendant and the expert and forcing the defendant to provide the documents not received via the electronic link established as a result the court order for the documents required for the expertise, as the magistrate has ordered on the previous deadlines.
I have informed the Tribunal that the expertise does not solve the objective 1 set by the Tribunal and it does not bring any novelty to use, and in the absence of the accounting documents required by the expert Marilena Ghitaaccording to the professional rule of CECCAR, the expertise should have been called the Explanatory Note in relation to the impossibility of signing the report of judicial accounting expertise.
THE CONTRARIETY between the judge who points out in the conclusion of 09.05.2018 that the appointed expert received all the documents they requested: “From this point of view, it should be noted that the expert grounded their opinions exclusively on the documentary material provided by the parties, other specifications not being required” and the appointed expert who specifies in the expertise (see Annex) on page 24 that he did not receive the documents they have requested, according to the excerpt: „In the context of the absence of the analytical accounting records, by each shareholder, of the absence of the register of shares and the presentation of a register of shareholders that does not include the payments made by the shareholders, the expert tried to reconstruct the analytical records by each shareholder starting with the privatisation until 06.08.2012”.
The judge ignored the fact circumstance that in the written notes of 09.05.2018 the plaintiff pointed out that the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in the irrevocable decision no. 2390/2008 (see annex 224) distinguished between the payments made by the company or by other individuals other than the shareholders, for the account of shares and payments made by shareholders, for the account of shares and consequently ICCJ considered such payments to be illegal (see Annex 223 – Payment Order since 1995, Farmec to the Farmec Pas Association) which were made for the account of shares by the company or by other individuals other than the shareholders in question and cancelled them, according to the decision excerpt:

However, the appointed expert showed only in the expertise only the fact that the shares on the date of company’s privatisation were paid to FPS and FPP without identifying whether they were paid by the shareholders or by Farmec or other individuals different than the shareholders.

Expert Ghita, in the communication no. 17/22.01.2018, states that she was unable to verify whether the shares have been paid by the shareholders who voted with them. Thus: “…At this time, the expert cannot formulate a relevant answer regarding the payments made by each of the shareholders”

The decision no. 522/2007 of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest (see Annex 225) cancels the AGEA decision of 22.10.2004 because 40,281 shares were not subscribed:

On the same principle, the shares unsubscribed as of the date of privatisation, as well as from the issuances of shares, should not have been used for voting.

The fact that the shares were paid to FPP and FPS is clear because otherwise the privatisation of the company would not have been achieved. This aspect of the obligation to pay the shares was stipulated in the contracts with the FPP and FPS as the appointed expert also specifies in the expertise:

„The FPS shares. For the purchase of FPS shares, the contract no. 269/17.05.1995 was concluded under the following conditions:

The shares constituted as guarantee shall be delivered and frozen on behalf of FPS at the company’s headquarters until the date of making the full payment of the due amounts by purchaser, according to the contract 269/17.06.1995”
The FPP shares. For the purchase of FPP shares the contract 243/15.06.1995 was concluded under the following conditions:

Art. 7.9 until the full reimbursement of the due amounts.

Art. 7.6 the purchaser undertakes to pay the price under the conditions stipulated in Art. 4 plus the due dividends”.

The judge WRONGLY noted that the appointed expert did the company’s accounting again (see Annex 220, page 2 of the conclusion of 09.05.2018): „the expert reconstituted the analytical records by each shareholder, since the privatisation until 6.08.2012„, in relation to the conclusion of the appointed expert who specified in the communication to the court on 22.01.2018 (see Annex 226):

„However, the expert is unable to formulate a clear and complete opinion on the component 1.2 of the objective 1 – „The identification of the payments made into the account of the actions used”, justified by the impossibility of finalising the actions of reconstructing the analytical evidence in a reasonable time horizon”,

and on page 14 of the expertise report:

„In the context of the absence of the analytical accounting records, by each shareholder, of the absence of the register of shares and the presentation of a register of shareholders that does not include the payments made by the shareholders, the expert tried to reconstruct the analytical records by each shareholder starting with the privatisation until 06.08.2012”.

By the conclusion of 09.05.2018, the judge WRONGLY noted, in relation to the appointed expert’s conclusions and the plaintiff’s written notes. Thus,

The magistrate noted on page 3 (see Annex 220):

„By verifying the succession of the procedural documents and how the expert grounded her response to the objectives agreed on the hearing term of 18.06.2014, it is obvious she expressed clear opinions on the specialised aspects under discussion, there being a full concordance between the objectives and answers; to the extent that each response is justified by considerations set out in a broader way, with reference to incidental legislation, NO ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS or a contrary expertise ARE REQUIRED.

From this point of view, it should be noted that the expert grounded their opinions exclusively on the documentary material provided by the parties, other specifications not being required”

However, the appointed expert points out the opposite in the communication of 22.01.2018 to the Tribunal:

and on page 19 of the expertise:

The plaintiff points out in the written notes for the hearing term of 09.05.2018 (see Annex 222) at item 9: Considerations of the expert Violeta Radu to the conclusions of the party expert Marcel Vulpoi, which are specified. In the Objective 1 expertise report, the party expert Violeta Radu mentions on page 44 that:

„In the opinion of the counsellor expert Violeta Radu, the consequences of drawing up an expertise report without studying/in the absence of appropriate documents consist in the expert’s formulation of some conclusions deeply vitiated by the lack of verification of documents evidencing the payments made by the shareholders into the account of subscribed shares.”

The magistrate has permanently avoided the measure provided by the law for binding the defendant to submit the documents necessary and useful to clarify the case and has not sanctioned the company at the same time with the order that the defendant would provide the expertise with the documents that have been requested by the appointed expert. During 34 trial hearings, although the judge was informed that the defendant did not send via the electronic link the documents requested by the experts, the judge only fined the appointed expert and not also the company, therefore the judge was informed about the refusal of the defendant Farmec to provide the expertise with the documents requested by the appointed expert through the requests for documentation of 17.02.2017, 01.03.2017, 06.02.2018 (see Annex 214);
The appointed expert specified in the communication to the court on 22 January 2018 (see Annex 226):

“…At this time, the expert cannot formulate a relevant answer regarding the payments made by each of the shareholders.”

The appointed expert specified in the expertise on page 19 (see Annex 217) that he has not received the documents requested: „taking into account that until the date of this Report, the expert is not in the possession of all the documents regarding the payments, despite the actions taken, on the hearing term of 26.01.2018 the expert informed the court that he is unable to formulate a pertinent response regarding the payment of the shares.”
The appointed expert pointed out before the judge on the hearing term of 21.02.2018 that he did not receive the accounting documents regarding the shareholders’ payments for the account of shares;

Excerpt from the transcript of the hearing of 21.02.2018:

Lawyer Toni Bobe: „The party expert has the same documents as the Lady expert, not all the documents that she has requested from Farmec have been submitted”

Lady expert Marilena Ghita: „Yes, yes”

The party expert Violeta Radu presented to the judge on 16.02.2018 the list of documents that were requested by the appointed expert, which were not received, the judge ordered Farmec to file on 26.01.2018 the documents not received:

„Taking into account the debates in today’s hearing related to the evidence required by the expert, the court reminds that only the appointed accounting expert establishes the necessary evidence, as well as the fact that he is bound to submit any examined documents also to the party – experts. In order to determine whether certain documents were not submitted to the party experts by the appointed expert, the court shall determine that on 31.01.2018 at 12.00, the accounting expert shall draft during a common meeting with the party experts and with the selected lawyers the material examined, the documents described punctually – if any – which have not been submitted also to the party – experts, as well as the documents requested by the defendant company and not yet received.”

She intimates the selected lawyers of the company to inform the party it is bound to submit these documents to the expert in electronic format and to make a proof in this regard”

3) The judge was substituted to the appointed expert, meaning that he accepted the expertise as evidence in the file, ignoring the fact that the appointed expert noted that the expertise cannot be drafted in the absence of the following documents, according to the excerpt from the expert’s communication to the Tribunal of 21.02.2017 (see Annex 232):

“…3. The necessary documents, without which the objectives of the expertise cannot be responded to: the register of shares, the register of shareholders with the payments in the form requested under the GD 885/1995 (which is to include the names of the shareholders, the transactions with shares, the serieial numbers of the shares, the payments made, the type, the number and the date of the documents by which the payments have been made….”.

Failure to solve Objective 1 of the expertise, AS EVIDENCE IN THE FILE, in relation to “the identification of HOLDERS and payments for the account of shares…” leads by itself to acknowledging the fake existence of individuals in the table of attendance. However, according to „dex” (Romanian dictionary), OWNER means an individual who enjoys a legal right and the LEGITIMACY of the individual must be verified through the payment documents of the shareholders certifying the property.

What kind of expertise is that which is based on the documents censored by the defendant party and the plaintiff is going to pay as evidence in the file? What is the usefulness of such a judicial expertise in the case, under the conditions where the expert himself considers that he cannot formulate a „pertinent response to the payment of shares”? Where is the feature of scientific work of a judicial expertise report? Where is the right to property?

In view of the aforementioned considerations, we cannot dissociate the repeated lack of judge’s legal measures on sanctioning and forcing the Farmec company to submit the documents that were requested by the appointed expert,

the judge’s conclusions that the appointed expert received all documents, conclusions contrary to the appointed expert’s conclusions
the obvious ignorance of the expert’s conclusions formulated by the appointed expert against the opposite party regarding the payment by the company and not by the shareholders of the shares of Farmec acquired by them under illegal conditions
prejudicing the right to request an expertise supplement as a consequence of the fact that the judge noted on page 3 of the conclusion of 09.05.2018 (see Annex 220) that he has no queries, thus: “…to the extent that each response is justified by considerations set out in a broader way, with reference to the incidental legislation, no additional clarifications or a contrary expertise are required”
judge’s failure to fulfil the provision stipulated in Art. 129 par. 5 Code of Civil Procedure and the nonexistent of the desire to find out the truth in question by not forcing the defendant to provide the documents required for the expertise is the tacit acceptance, for the expert to submit a formal response to Objective 1: “the identification of owners and payments made into the account of the shares used for voting on 06.08.2012”, a circumstance that favours the defendant’s officials, who used an unrealistic quorum to vote, compared to the tables of attendance presented in the file

At the hearing term of 13.06.2018, I filed written notes in relation to the exception of the res judicata regarding the decision of the ICCJ no. 2390/2008 (see Annex 332), request for objections to be clarified in an expertise supplement (see Annex 333), request for the court appearance of the experts to give clarifications (see Annex 333)

and the request for recusal of magistrate Adrian Oprea (see Annex 334), given that there are several indications that the judge has prejudged in terms of afore-mentioned requests, which are to be judged and contribute to finding the truth in the case during the judicial investigation period

The admission of lawyer Claudiu Brehar in the file coincides with the fact that:

– Judge Adrian Oprea did not apply to the defendant Farmec the fine stipulated in the law, in relation to the refusal of the defendant to file the register of shares and the register of shareholders in the form stipulated by the law, although the defendant has this evidence.

– Judge Adrian Oprea did not apply the fine to Farmec as a result of the fact that on the hearing term of 21.02.2017, the expert Marilena Ghita informed the court she has not received the documents necessary for the expertise and also rejected the request of the undersigned to fine the defendant

At the Tribunal of Constanta, Judge Iolanda Aida Slate rejected the request for recusal of magistrate Adrian Oprea (please also read the request in Annex 334) by the conclusion of 26.01.2018 (please also read the conclusion in annex 211), provided that the judge has noted on page 6

„In this case, related to the fact that the judge had ordered the performance of an expertise and this was done without the expert having available certain documents considered by the petitioner to be relevant, but also the fact that the judge rejected the request for performing a new expertise, cannot be reasons for impartiality…………………

In that regard, the court finds that the parties’ doubt regarding the impartiality of the judge appointed to solve the case must result from actual facts and hence to not merely be the fruit of the parties’ imagination or deduced from the misunderstood statements or from a purely subjective interpretation of the parties”

In the aforementioned conclusion, Judge Aida Slate falsely noted the following:

(1) „…the expert should have available certain documents considered by the petitioner to be relevant…”

I consider it is untrue that the documents necessary for the expertise were assessed by the plaintiff to be relevant, because the request for recusal highlights on page 3 that the appointed expert requested from the defendant the documents necessary for the expertise, by the request for documents of 21.02.2017 (please also read the appointed expert’s request for documents in Annex 232), according to the excerpt on page 3 of the request for recusal, specified in the box below:

On the hearing term of 21.02.2017, by the communication to the Tribunal, the appointed expert stated he cannot carry out the expertise in the absence of the documents required by the expert according to the excerpt:

and according to the expertise excerpt, the expert specifies on page 19:

„I mention that, in terms of the payment documents, the defendant has not provided the experts with all the documents by which the payments were made (deduction payrolls, bonus payrolls, receipts, payment orders, etc.)”

The trial judge, Adrian Oprea, ordered the defendant by the conclusion even since the hearing term of 23.09.2015, in relation to the documents requested by the appointed expert, which documents were submitted and which documents were not given to the expert, according to the excerpt from the conclusion specified below

„The court informs the defendant through the lawyer that in relation to the 8 types of documents requested by the expert’s communication, to indicate what documents he has delivered and what documents he has not delivered in relation to the reports on the delivery and reception of the documents”

on the hearing term of 26.01.2018, the judge ordered the experts and the defendant the following measures regarding the electronic delivery of the documents required for the expertise, which were requested by the appointed expert and the defendant party has NOT provided for the expertiseaccording to the excerpt:

“… the court shall determine that on 31.01.2018 at 12.00, the accounting expert shall draft during a common meeting with the party experts and with the selected lawyers the material examined, the documents described punctually – if any – which have not been submitted also to the party – experts, as well as the documents requested by the defendant company and not yet received. It intimates the selected lawyers of the defendant company to inform the party that is bound to submit these documents to the expert in electronic format and to make a proof in this regard”.

Or, the decision of Judge Adrian Oprea of 26.01.2018 was not fulfilled by the appointed expert nor by the defendant nor by the trial judge himself who ordered it.

On the next hearing term, the court, under Art. 129 par. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure should have ordered fining the company and to intimate it to file the register of shares, the register of shareholders with the information provided in Art. 177 par. 1 of the Law 31/1990, as well as the documents that were requested by the appointed expert in the communication of February 2017 and not yet received.

(2) The Judge Aida Slate’s note is untrue, who rejected the request for recusal of the trial judge Adrian Oprea, that the plaintiff has specified that the reason of impartiality recusal consists in the judge’s rejection of the request to carry out a new expertise. „… but also the fact that the judge has rejected the request to carry out a new expertise cannot be reasons for impartiality…”

Because on page 5 of the request for recusal, the reason of Judge Adrian Oprea’s prejudgement is completely different highlighted, which is why Judge Aida Slate presents it in an obviously wrong way. Thus, judge Adrian Oprea stated in the conclusion of 09.05.2018:

„By verifying the succession of the procedural documents and how the expert grounded her response to the objectives agreed on the hearing term of 18.06.2014…… no additional clarifications or a contrary expertise are required.”

On this occasion, the trial Judge, Adrian Oprea rejected the request for a new expertise, which was the subject of the debate in the meeting of 09.05.2018, but the judge prejudged and also rejected the request for a supplement of expertise which at that time had not yet been drafted nor had it yet been the subject of oral and contradictory debate.

In relation to the aforementioned considerations, sad but true, it is obvious that both magistrates have easily deviated from their obligation of service established in Art. 129 par. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, „judges have the duty to insist by all legal means in order to prevent any error on finding the truth in this case, based on establishing the facts and by correctly applying the law…”

Or, in this case, the interpretation of Judge Iolanda Aida Slate in relation to the matters of impartiality as they are mentioned in the request for recusal with an overwhelming evidence and the non-observance and non-fulfilment by Judge Adrian Oprea of his own decisions that were made when setting the objectives of the expertise and on 26.01.2018 on the occasion of Farmec failing to provide the documents that the appointed expert requested from Farmec is obviously wrong and these are for me enough arguments that the decisions of both magistrates exceed the judicial rationales in the file and were taken in another environment. From this perspective, the issues of irregularity regarding the shares used to vote at the Agea decision of 06.08.2012 were not clarified during the legal investigation, a decision that is the subject to the legal investigation, which were not clarified in the judicial investigation and were not subscribed by the shareholders, but by Farmec and the individuals listed in the table of attendance but who are not shareholders because they violate Art. 8[36] of the States of Farmec.

The injustice of the trial thus prefigured is even greater as for 35 hearing terms were, time and money efforts were unnecessarily consumed, without finding out the truth, following to also pay the expert fees for an evidence with the expertise that does NOT bring ANY NOVELTY!

Finally, I believe that the resolution of the case by the judge, without the documents that the judge and the appointed expert considered as evidence in the file or documents without which the response to objective 1 of the expertise cannot be drafted. In the absence of clarifications based on documents and evidence, even a solution for admitting the action cannot be maintained by the court of appeal. And in this case, the magistrate is bound, under Art. 129 par. 5 Code of Civil Procedure[37] , to insist and order the legal sanction stipulated in Art. 187 par. 1 letter e) of the Code of Civil Procedure and to order measures for filing the required documents or for explicit clarifications with the defendant regarding the following:

the register of shareholders approved by the magistrate as evidence in relation to which I presented evidence that the officials of Farmec have it
the register of shareholders with payments of the shareholders for the account of shares, according to Art. 177 of law 31 which the company has but did not file (according to the evidence attached)
the requests for the subscription of shares that have been used to vote in AGA on 06.08.2012
the payment documents, payment orders and receipts of each shareholder for the account of shares
the note with explanations made by experts to clarify the illegitimacy of 167 individuals listed in the table of attendance and are not shareholders in compliance with the provisions of Art. 8 of the Statutes of Farmec: „the nominative shares are transferrable only between shareholders”…. “the shares acquired under the conditions of this instrument of incorporation may be transferred to third parties only through legal inheritance”.
From the perspective of all these considerations, the right to property in Romania mentioned in the CONSTITUTION remains only a promise in the justice books because it is not institutionally protected by effectively assuring the right to a fair trial, which is why I notify the European Commission and all MEPs with all the evidence, so that they observe that the right to property and access to a fair trial is systemically absent in the cases where the intelligence service officers have an interest.

10.8. THE SPECIALISED TRIBUNAL OF ARGEȘ

At the Specialised Tribunal of Argeş occurred my „EXECUTION” in the file no. 3414/1285/2011, the object of which was the undersigned’s action for the cancellation of the decision of AGA Farmec SA of 14.07.2011 regarding the management release of administrators based on cancelled management registers and the presentation to shareholders of erroneous financial statements, a decision adopted based on the vote of some individuals who did not have the legal capacity of shareholders, using shares unsubscribed and unpaid by the shareholders for voting, in violation of the provisions of Art. 8 of the Statutes of Farmec and the imperative provisions of Law 31/1190.

1) The Specialised Tribunal of Argeş was invested in resolving this case as a result of request for transfer drafted by the officials of Farmec (see Annex 168), which was the subject of file no. 1312/1/2015 of the ÎCCJ and was admitted by the panel of judges consisting of the magistrates Constantin Branzan, Marian Buda, Eugenia Voicheci (the latter being the president of the Civil Division II of ICCJ), under the conditions where:

the assignment of the case by panels of judges was not done on the same day as the date of filing into the supreme court (which did not provide me with the proof for the random assignment – see Annex 169 and Annex 170), in violation of the provisions of Art. 83 and Art. 93 of the CSM Decision 387/2005 and the provision stipulated in Art. 11 of Law 304/2004, which regulates the random assignment of each request, but a one-day time interval was waited for in order to be assigned to a particular panel of judges to decide on the transfer and assignment of the file no. 3414/1285/2011 at a certain court. Thus,
the plaintiff’s request did not include any reason that the undersigned, I would have influenced or could have influenced in any way the courts in Cluj County
prior to admitting this request in terms of the same case, the ÎCCJ rejected 3 requests for transfer drafted by the undersigned (see Annexes 165-166-167) and which were subject to the files no. 8167/1/2011 (request rejected by the magistrates Moglan Raluca, Nestor Beatrice and Susanu Rodica) no. 5136/1/2012 (request rejected by the magistrates Curelea Lavinia, president of Civil Division I, Nicolae Adina and Tarcea Iulia, current president of the ICCJ) and no. 659/1/2013 (request rejected by the magistrates Susanu Rodica, Floarea Elena and Aurelia Rusu)

2) In view of these considerations, it is fully justifiable to suspect that the transfer of file no. 3414/1285/2011 to the Specialised Tribunal of Argeş was done with the projection that the judges of this court shall continue to refuse the requests of the undersigned and to sentence decisions favourable to the defendant, by ignoring and failing to fulfil the measures and court orders previously adopted in the file that would have helped to find out the truth, contrary to the fraudulent interests of Farmec officials whose activity was subject to the judicial control but also in relation to the following relevant elements observed during the period when the file was pending before the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj:

at the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, the file no. 3414/1285/2011 was assigned in violation of the provisions on the random assignment on the same day as the date of filing the court’s writ of summons, with the consequence of assigning the case to a particular judge, namely magistrate Voichita Oros, a person who has previously received 10,000 lei from the company FARMEC SA, in the form of a unique prize (see Annex 138 – the wealth statement)
the request for recusal I have formulated fully grounded (see Annex 233) was rejected by the judge Flavius Moţu, the President of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj and the wedding GODFATHER of one of the managers of Farmec SA (see Annex 234 – the Conclusion)
The Specialised Tribunal of Cluj rejected the requests for evidence with documents, but agreed to carry out two expertises, one on the management of the company for the period of 7 years regarding the management release of administrators Turdean and Pântea and the second regarding the legality of the shares and shareholders who participated in the voting process on 14.07.2011, according to the data given in the table of attendance and which results from the minutes of the meeting, expertises admitted in the context where I made it public, by the request of Annex 235, that the magistrate Voice Oros received from Farmec SA the sum of 10,000 lei, and subsequently rejected the requests for evidence with the documents of the undersigned

3) At the Specialised Tribunal of Argeș, magistrate Ruxandra Maria Ionescu, as President of this court, assigned the file no. 3414/1285/2011 to herself, in violation of the provisions of Art. 83 and Art. 93 of the CSM Decision no. 387/2005, and Article 11 of Law 304/2004, which governs the random assignment and establishes the obligation of assigning the file on the same day as the date of filing it to the court, although by the decision of transfer, the ÎCCJ ordered „that it maintains the provisions and measures that have been ordered previously” in the case, the President of the Specialised Tribunal of Argeş reverted to the evidence with the expertise on the company’s management, ignoring the fact that this has been in progress for two years, and that 18 volumes in the file contained evidence showing indications of fictitious registrations in the annual records of Farmec and which can only be used in the context of an expertise.

Moreover, this evidence was also ignored by the Tribunal in the decision adopted in the file, predictably in favour of Farmec and to protect the interests of its officials, as the lack of any probative value of the expertise was also ignored regarding the illegality of the quorum at the AGEA on 14.07.2011, under the conditions where it was done in violation of legal and professional rules, resulting in the violation of the right of the undersigned to a fair trial and the report drafted and signed only by the appointed expert Mirela Pintea and Marcel Vulpoi and Ioan Culda, counsellor experts and of the defendant Farmec does NOT reflect the real operations of the company, does not solve the objectives set by the court and it has inconsistencies that do not correspond to the reality, as it results from the following significant aspects:

the expertise signed by Mirela Pintea, the appointed expert, Marcel Vulpoi and Ioan Culda, the party experts of Farmec SA, is a document falsely drafted and signed by these experts from the perspective of the fact that in the chapter titled Conclusions, it is specified that the quorum by which the AGEA decision of 14.07.2011 was taken is legal, a situation that does not correspond to the reality and to the documents invoked to support it
the expertise does not reveal the documents on the shareholders’ requests for subscription nor the receipts or payment orders proving the payments made by each shareholder into the account of subscribed shares, in the context where it results from the payment documents that the shares have been paid by Farmec for a significant part of the shareholders (see Annex 7 – payment orders of Farmec to the Farmec Pas Association)
the opinion of the experts party of the plaintiff, Violeta Radu and Vaduva Elena, could not be drawn upbecause they did not receive from Farmec the documents required for the expertise (see Annex 236 – experts’ request to the Tribunal of 25.04.2016), a situation also observed by the Specialised Tribunal of Argeş on 30.03.2016, when it even sanctioned the company and ordered it to submit the documents requested by the party experts, according to the excerpt from the conclusion on the hearing term of 27.04.2016:

„Taking into account the request of the party experts referred to in the provision given in the closure of 30.03.2016, the court observes that this obligation has not been fulfilled, the justifying payment documents for the money transfers not being made available to all the experts and under the Art. 187 par. 1 item 2 letter e of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the manager of the defendant unit, the company Farmec SA a civil fine amounting 500 lei and it also orders to force this company to make available the justifying documents requested by the counselling experts of the plaintiff.”

following this decision of the magistrate Valeriu Copae, the judges who followed in the case did not fulfil this order nor did they ensure the context for experts party of the undersigned-plaintiff to receive the requested documents even though they have drawn up and filed the Note on the impossibility to carry out the expertise (see Annex 223) as a result of the fact that the company did not submit to them the documents necessary for the expertise, ruling in this case by taking into account the opinions of the appointed expert Mirela Pintea and of the experts party of the defendant, Marcel Vulpoi/Ioan Culda, who claimed to have received all the documents, under the conditions where the expertise does not reflect the reality
the trial judge did not comply with the decisions of the Tribunal of Arges itself, which were filed in the case, namely that of the hearing term of 22.06.2016, when the court ordered:

„..the expert of the case to prove that all the documents have also come into the possession of the party experts..”, and the one on the hearing term of 18.05.2016, when it was ordered:

however, without having fulfilled these provisions by the appointed expert, the judge accepted as evidence the expertise signed by Pintea Mirela, Vulpoi Marcel and Ioan Culda, ruling exclusively in the case by taking into account the opinions of the appointed expert and of the experts party of the defendant, who claimed to have received all the documents, under the conditions where the expertise does not reflect the reality, and the counsellor experts of the undersigned did not have access to all the documents necessary to carry out the expertise

during the period when the civil case was postponed for ruling, the trial judge ignored the plaintiff’s request for re-docketing that case (see annex 237) in order to suspend the trial as a result of the fact that in the criminal case no. 3680/P/2017 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Pitești, it was ordered to initiate the criminal prosecution for the crime of false testimony, provided by Art. 273 Par. 2 of the Criminal Code (see Annex 238 – police certificate) in relation to the irregularities contained in the expertise submitted in the civil case 3414/1285/2011.
The „credibility” the accounting expert Mirela Pintea enjoyed from the trial judge may be justified by the fact that it was assigned in the civil case no. 3414/1285/2011 even since the Special Tribunal of Cluj, by the magistrate Oros Voichita the one who received from Farmec the amount of 10,000 lei, a unique prize in return for a an SMS (see Annex 138 – wealth statement), and the father of the expert appointed by him, namely Dan Pintea, has the capacity of vice-president of the Union of Locomotive Engineers, which is part of the „Cartel Alfa”, the president of which is Bogdan Hossu, who made an intervention at ANAF, through the request no. 1924/12.09.2013 (see Annex 42), and asked the ANAF President to order a control at the company where the undersigned, I have an interest and to take my shares I own at Farmec SA, which they would later on sell to the employees of Farmec SA.

10.9. THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PITEȘTI

The resolution by the Court of Appeal of Pitesti of the undersigned’s appeal (see Annex 239) in the civil case no. 3414/1285/2011 was just an act of accomplishing my „EXECUTION”, carried out by the Specialised Tribunal of Argeş when hearing on the merits of the case.

1) The magistrates Adina Fundatureanu, Denisa Vâlvoi and Dumitru Vaduva, members of the panel of judges of the Court of Appeal of Pitesti, invested with the settlement of the remedy at law of the appeal, did not conduct a judgment but ruled a decision that was prefigured prior to the meeting, namely a certain solution prepared and discussed in a different context than the civil proceedings, which was materialised, as I anticipated, in rejecting the undersigned’s appeal, admitting the appeal of Farmec SA, admitting the appeal formulated by the expert Pintea Mirela and forcing me to pay a an expert fee difference of approx. 60,000 lei, in addition to the amount of 15,032 lei expert fee I paid undeservedly, as a result of the order of the Specialised Tribunal of Arges, while the expertise in case does not reflect the reality, does not solve the objectives, and the party experts Violeta Radu and Elena Vaduva did not receive the required documents and the magistrate Valer Copae observed the lack of documents, fined the defendant, ordered that the documents would be submitted in electronic format, but on the following hearing terms, the judges refused to fulfil this decision that was given in the case.

Thus, on the hearing term of 10.10.2017, even since the opening of the hearing, the president of the panel of judges stated that „today the court postpones ruling the case” without any of the parties’ lawyers to have spoken a word (see Annex 240 – the note for the transcription of the hearing session).

Regarding the circumstance that by the request for appeal (in the case 3414/1285/20111 – see annex 241), I requested the administration of evidence with new documents and the president of the panel of judges said since the beginning that the court postpones ruling the case, it means that, without hearing the argument in contradiction based on the utility and conclusiveness of the evidence, the court prefigured the rejection of any evidence with documents, which is equivalent to the fact that the judges have already given their opinion on the case and the „conviction” of the magistrates regarding the rejection of the request for evidence with documents was created outside the legal framework, in violation of the provisions stipulated in Art. 127¹ and 129 par. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure[38].

If the evidence proposed by the undersigned would have been administered, I would have proven that the assignment of the case was not done on the same day as the date of filing the case into the archive, because the president of the Specialised Tribunal of Argeș, knowing the cycling and order of assigning the files by panels of judges within the Ecris system, has waited until the assignment of other files, the turn of the panel of judges consisting of exactly themselves to assign the case to them was to come afterwards in the Ecris system, and under these conditions, we cannot deem the assignment to be random, but a directed one.

However, failure to observe the principle of random assignment (consecrated in Art. 11 and Art. 139 of Law 304/2004), both at the Specialised Tribunal of Arges and at the Court of Appeal of Pitesti, as well as a result of the fact that the file was not distributed on the same day as the date of filing the case to court (which is a violation of Art. 83 and 93 par. 1 of the SCM Decision no. 387/2005), is a reason for absolute nullity of the appealed judgment and of the entire judgment of the court of first instance, with the consequence of cancelling the sentence and submission for retrial, and the rejection of the evidence to prove this reason of absolute nullity is a prejudge by the judges regarding this reason of appeal. But the aforementioned appeal panel of judges did not manifest this concern by magistrates, but by using the magistrate robe they only sought to prejudice my patrimony, to learn my lesson, to apply a „correction” to me worth 70,000 lei, the excessive and unjustified cost of an expertise that only shows untrue aspects.

2) The rejection of the request for suspending the trial until the resolution of the criminal trial under Art. 244 of the Old Code of Civil Procedure, having as object the criminal prosecution for committing the deed of false testimony by the expert Pintea Mirela, who drew up and ordered the expertise at the Specialised Tribunal of Arges, is another reason for prejudicing the case, also emphasised by the fact that the proposal of the defendant’s lawyer was embraced, and the panel of judges recommended that, after the criminal trial has been resolved, we should promote a request for a review, a situation to which we are asking you to observe not only the conviction of the panel of judges that the cause should have been judged on that day, but also the excessive rush to solve the appeal on the hearing deadline of 10.10.2017.

Moreover, the court of appeal also ignored the fact that the court of first instance did not order the clarification of the objections to the expertise report formulated by the undersigned nor did it order, under Art. 211 Old Code of Civil Procedure, to bring the expert to court in order to provide verbal clarifications, thus violating the provisions of Art.129 par. 5 of the Old Code of Civil Procedure on taking all necessary measures to find the truth.

3) The excessive rush to judge the substance of the case was also manifested by the fact that the challenged panel of judges was created (consisting of the magistrates Nuta Cortina, Chiornita Gabriela and Ursula Sanda) and it was decided to judge the request for recusal on the same day of 10.10.2017, only one hour and a half since it was drafted, namely at 12.30, the decision being of rejection, otherwise predictable, as long as the president of the challenged panel of judges suspended the case and specified we meet again after the resolution of the request for recusal.

The magistrates Nuta Corina, Chiornita Gabriela and Ursula Sanda, from the Court of Appeal of Pitesti, have also shown an excess of celerity, unmotivated objectively, for judging and rejecting as fast as possible the request for recusal formulated against the appeal panel of judges, even in violation of the legal procedures (see Annex 241 – the request for recusal), an observation resulting from the circumstance that on the hearing term at 12.30, in the absence of filing the proof of the stamp fee, the panel of judges proposed ex officio to judge the request and after the trial, to submit the copy of the stamp fee and afterwards the original thereof.

In relation to the circumstance that the panel of judges have known that the residence of the undersigned is in Bucharest, Sector 2, and according to the law, the payment of the stamp fee is made at the tax bodies where the residence is and not in Pitesti, the panel of judges appointed for judging the request for recusal set the deadline one and a half hours later, which reveals the obvious intention of the challenged panel of judges to judge the request for recusal immediately, having the clear representation that it shall be rejected (see the record of the hearing of 10.10.2017) and highlights the fact that both panels of judges only wanted to solve the appeal on the same day and to rule a judgement preset decision in favour of Farmec SA and its managers.

In conclusion, from the perspective of all of the aforementioned considerations and arguments, one may observe the existence of some strong indications regarding the lack of impartiality of all the panels of judges within the Specialised Tribunal of Argeş and the Court of Appeal of Piteşti involved in solving the file no. 3414/1285/2011, with the consequence of violating my right to a fair trial and damaging my legitimate interests, this attitude of the magistrates being determined in a legal framework other than the legally institutional one, and resulted in „MY EXECUTION”

10.10. THE TRIBUNAL OF BRAŞOV

The civil case no. 2930/1285/2011, having as object the action for the cancellation of the AGEA Farmec decision of 28.04.2011, adopted as a result of the administrators’ proposal to validate the financial statements of the company for 2008, 2009 and 2010, came to the court of the Tribunal of Brasov. Based on the decision of the ÎCCJ, which found that there were influences at the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj and ordered the transfer of the case.

Even in this situation, the actions of systemically influencing the way of solving the disputes affecting the financial interests of the employees of Farmec SA, as well as of the individuals related to this system, proved to be stronger than the rule of law, as it results from a number of important aspects relating to the illegalities observed regarding the trial of this case.

1) The cause was assigned on the next day after filing the case at the Tribunal of Brasov, simultaneously failing to comply with the provisions stipulated in Art. 83 and Art. 93 of the Decision no. 387/2005 of the CSM and Art. 11 and 139 of Law no. 304/2004 governing the procedure of the random assignment of files, introducing this file into the ECRIS system one day after filing the court, which was done so that the file would be assigned to a particular panel of judges, namely to the one led by the magistrate Aurica Voinescu.

2) During a so-called judicial investigation, which involved 35 deadlines, a period when no evidence have been provided with documents and expertise requested by the undersigned-plaintiff, rejected since the deadline of 09.10.2013, reasoning that the „evidence is not useful, relevant and conclusive to solve the case”, the judge Aurica Voinescu waited for an „EXPERTISE ORDERED AND CONTROLLED and SERVED” in another file, namely in file no. 3414/1285/2011 pending before the Tribunal of Argeş, this being the only explanation for postponing the trial for 6 years. Please also read the Tribunal of Arges and the Court of Appeal of Pitesti (Chapter V, item 10.8 and 10.9)

Flagrantly violating the procedural rules and the undersigned’s right to a fair trial, the magistrate Aurica Voinescu admitted this expertise as „evidence” failing to comply with the provision stipulated in Art. 169 par. (1) Old Code of Civil Procedure, which states that “The administration of evidence is done before the court, unless the law provides otherwise”, but also in the circumstances where the report drawn up and signed by the experts Pintea Mirela (expert appointed by the court), Marcel Vulpoi and Culda Ioan (experts appointed by Farmec) includes mentions and conclusions inappropriate to the reality of the accounting documents and without including the opinion of the counsellor experts of the undersigned, Violeta Radu and Elena widow, who have not received the necessary documents and drafted a Note on the impossibility of drafting the separate opinion and signing the expertise report (see Annex 164)

3) The use as “evidence” in the file of the Tribunal of Braşov of the expertise carried out in the file of another court, which has another object of trial, proves that the magistrate Aurica Voinescu was concerned only to find a „means of covering” a “simulated” trial in the file 2930/1285/2011, within a period of 6 years, for the obvious purpose of rejecting the action of the undersigned plaintiff, in the absence of any factual and legal basis, ignoring even legal situations clarified by previous court decisions.

Thus, as I pointed out earlier, the civil file no. 2930/1285/2011 has the object of the action for the cancellation of the AGEA Farmec decision of 28.04.2011, adopted following the proposal of the administrators for the validation of the financial statements of the company for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010, a decision by which it was aimed at and achieved to elude two previous court decisions, namely:

sentence no. 783/01.10.2010 of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj and the decision no. 36/25.11.2011 of the Court of Appeal of Cluj, by means of which the financial statement for 2008 was cancelled, which was presented to the shareholders by the administrators in the AGEA
The sentence no. 2244//07.04.2011 of the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj (see Annex 242), by means of which the AGEA decision was cancelled, for the approval of the financial statements for 2009, admitting the ACTION of the undersigned – plaintiff as a result of the request for acquiescence (see Annex 243) of the legal representative of the defendant Farmec of acquiescence to the reasons of illegality listed in the writ of summons (see Annex 244)

Regarding this last situation, it is important to specify that the „acquiescence” formulated by the defendant’s representatives in fact aimed at avoiding to perform an expertise on the illegality of the quorum which the decision has been taken with and the annual financial statements submitted to the shareholders by the administrators of Farmec in AGEA in 2009, which had already been ordered in that file by the magistrate Nicolata Kosa, on which there were no possibilities for influence by the officials of Farmec SA.

If it had not been done like this, there was the risk that an expertise carried out based on documents and in compliance with the law would establish all the illegalities in the financial statements presented for approval (the differences between the stocks presented to the shareholders in the annual registers and the factual situation of the company’s stocks), especially since the annual audit report of the company-defendant already highlighted the existence of some differences between the stock in script and the factual stock, as it results from the following excerpt: ” “We did not follow the physical inventory of the physical stocks as it was shown on December 31^st, 2009, because this date was before the period when we were initially employed as auditors of the company and we were not convinced of the correctness of the quantitative stocks using other audit procedures”.

This is also why, in the case no. 2930/1285/2011 settled by the magistrate Aurica Voinescu, this judge rejected the request for evidence with expertise and delayed the trial until the expertise was “served” to her from the case of another court, an expertise carried out in violation of the legal rules and are not based on the documents existing at Farmec SA, therefore, which do not reflect the reality.

4) The trial judge also ignored the request for re-docketing the case in order to suspend it until the resolution of the criminal case forming the subject matter of the case no. 3680/P/2017 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Pitesti (annex 245 – written notes), wherein the criminal prosecution for the crime of false testimony was commenced in relation to the extrajudicial expertise admitted as „evidence” (see Annex 238 – certificate to start the criminal prosecution) and ruled by rejecting the action (see annex 246 – excerpt from the justice portal).

5) During the period of the trial, given the conditions revealed above, in 2014, the magistrate Aurica Voinescu was promoted to the position of President of the Division II of the Civil Tribunal of Braşov, and in 2017, the trial judge received the extension of the mandate for this position by another three years.

6) During the trial, Farmec SA also employed in the case the lawyer Ioan Claudiu Prunaru, whose wife was a magistrate within the Tribunal of Brașov, a colleague of Aurica Voinescu, the judge who solved the case.

10.11. THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BRAȘOV

On the docket of the Court of Appeal of Brasov, there was the request for appeal in the case 2930/1285/2011. Therefore, at the Court of Appeal of Brasov there operate four appeal panels of judges at the civil division, my file mentioned above was assigned to a single panel of judges, without a random assignment, in violation of Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004.

Thus, the correspondence with the Court of Appeal of Brasov (see the Annex) contains the petitioner’s request of 11.09.2018, the response communication of the Court of Appeal of Brasov of 14.09.2018, petitioner’s request of 21.09.2018 and it from this correspondence that the management board decided to limit the professional activity of the panels of judges at the Court of Appeal of Brasov, as follows:

– only two of the four panels of judges to judge cases on the matter of the company. But in the communication 21/29 of 14.09.2018 in item 4 (see the Annex), I am informed that on Annex 4, the list of files to be judged under the old code of civil procedure which the file 2930/1258/2011 is also part of and where I am the appellant. Therefore, the assignment of the files to be judged under the old code of civil procedure is done by a different panel of judges than the cases being tried under the new code of civil procedure

In conclusion, the provisions stipulated in Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 were not complied with because there was no random assignment to one of the four appeal civil panels of judges and are restricted and subjectively directed to judge only certain cases. Where is the random assignment in this procedure then?

Following this “process” of random assignment, the file 2930 was assigned to the panel judges consisting of the magistrates Laura Feteanu, Marcela Comsa and Simona Gavrila

On the hearing term of 03.10.2018, the magistrates Laura Feteanu, Codruta Voda, Carmen Bujan rejected the request for evidence with documents from the Tribunal of Brasov by means of which this court would prove that the file 2930 had been assigned randomly, in violation of the provisions of Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004, taking into account the fact that the documents submitted to the Tribunal of Brasov did not reveal that a legal assignment was done, but rather a preferential assignment to the judge Aurica Voinescu who rejected the requests for evidence, waited 34 trial deadlines in order to carry out an expertise in another court, the expertise that does not reflect the reality, the expertise „served” to the opposite party the magistrate should take into account when rejecting the action, thus violating the principle of immediateness. Judge Aurica Voinescu received two mandates of division president at the Tribunal of Brasov during the waiting period of those 34 hearing terms.

On the hearing term of 03.10.2018, the judges Laura Feteanu, Codruta Voda, Carmen Bujan rejected the request for evidence with documents from the Tribunal of Brasov reasoning that it did not matter how the file had been assigned and the violation of the law on the lack of random assignment is not a reason for cassation, although the High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled in several cases that the failure to observe the legal provisions on the assignment of the case is a reason for nullity of the decision ruled under these conditions no. 255/05.07.2017 ruled in the file 2185/2/2015;

The magistrates Laura Feteanu, Codruta Voda, Carmen Bujan from the Court of Appeal of Brasov refused to inform the defendant Farmec to file the register of shares and the register of shareholders, according to Art. 177 of the Law 31, although this evidence was approved by the Tribunal of Brasov as conclusive and useful evidence to clarifying the case, but refused to file them and the court did not apply the provision stipulated by Art. 174 old Code of Civil Procedure, in the sense that it did not apply the fine nor did it consider the plaintiff’s claims to be proven, who showed that the defendant has the register of shares and the register of shareholders with payments, according to Art. 177/Law 31 (Annex 337 – job description sheet and the witness statement of Mrs. Onute Miluca)

10.13. THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CRAIOVA

1) On the docket of the Court of Appeal of Craiova was file no. 7386/1285/2010, the object of which was the cancellation of the AGEA decisions of Farmec SA of 12.12.2002 and 05.09.2003, by which the shareholders of the company found that the payments related to the share capital increases were made illegally by the AGEA decisions of 12.03.2012 and 31.01.2013 3, (see annexes 247), under the conditions where these last decisions of the shareholders were cancelled by the courts, as follows:

The AGEA decision of 12.03.2002, when the share capital increase by 280,000 shares was discussed, at an undervalued price of 2.5 lei/share, by illegally restricting my right to participate in the subscription of the new shares issued, it was cancelled by the irrevocable decision no. 180/2003 of the Court of Appeal of Oradea
the AGEA decision of 31.01.2003, when the increase of the share capital by 480,000 shares was discussed, at the undervalued price of 2.5 lei/share, by illegally restricting my right to participate in the subscription of the new shares issued, it was cancelled by the irrevocable decision no. 180/2003 3453/07.06.2005 of the ÎCCJ (see Annex 248).

2) The same Court of Appeal of Craiova also solved the file no. 1613/54/2014, the object of which was the request for reviewing the decision adopted in case no. 7386/1285/2010, mentioned above (see Annex 249 – the action and request for review).

3) The judicial course of the file no. 7386/1285/2010, starting with its establishment at the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, as well as the conditions in which its final and irrevocable settlement was done by the Court of Appeal of Craiova, including the request for review, reveals strong indications of the existence of a system that controls and extrajudicially influences of the performance of trials aiming at the illegal actions of the employees of Farmec SA, with the consequence of adopting solutions favourable to their interests, even in violation of the legal norms, as it results from the following significant aspects:

file no. 7386/1285/2010 was established at the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj and was assigned to judge Flavius Iancu Motu, the wedding GODFATHER of one of the managers of Farmec SA, in violation of the provision stipulated in Art. 83 and Art. 93 of the Decision no. 387/2005 of CSM, which establishes the obligation that the case would be assigned on the same day as the date of filing it to court and Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 which establishes the obligation that the file would be randomly assigned
The High Court of Cassation and Justice admitted the existence of influence likely to not provide a fair and impartial trial at the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, thus it ordered the transfer of the settlement of file no. 7386/1285/2010 to the Tribunal of Satu Mare, where the appointed judge, Marta Rita Salajan, admitted the exception of the res judicata and the exception of tardiness, with the consequence of rejecting the action by sentence no. 199/22.11.2013 (see Annex 250), under the conditions where it results from the notes of conveying phone conversations between the managers of Farmec SA, Turdean and Pantea, (see Annex 100) that this favourable solution is influenced by „incentives”, according to the excerpt – page 8):

“The Accused PANTEA PETRU IACOB: Well, you! 2003, 2004, who say you influenced so that we win at SATU MARE”

“PANTEA LUCIAN: Yes.”

The Court of Appeal of Oradea, by its decision no. 10/30.04.2013, quahed the decision of the Tribunal of Satu Mare and sent the case back for trial, confirming the illegality and groundlessness of the civil sentence no. 199 / 11.22.2013 adopted under certain influences taken into account also by the ICCJ, which admitted again the transfer of the civil case from the Tribunal of Satu Mare to the Tribunal of Mehedinti
the permanent control conducted by the relational system of the officials of Farmec SA has caused that at the Tribunal of Mehedinţi to be again violated the procedure for allocating of random assignment of the file, in order to assign the case to a specific panel of judges, respectively the one headed by the magistrate Claudiu Brandibur, who ruled an illegal and ungrounded solution, through the sentence no. 199/22.11.2013, against which both parties declared an appeal
at the Court of Appeal of Craiova, the appeal court, the file no. 7386/1285/2010 was assigned also in violation with the procedure provided in Art. 83 par. 1 item 1 and Art. 93 of Law 387/2005, respectively that on the next day after the date of filing it to the court, and in incompliance with the provisions of Art. 11 and 139 of Law 304/2004 governing the random assignment for the purpose and the result that the file 7386/1285/2010 would reach the panel of judges consisting of the magistrates Sanda Lungu – President, Constantin Popescu and Mariana Mot, members of the panel of judges who, by the irrevocable decision no. 419/09.18.2014 (see Annex 251), admitted the exception of the authority of res judicata and the exception of tardiness and as a result, he rejected the action of the undersigned, by irrevocable decision no. 419/18.09.2014 (see Annex 251), ignoring all the legal arguments formulated by the lawyer (see Annex 252 – written notes).
request for reviewing the decision No. 419/18.09.2014 (see Annex 249), which was the subject of file no. 1613/54/2014, was assigned again the next day after the date of filing it to court, in violation of the provisions of Art. 83 Par. 1 and Art. 93 of the decision no. 387/2005 of CSM and in violation of Art. 11 and 139 of the Law 31/1990 on the random assignment (see Annex 253 – the request of the undersigned and the documents sent from the Court of Appeal of Craiova regarding the aforementioned file), the case reaching to the panel of judges by “dedication”, consisting of the magistrates Neli Ochea, Ecaterina Moleanu and Gherghina Lotu, who rejected the review by the irrevocable decision no. 535/02.12.2014 (see Annex 254), ignoring the action and the written notes (see Annex 255), the rejection decision favourable to the interests of the officials of Farmec SA and, hard to exclude, the interests of the individuals involved in obtaining it.

10.12 THE TRIBUNAL OF SATU MARE

As mentioned above, there are strong indications that the decision of Judge Marta Rita Salajan, which was ruled in the civil file no. 7386/1285/2010 of the Tribunal of Satu Mare regarding the cancellation of the illegal share capital increase in 2002-2003, was influenced through granting „incentives„, as it results from the recording of the telephone conversations between the company’s administrators, but in relation to which the investigations and criminal prosecutions required were not carried out (excerpt from the note of conveying the phone conversations between the administrators of Farmec – page 8):

“The Accused PANTEA PETRU IACOB: Well, you! 2003, 2004, who say you influenced so that we win at SATU MARE” (our note: in Satu Mare, the file 7386/1285/2010 was on the docket of the Tribunal)

PANTEA LUCIAN: Yes.”

11. THE NATIONAL AGENCY FOR INTEGRITY

During a television show on Antena 3 on 28.02.2018, Horia Georgescu stated that during the period when he operated as president of the National Agency for Integrity (April 2012 – March 2015), the manager of the Romanian Intelligence Service, George Maior, regularly called him in for discussions on the works of the National Agency for Integrity, according to the excerpt (source: https://www.antena3.ro/actualitate/interviu-cu-fostul-sef-ani-maior-a-mintit-se-intervenea-direct-in-dosare-457502.html):

„Was Maior intervening in files?

Horia Georgescu, the former manager of the National Agency for Integrity, says that George Maior lied the parliamentary commission.
„There was a direct intervention in the files, and was punctually said how to act,” said Horia Georgescu. Asked if there had been meetings that exceeded the legal framework, the former Head of ANI said that Șelaru was not the only judge.

„There were many, Ms. Stanciu, Mr. Ionut Matei (…)…. George Maior had contacts with many heads of institutions. ….”

However, the professional meetings between the president of the National Agency for Integrity and the Manager of the Romanian Intelligence Services could not have any purpose and result other than the „control” of the solutions on the works within the National Agency for Integrity and regarding certain officials from institutions and magistrates who were partners of the Romanian Intelligence Service.

In relation to the public disclosure made by Horia Georgescu, I consider my appreciation to be fully justified that there is a causality connection between the „professional meetings” of the Manager of the Romanian Intelligence Service and the President of the National Agency for Integrity and how this institution has exercised its attributes of competence in the case of those 14 complaints of the undersigned about the violation of the law by the magistrates, in the sense that the inspectors for integrity either did not solve certain complaints or did not notify the Prosecutor’s Office for investigating the crime of forgery in official statements.

From this perspective, we cannot exclude the premise of the existence of partnerships between the Romanian Intelligence Service and the magistrates specified in the 14 complaints addressed to the National Agency for Integrity, a circumstance that questions the legality of the judicial process these magistrates were part of.

In this context, I consider we cannot dissociate the assignment of Farmec files to these magistrates for re-judgement from the „friendly” treatment of the National Agency for Integrity in relation to them, also taking into account the non-observance of the procedure of random assignment stipulated in Art. 11 of Law 304/2004, with the result of adopting an ungrounded and illegal court decision, but favourable to the employees of Farmec and for their benefit and for that of the partners from various state institutions.

The National Agency for Integrity has been notified regarding a violation of the law by 14 magistrates who have solved cases where Farmec SA was or is a party, but the ANI inspectors have formally solved the petitions – in the sense that they did not carry out the necessary verifications to determine whether the magistrates are in a state of incompatibility, taking into account that the wealth and interest statements have not been completed in compliance with the provisions of the law, in order to present factual situations that are inconsistent with the reality and to hide possible deeds of corruption – or did not solve the violations of the law, which are specified in the complaints of the undersigned, through reasoned decisions (see Annex 256) and have not notified the prosecutor’s office, under Art. 291 Code of Criminal Procedure or Art. 227 Old Code of Criminal Procedure, as follows:

(1) The complaint no. 140/11.01.2012 regarding Georgiana Tudor, magistrate at the Court House of Sector 1 in Bucharest, who signed the sentence no. 1591/2007, in the file 30272/3/2007- UNSOLVED (see Annex 257)

(2) The complaint no. 133/11.01.2012 regarding Iuliana Riciu, magistrate at the ICCJ – Division of the Administrative Court, who signed the decision no. 2757/21.05.2009 – UNSOLVED

(3) The complaint no. 137/11.01.2012 regarding Adrian Bordea(Annex 258), magistrate at the ICCJ, who ruled the decision no .4421/2005 in the case no. 8866 / 2004, ignoring another decision of the ICCJ regarding the same decision of the AGA – UNSOLVED FORMALLY, as it results from the communication no. 5646/31.01.2012 (see Annex 256), in the sense that the complaint of the undersigned was classified without carrying out investigations in relation to the irregularities shown regarding the situation of the magistrate’s wife and son in order to determine whether they had concluded contracts with the state or with public institutions, according to Section 5 of the Guide for filling out the wealth and interest statements;

(4) The complaint no. 149/11.01.2012 regarding Isabelle Tocan(see Annex 259), judge at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, who, during the period when she worked at the Tribunal of Bucharest, signed the decision no. 335/12.05.2010, a notification regarding the following irregularities observed in the analysis of the content of the wealth and interest statements of this magistrate:

Postelnicu Doru-Constantin, the magistrate’s husband, is associated in four trading companies, namely Pelican Invest SRL, Colibri Invest SRL, Block Invest One SRL, Block Seven SRL, of which three were in the procedure for dissolution, all of them having as object of activity: „real estate development-promotion”, a factual situation not specified in judge’s interest statement;
not specifying in the annual wealth and interest statement of her husband’s incomes obtained from the lawyer activity, which was also provided in the Norr Stiefenhofer Lutz company, which provides consulting accounting, audit services.

The complaint was FORMALLY SOLVED through the ANI decision no. 4541/26.01.2012, which in fact was unreasoned and did not state the reasons why the investigation against that judge was not initiated, especially since no proof was made of the necessary steps to be taken in order to find out whether the husband of the investigated magistrate, not specified in the wealth and interest statements, contributed to the conclusion of contracts with the state or with the public institutions and were not notified to the Prosecutors’ Office for the investigations regarding the forgery in statements.

(5) The complaint no. 142/11.01.2012 regarding Saracut Mihaela(see Annex 260), magistrate at the Court of Appeal of Cluj, who signed the civil sentence no. 4544/21.10.2013, ruled in the case no. 2610/2003 – FORMALLY SOLVED by the decision of classification no. 5867/31.01.2012, without investigating the issues mentioned in the complaint of the undersigned regarding the said „Muresan”, in favour of whom the magistrate sold an apartment at the price of 90,000 euro, under the conditions where that its taxable value was of approx. 57,000 ron, far below the price requested for the transaction;

(6) The complaint no. 141/11.01.2012 regarding Delia Ana Marusciac(see Annex 261), magistrate at the Court of Appeal of Cluj, who signed the civil decision no. 103/2004, ruled in the file no. 740/2004 – UNSOLVED;

(7) The complaint no. 139/11.01.2012 on Francisca Maria Vasile(see Annex 262), magistrate at Court of Appeal of Bucharest, who signed the decision no. 52/13.01.2011, ruled in the case 30272/3/2007 – UNSOLVED

(8) The complaint no. 138/11.01.2012 regarding Adriana Elena Bajan(see Annex 263), magistrate at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, who signed the decision no. 52/13.1.11, ruled in the case 30272/3/2007 – UNSOLVED;

(9) The complaint no. 136/11.01.2012 regarding Simona Ivanescu(see Annex 264), magistrate at the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, who signed the sentence no. 4219/2011, ruled in the case no.101/1285/2011- SOLVED FORMALLY by the decision no. 25730/11.05.2012, resulting in the fact that the investigated judge has not submitted the wealth statement in 2006, thus failing to declare the goods bought in 2005, and in the statement submitted in 2011, she did not declare her husband’s consultancy company, but the ANI states that the magistrate however declared her assets for 2005 in the wealth statements filed later in 2007-2011, and that the form of the interest statement does not contain any claims regarding the positions or capacities held in trading companies by the declarant’s spouse.

(10) The complaint no. 135/11.01.2012 regarding Claudia Jderu (see Annex 265), magistrate at the Tribunal of Bucharest, who signed the decision no. 335/12.05.2010, ruled in the file 30272/3/2007 – SOLVED FORMALLY through the ANI decision no. 2625/17.01.2013, without carrying out any control activities by ANI in the context of those specified in the undersigned’s complaint concerning the incomes of the magistrate’s husband, specified as „confidential” by him in the wealth statement, and without having notified the Prosecutor’s Office for investigations on forgery in statements.

(11) The complaint no. 134/11.01.2012 regarding Georgiana Pulbere(see Annex 266), magistrate at the Court of Appeal of Constanta, who signed the decision no. 612/2.9.10, ruled in the case 1908/1285/2009 – UNSOLVED;

(12) The complaint no. 132/11.01.2012 regarding Dumitru Mirancea(see Annex 267), magistrate at the Court of Appeal of Bucharest, who signed the decision no. 52/13.01.2011, ruled in the case no. 30272/3/2007 – UNSOLVED;

(13) The complaint no. 2582/03.10.2011 regarding Camelia Cengher(see Annex 268), magistrate at the Specialised Tribunal of Cluj, who signed the ordinance no. 99/13.1.11, in relation to which, by the communication no. 119128/07.11.2011, I was informed by ANI that, according to the provisions of Art. 11 of Law 144/2007, the assessment of the property of the investigated magistrate shall be carried out and I shall be submitted the final result thereof, but I have not received any information from ANI even to this day.

(14) The complaint no. 2531/28.09.2011 (see Annex 269) regarding Nicolae Durbaca, magistrate at the Court of Appeal of Alba Iulia, who signed the decision no. 802/20.6.11, in relation to which, by the communication no. 111901/12.10.2011, I was informed by ANI that, according to the provisions of Art. 11 of Law 144/2007, the assessment of the property of the investigated magistrate shall be carried out and I shall be submitted the final result thereof, but I have not received any information from ANI even to this day.

12. THE GENERAL DIRECTORATE FOR INTERNAL PROTECTION WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF INTERIOR

1. The General Directorate for Internal Protection (DGPI) within the Ministry of Interior was notified on 15.09.2016 (see Annex 270) about the fact that the police officers Catalin Ciongaru and Alexandru Popescu ensured the context for the disappearance of thousands of pieces of evidence from the file 3164/P/2012 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest, in relation to which there is evidence that they have existed in the file but, although the deed of the police officers classifies as aiding the criminal, provided by Art. 269 Criminal Code, the DGPI did not notify the criminal investigation body.

2. Due to the circumstance that the DGPI did not properly exercise its competences and did not order the legal measures, the case police officers involved in other criminal cases that are not processed, did not carry out, during the investigation, the hearing of the undersigned, injured party and filing the evidence required to find out the truth, proving the criminal deeds and recovering the prejudices that have been caused to the state and to the company, as it results from the following exemplary cases:

In the criminal case no. 297/P/2016 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to Tribunal of Cluj, the case police officer was replaced and Liviu Varga was brought to SICE Cluj, who did not carry out criminal investigations in the vase, did not hear me and did not file the evidence I have indicated and I could have completed during the hearing.
In the criminal case no. 3680/P/2017 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Pitest, the police officer Catalin Voicu did not provide the evidence in relation to which the prosecutor ordered by the ordinance of 08.11.2017 (see Annex 126), for 4 months, in violation of the provisions stipulated in Art. of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The police officer Viorel Borjogo, from the IGPR – DICE, did not hear me and did not administer the evidencenecessary to find out the truth in the criminal file no. 12052/P/2016 (see Annex 271 – the DICE communication to the undersigned of 14.11.2017)

However, all these inactions contribute to damaging the legitimate interest and are likely to favour those who have participated in deeds and prejudices.

3. The DICE Manager within the IGPR, Aurel Dobre, should have filed a criminal complaint to the competent prosecutor’s office for the deed specified in Art. 269 Criminal Code on favouring the criminal, in relation to the requests of the undersigned in 2016 regarding the re-integration of the criminal file 3164/P/2012 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Tribunal of Bucharest, respectively:

The request of 07.03.2016, registered under the no. A/201/07032016, by which I requested the removal from Farmec SA and filing of documents, invoices, contracts, bank statements, analytical balances, sales logs, consolidated annual reports, account records, etc. (see Annex 118), evidence that is absolutely necessary for the legal and thorough resolution of the file;
The request of 24.06.2016, registered under the no. 100103, by which I requested the filing of documents that have disappeared in two stages, evidence necessary to solve the deed of forgery in documents (see Annex 272);
The request of 27.6.16, registered under the no. 100109, represents a return to the previous request for evidence (see Annex 118);
The request of 31.08.2016, registered under the no. 100335, by which I requested to be informed whether the police officer made a report on the completion of the criminal prosecution and whether they filed the documents from the previous requests for evidence (see Annex 273);
The request of 13.08.2016, registered under the no. 100388, by means of which I requested the police to file the evidence that has disappeared and is no longer in the file (see Annex 274);

13. BODY OF EXPERT AND LICENSED ACCOUNTANTS OF ROMANIA (CECCAR)

1) CECCAR is an independent organisation of public servants, independent, but which also operates „independently” from the legal and judicial provisions, without the individuals in the organisation’s management to order administrative measures for the observance thereof, given that the president of this organisation, Robert Sova, is:

– a business partner, co-author of the Curierul Fiscal magazine (see Annex 275) with Pantea Iacob, manager of Farmec SA, from 1995 to 2011, and the father of Lucian Pintea, currently managing of Farmec SA, as well as with the lawyer Gabriel Biris, who received over 700,000 lei from Farmec SA.

– Robert Sova is a colleague at the Faculty of Accounting, Audit and Control with Marcel Vulpoi, who is the head of the Discipline Commission of the local organisation CECCAR Ilfov and expert party of the officials of Farmec who have the capacity of defendants, as well as the individual against whom I filed a complaint to Ceccar for having drafted an expertise that did not reflect the reality on behalf of the expert appointed in a criminal case, and he only signed the report drawn up by Marcel Vulpoi‘s company, but Robert Sova ignored the complaint and did not solve these deviations within the institutional environment

From this perspective, one may notice that by interpreting the CECCAR rules in a biased manner and benefiting from the support of the individuals in the management of CECCAR, respectively that of the CECCAR president and of the discipline commissions members within the CECCAR organisation, accounting experts have a greater interest in vitiated experiments that do not reflect the reality of economic operations and are not proved by the documents underlying the expertise, taking into account that the expertises prepared and presented to the judicial authorities by the experts Mirela Pintea, Marcel Vulpoi, Ioan Culda, Livia Bocian, Gheorghe Mandru and Marilena Ghita do not reflect the reality, have no documents attached that are required for the expertise and did not request the court to force the company to submit the documents held by it and without which the expertise reports could not be completed and drafted, which were presented to the judicial bodies.

2) The management CECCAR tolerated the violation of the law and professional rule 35 by the authorised judicial experts, serious deeds that were specified and reasoned in several notifications and complaints addressed to this professional organisation, unsolved until now or solved formally:

on 17.06.2014 I sent to the President of CECCAR the notification registered under No. 6283 (see Annex 276) – WITH NO ANSWER.
on 26.10.2016 I sent the complaint registered under the no. 10541 to the President of CECCAR (see Annex 277) – WITH NO ANSWER
Instead, the attitude of the president of CECCAR, Robert Sova, was totally different on the request of Marcel Vulpoi, accounting expert of the defendants Turdean and Pantea, in the criminal cases, but also the expert party of the defendant Farmec SA, promptly giving an answer, after only three days(see annex 278), although clarifications were requested, which CANNOT be related to the criminal procedure and to order given by the Court of Appeal of Bucharest in the case 2485/300/2011.

3) Marcel Vulpoi drafted and signed, with Mirela Pintea and Ioan Culda, an expertise report that does not reflect the reality and in relation to which criminal investigations are carried out in the case no. 3680/P/2017 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court House of Pitesti for deeds of false testimony, but CECCAR of Cluj granted the audit approval in violation of the provision stipulated in Art. 3532 of the Professional Standard 35, under the conditions where the expertise of Marcel Vulpoi, Mirela Pintea and Ioan Culda does not contain the opinion of the party experts Violeta Radu and Vaduva Elena, because the party experts did not receive the requested documents and have drafted the justifying note about the impossibility of drawing up the expertise report (see Annex 164).

4) On 02.11.2012 we drafted the complaint no. 1283 against the experts Livia Bocian and Ioan Culda (see Annex 279) for the violation of the summons procedure provided by the law, and the expertise does not reflect the reality and does not include the opinion of the undersigned’s expert because the company did not provide the necessary documents, a situation in relation to which:

on 13.05.2013, by the decision of the Discipline Commission attached to the CECCARr Superior Council (see Annex 280), the panel of judges consisting of Alexandru Bran – president, Apostol Grosoiu and Sorina Popescu– members, admitted the existence of some influences in Cluj and approved the request for transfer at the Ceccar Discipline Commission of Bucharest.
on 06.11.2013 the panel of judges consisting of Adrian Opris– president, Camelia Anton and Gheorghe Spiridon – members, rejected the notification of the undersigned through the decision no. 60, in the case no. 3/2013, under the conditions where it is not reasoned (see Annex 281)
on 09.01.2014 we drafted a complaint against the decision 60 (see Annex 282), which was discussed by the Superior Discipline Commission within CECCAR after 4 years, which, in relation to the undersigned’s written NOTE, filed in the meeting of 02.02.2018 (see annex 283), ruled the decision no. 7/28.02.2018, issued by the panel of judges consisting of Luminita Turcu – president, Fanel Popescu and Tudor Cristea – members, by which the decision no. 60/2013 was cancelled, but the substance of the notification was not judged, but the case was sent for retrial.

Therefore, after almost 5 years, the management of CECCAR obviously avoids to observe and sanction the violation of the legal provisions stipulated in Art. 208 Old Code of Civil Procedure, because the expert carried out the expertise without summoning me and without the opinion of the undersigned’s expert, as well as the violation of the professional conduct by the experts, although the accounting expert Livia Bocian caused me an injury to the legitimate interests but also a patrimonial injury, in relation to the circumstance that the expertise for which the expert has received from my account 39,650 lei does not reveal the reality and does not prove her conclusions with the accounting documents attached to the paper, under the conditions where the expert was not able to draft the opinion because she did not receive the necessary documents.

5) The violation of the Law through the CECCAR procedure provided in Art. 3531.9^[39] of the Professional Rule 35

– the provision stipulated in Art.127 and Art. 351^[40] of the Code of Civil Procedure regulates the orality and contradiction, including of the evidence in the file

– Art. 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure forces that the one makes a statement, respectively the expert, to also prove it: „The task of the evidence. The individual who makes a statement during the trial must prove it, except for the cases specifically stipulated by the law”

– Art. 3531.9 of the Professional Standard 35[41] by the correctly naming the Rule allows the documents which the appointed expert’s conclusions are based upon to not be attached to the expertise.

Or, from this point of view, the orality and contradiction stipulated by the law are not met if the appointed expert presents the expertise that does not reflect the reality, without the documents underlying the conclusions of the expertise to be attached and the party expert has not received from the holder the documents necessary for the expertise. In this situation, the objections cannot be formulated in an argumentative way either. 6)

6) THE NEED FOR CHANGING THE CECCAR RULE 3531.9 in order to remove the cases where many party experts have a higher extrajudicial interest in order to meet the objectives of the expertise without the expertise reflecting the reality and the opinion of the interested party’s expert cannot be drawn up in the absence of documents, in order to meet the provisions of the Law governing the orality, contradiction and the right to defence is necessary in order to amend the CECCAR professional rule and to force the experts to carry out the expertise and to transparently attach the conclusions of the expertise, in electronic form with the a list, the accounting documents he/she consulted.

Chapter IV Chapter VI

^[1]Excerpts from the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Accounts:

Art. 19 par. (1) the Advisor of accounts of the control/audit departments shall mainly ensure of the following: r) carrying out the verifications, the capitalisation of the observations recorded in the documents drafted and monitoring the way to fulfil the measures ordered by decision in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation on organising and carrying out the activities specific to the Court of Accounts, as well as the capitalisation of the documents resulted from these activities.

^[2] Art. 21 par. (1) The manager of the control/audit department shall mainly ensure that:

o) the documents drafted as a result of the verifications, the procedure of capitalising the findings recorded therein and the procedure for monitoring the way of accomplishing the measures ordered by the decision comply with the provisions of the Regulation regarding the organisation and performance of the specific activities of the Court of Accounts, as well as the capitalisation of the observations resulted from these activities.

^[3] Art. 107 „in the event where errors or deviations from legality and regularity and/or deeds are observed because there are indications that they were committed in violation of the criminal law, resulting from the financial years prior to the period under review and which may or may not continue until the current day, the control can be extended to them too.

^[4] Art. 171 for the use of observations registered in the control report and respectively in the note of observation specified at item 125 which is Annex to the control report, the Court of Accounts may order/require: b₂) the criminal investigation bodies to be notified and the controlled entities in connection with this notification to be informed, as a result of the control of the Court of Accounts, the existence of some deeds which there are indications for that they have been committed in violation of the criminal law, which caused or did not cause prejudices.

^[5]Art. 291 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The notifications made by individuals with management positions and other individuals

(1) Any individual with a management position within an authority of the public administration or within other public authorities, public institutions or other public legal entities, as well as any individual with control duties who, when exercising their duties, have become aware of an offense for which the criminal action is initiated ex officio, they are bound to immediately notify the criminal investigating body and take measures for the traces of the offence, the corpus delicti and any other means of evidence to not disappear.

(2) Any individual who performs a public interest service which one has been invested for by the public authorities or who is under their control or supervision with regard to the performance of that public interest service which, in the performance of one’s duties has become aware of an offense for which the criminal proceedings are initiated ex officio, one is bound to immediately notify the criminal investigation body.

[6]Item 22 par. 34 of the Methodological Norms for the Application of the Fiscal Code: ”In order to refund the excise duties, users shall submit to the territorial tax authority the application for the exemption of excise duties, accompanied by: c) the proof of the quantity used for the purpose for which the exemption is granted, consisting in a centralising statement of the quantities actually used and the related documents”

[7] Art. 291 Criminal Procedure Code – The notifications made by individuals with management positions and other individuals

[8]Art. 17 par. (3) of Law 21/1996 valid between 2009 and 29.12.2015 „The president, vice-presidents and competition advisors must have a real independence and enjoy a high professional reputation and civic probity. In order to be appointed as member of the Competition Council, higher education, high professional competence, good reputation and at least 10 years of service in the following areas are required: economic, commercial, of prices and legal competition”.

Art. 15 par. 1 item g) of Law 21/1996 valid as of 29.12.2015 until now: „(4) To be appointed as member of the Competition Council, an individual must meet the following criteria: g) to have minimum 10 years of service in activities of the economic or legal fields;”

[9]According to Art. 15 par. (6) of the Competition Act in force after 29.12.2015 until now: „The quality of being a Competition Council member is not compatible with exercising any other professional or consultancy activity, by direct participation or by interposed people in leading or managing positions of certain public or private entities or with holding positions or public offices, except for didactic positions and activities in the higher education, scientific research and literary-artistic creation. They cannot be designated experts or arbitrators by parties or court of law or by any other institution”.

According to Art. 17 par. (5) of the Competition Law valid since 2009 until 29.12.2015:

„The quality of being a Competition Council member is not compatible with exercising any other professional or consultancy activity, by direct participation or by interposed people in leading or managing positions of certain public or private entities or with holding positions or public offices, except for didactic positions and activities in the higher education, scientific research and literary-artistic creation. They cannot be appointed as experts or arbitrators nor by parties or the court of law or by any other institution”.

^[10]Art. 292 of the Criminal Procedure Code – Ex officio notification: „The criminal investigative body is notified ex officio if it finds out that an offence has been committed in any way other than those provided under Art. 289-291 and concludes a report in this regard.”

^[11](34) In order to refund the excise duties, users shall submit to the territorial tax authority the application for the exemption of excise duties, accompanied by: c) the proof of the quantity used for the purpose for which the exemption is granted, consisting in a centralising statement of the quantities actually used and the related documents

^[12] Art. 40 of Law 21/1996: “(1)Upon the reception of a request or complaint denouncing or accusing an anticompetitive practice, the Competition Council shall examine whether this has sufficient factual and legal basis to justify ordering the initiation of an investigation.”

[13] Art. 220 – (1) The shares issued in exchange for cash contributions shall be paid at the date of the subscription in a percentage of at least 30% of their rated value and in full within 3 years as of the date of their publication in the Official Journal of Romania, Part IV of the General Assembly’s decision.

(2) The shares issued in exchange for contributions in kind shall be paid within the same period.

(3) When an issuance bonus has been provided, it must be fully paid on the date of the subscription.

[14]Art. 297 par. 1 Criminal Code, related to Art. 13 of Law 78/2000: “Traffic of influence. (1) Requesting, receiving or accepting the promise of money or other benefits, directly or indirectly, for oneself or for another, committed by a person who has an influence or gives the impression to have an influence on a public servant and who promises they shall cause the latter to perform, not to perform, to urge or to delay the performance of a deed classified as their job duties or to perform a deed contrary to these duties shall be punished by imprisonment from 2 to 7 years.

^[15] Art. 139 – (1) By the internal Regulations of the courts of law the following are established: b) the way and criteria to assign the cases by panels of judges, in order to ensure the compliance with the principles of random assignment and continuity;

^[16] Art. 11 of Law 304/2004: „the trial activity shall be conducted in compliance with the principles of random assignment of files and of continuity, except for the case where the judge cannot participate in the trial for objective reasons”

^[17] Art. 52 of Law 304/2004: „The leading boards shall establish the composition of the panels of judges at the beginning of the year, following to ensure the continuity of the panel of judges. The change of the members of the panels is done exceptionally, based on the objective criteria set out by the Internal Regulations of the Courts”

^[18]Art. 93 – (1) The documents for notifying the Court, filed in personally or through a representative, arrived by mail, courier or fax or by any other means provided by law, shall be filed with the registry, where, ON THE SAME DAY after establishing the object of the case, I receive, except in the cases provided by law, a number from the ECRIS application and a certified date in the order of receipt.

^[19] 1. The General Register of Files

All files registered with the courts, tribunals, specialised tribunals, courts of appeal or their departments are recorded in this register by order of entry and with the headings established for this purpose; all the requests submitted subsequently or the file related correspondence shall be recorded under the same number.

The files shall be recorded in the order of reception, chronologically, being necessary to keep their record by INDICATING THE DATE AND TIME in a distinct heading, both in the register of the general court registry and in the general register of the department which each file was assigned to.

^[20] Art. 129 par. 5 of the old Civil Procedure Code: „Judges have the duty to persevere, by all legal means, in order to prevent any error in terms of finding the truth in the case, based on establishing the facts and by correctly applying the law, in order to issue a thorough and legal decision. If the evidence proposed is not sufficient to fully clarify the trial, the court shall order that the parties complete the evidence. Also, ex officio, the judge may bring in the parties’ discussion the need to administer other evidence, which may he/she may order even if the parties object.”

[21]Art. 57 par. 6 of Law 303/2004: “the judges may be delegated for a period not exceeding 6 months and may be extended by their written consent for another 6 months at the most”

[22]Art. 14 of the CSM Decision 387/2005: “Art. 14 – (1) The President of the specialised tribunal exercises the managerial duties for the efficient organisation of its activity, as well as court administration duties, which is why: i) monitors and is responsible for the random assignment of cases;”

[23]Art. 56 Code of Civil Procedure – Procedural capacity of use; (2) However, associations, companies or other entities without juridical personality may remain under trial, if they are founded according to the law. Art. 58 Code of Civil Procedure: Special curatorship

(1) In case of urgency, if the natural person lacking the capacity to exercise the civil rights does not have a legal representative, the court shall, upon the request of the interested party, shall appoint a special curator to represent them until the appointment of the legal representative, according to the law. The court shall also appoint a special curator in the event of a conflict of interest between the legal representative and the represented one or when a legal entity or an entity of those specified in Art. 56 Par. (2), called to pursue the proceedings, has no representative.

(2) The provisions of Par. (1) shall also apply accordingly to the individuals with limited capacity of exercise.

(3) **) The appointment of these curators shall be done by the court judging the trial, among the lawyers specifically appointed for this purpose by the bar for each court. The Special Curator has all the rights and obligations provided by the law for the legal representative.

(4) The provisional remuneration of the curator thus appointed shall be established by the court, through a conclusion, also establishing the method of payment. Once their quality ceases, the remuneration may be increased at the request of the curator, taking into account the activity carried out.

[24]Art. 42 par. 1, 2 and 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure: Other cases of absolute incompatibility^*)

(1) The Judge is also incompatible with judging in the following situations:

when one has expressed one’s opinion previously on the solution in the case one was assigned to judge. Involving the parties, ex officio, on factual or legal matters, according to Art. 14 Par. (4) and (5) does not make the judge incompatible;
when there are circumstances that justify the fear that he, her husband, their ascendants or descendants or their in-laws, as the case may be, have an interest related to the case being judged;
when there are other elements that validly give rise to doubts regarding their impartiality.

(2) The provisions of Par. (1) concerning the husband also applies to concubines.

[25]Art. 11 of Law 304/2004: „the trial activity shall be conducted in compliance with the principles of random assignment of files and of continuity, except for the case where the judge cannot participate in the trial for objective reasons”

[26]Art. 14 – (1) The President of the specialised tribunal exercises the managerial duties for the efficient organisation of its activity, as well as court administration duties, which is why:

i) monitors and is responsible for the random assignment of cases;

[27] Art. 216 Law 31/1990 – (1) The shares issued for the increase of the share capital shall be offered for subscription, primarily to the existing shareholders, proportionally to the number of shares they own.

(2) Exercising the right of preference shall be achievable only within the deadline determined by the general meeting or by the board of directors, respectively the directorship, under the conditions of Art. 220¹ Par. (4), if the instrument of incorporation does not provide for another term. In all situations, the deadline granted to exercise the rights of preference may not be less than one month from the date of publishing the decision of the general meeting, respectively the decision of the board of directors/directorship, in the Official Journal of Romania, Part IV. After the expiration of this deadline, the shares shall be offered to the public for subscription.

(3) Any increase of the share capital in violation of this article is cancellable.

Art. 216^1*) – The shareholders also have a right of preference when the company issues bonds convertible into shares. The provisions of Art. 216 shall apply accordingly.

Art. 217 – (1) The right of preference of the shareholders may be limited or withdrawn only by the decision of the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders.

(2) The Board of Directors, respectively the directorship, shall make available to the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders a written report specifying the reasons for the limitation or withdrawal of the right of preference. This report shall also explain how to determine the value of issuance of the shares.

(3) The decision shall be made in the presence of the shareholders representing three quarters of the subscribed share capital, with the majority of votes of the shareholders present.

(4) The decision shall be filed at the Trade Register Office by the board of directors, respectively by the directorship, for specification in the Trade Register and publication in the Official Journal of Romania, Part IV.

[28] Art. 216 – (1) The shares issued for the increase of the share capital shall be offered for subscription, primarily to the existing shareholders, proportionally to the number of shares they own

Art. 217 – (1) The right of preference of the shareholders may be limited or withdrawn only by the decision of the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders.

[29] The Second Council Directive: The right of pre-emption may not be restricted or withdrawn by the statutes or instrument of incorporation. However, the general meeting may decide on this. The management or management body must submit to this meeting a written report reasoning the limitation or withdrawal of the right of pre-emption and justifying the proposed issuance price The General Assembly decides in compliance with the rules on the quorum and majority laid down in Article 44. The Assembly’s decision shall be published in the form provided for by the legislation of each Member State in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2009/101/EC.

[30]The Second Council Directive 2012: „The right of pre-emption may not be restricted or withdrawn by the statutes or instrument of incorporation.”

[31]Art. 519 – „The subject of the notification. During the trial, should a panel of judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, court of appeal or of the tribunal, vested with the settlement of the case of last resort, observe that a matter of law, the clarification of which depends on on awarding of a solution on the main issue of that matter on trial is new and the High Court of Cassation and Justice has not ruled and is not the subject of an appeal in the interest of the law undergoing settlement, it shall be able to request the High Court of Cassation and Justice to issue a decision to give resolution of principle to the matter of law which it has been notified with.” Art. 520 – Judicial procedure (1) Notifying the High Court of Cassation and Justice shall be done by the panel of judges after contradictory debates, if the conditions provided in Art. 519 are met, through a conclusion that is not subject to any appeal. Should it order the notification by the conclusion, this shall include the reasons supporting the admissibility of the notification according to the provisions of Art. 519, the point of view of the panel of judges and of the parties.

[32]Art. 57 par. 6 of Law 303/2004: “the judges may be delegated for a period not exceeding 6 months and may be extended by their written consent for another 6 months at the most”

[33] Art. 177 of Law 31/1990: (1) Besides the records provided by the law, the joint stock companies must keep: a) a register of shareholders showing, as the case may be, the first and last names, the personal identification number, the name, residence or registered office of the shareholders with nominative shares, as well as the payments made for the account of shares.

[34] Art. 187^*) Code of Civil Procedure – Violation of the obligations related to the course of the trial. Sanctions

(1) Unless the law provides otherwise, according to the provisions of this Article, the court may penalise the following deeds committed in relation to the trial, as follows:

with a judicial fine from 100 lei to 1,000 lei:
e) its author’s complaint in bad faith against the typing or signature of a document or against the authenticity of an audio or video recording;

[35]Art. 177 of Law 31/1990: (1) Besides the records provided by the law, the joint stock companies must keep: a) a register of shareholders showing, as the case may be, the first and last names, the personal identification number, the name, residence or registered office of the shareholders with nominative shares, as well as the payments made for the account of shares. The record of the share traded on a regulated market/an alternative trading system is carried out in compliance with the legislation specific to the capital market;

[36] Art 8 of the Statutes of Farmec „the shares are transferable only between shareholders”… „the shares acquired under the conditions of these instrument of incorporation can be transferred to third parties only by legal inheritance”

[37] “Art. 129 par. (5) Old Code of Civil Procedure: „Judges have the duty to persevere, by all legal means, in order to prevent any error in terms of finding the truth in the case, based on establishing the facts and by correctly applying the law, in order to issue a thorough and legal decision. If the evidence proposed is not sufficient for fully clarifying the trial, the court shall order the parties to complete the evidence. Ex officio, the judge can also bring into parties’ discussion the need to manage other evidence, which he/she may order even if the parties stand against this”.

[38]Art. 127 Old Code of Civil Procedure: „The causes shall be debated verbally, unless the law provides otherwise.”

[39] 3531.9. The annexes to the accounting expert’s report are an integral part of the accounting expertise report and are drafted by the accounting expert/accounting experts in order to support an observation from the accounting expertise report.

[40]Art. 351 – Orality, immediateness and contradiction

(1) The case shall be tried before the court established according to the law and shall be done in a session, verbally, directly and in contradiction.

(2) The court is forced to bring into discussion the prosecutor’s requests, those of the parties or of the other procedural subjects and the exceptions raised by them or ex officio and to rule on them by reasoned conclusion.

(3) The court shall rule by reasoned conclusion also on all the measures taken during the trial.

[41] Rule 35 – Art. 3531.9. The annexes to the accounting expert’s report are an integral part of the accounting expertise report and are drafted by the accounting expert/accounting experts in order to support an observation from the accounting expertise report.