In a Romania where justice is meant to be a lighthouse in the storm, it sometimes appears to be a dim beacon, operated by rusty mechanisms and blatant legislative ignorance. A new episode of judicial grotesque, befitting a poorly executed farce, unfolds through the legal peregrinations of Mr. Pop Ionut-Costin, a courageous citizen who, it seems, was too credulous to believe that the rules apply to everyone. This is a story where elementary logic was abandoned in favor of a „formalism” so obtuse it borders on deliberation, culminating in a scandalously lenient dismissal of a criminal case.
„Territorial Jurisdiction”: An Obsolete Concept? Or, How Files Travel from Prahova to Bucharest When Convenient
Mr. Pop Ionut-Costin, the complainant in this judicial odyssey, vehemently challenged a Dismissal Order, alleging that the investigation was conducted by a territorially incompetent criminal prosecution body. The institution in question is the Prosecutor’s Office attached to Sector 1 Court in Bucharest, an entity which, it appears, chose to ignore a minor detail: the location of the alleged offenses was the PETROBRAZI Refinery in Prahova County. According to—and pay attention to this—Article 41, paragraphs 1 lit. a, and paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, territorial jurisdiction is established, imperatively, first and foremost by… „the place where the offense was committed”! Simple, clear, undeniable, one would think.
But not for the Chief Prosecutor, who, with astonishing nonchalance, disregarded these clear provisions. Instead, they opted to assert that the Sector 1 Prosecutor’s Office was „competent,” citing (incorrectly, according to our source) Article 41, paragraph 1 lit. c, on the grounds that „the defendant company [FALCK FIRE SERVICES S.R.L.] has its headquarters in Bucharest, Sector 1.” In plain terms, if a crime occurs in Petrobrazi but the company’s headquarters are in Bucharest, the case is judged in Bucharest? A flexible logic, adaptable, perhaps, according to… interests. It’s akin to judging a road accident in Constanța in Timișoara, simply because the involved car is registered there! A dangerous precedent or merely gross negligence? Mr. Pop Ionut-Costin leans towards the former, and rightly so.
The „Academic Dismissal”: A Single Sentence for a Truth Buried Under Formalities
If the „public order exception” regarding competence was trampled underfoot, on the merits of the case, things become truly farcical. Mr. Pop Ionut-Costin, the complainant, alleged a dismissal of the case without a thorough investigation, in flagrant violation of Article 5 and Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulate the obligation of the criminal prosecution body to ascertain the truth and administer evidence.
However, according to our source, despite Mr. Pop Ionut-Costin’s complaint against Dismissal Order no. 3654/P/2021, dated January 4, 2023, the Chief Prosecutor, demonstrating textbook „formalism,” simply decided to endorse the previous decision. The height of bureaucracy! With a single, astonishingly general sentence, it was stated that „on the merits of the case, I find that the solution ordered is legal and well-founded in relation to the criminal prosecution acts performed, the case prosecutor having correctly assessed the evidentiary material prepared in the case, while also correctly applying the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 1 lit. b) thesis I of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” Naturally, it failed to mention what these specific acts or pieces of evidence were, only referring to them generically. A riddle of a sentence!
Two months of verification (instead of 20 days, as stipulated by Article 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) for such an outcome? It’s a bad joke with justice playing the leading role.
From Incompetent Witnesses to Phantom Evidence: An Autopsy of a „Perfunctory” Investigation
The reasonable suspicion that the truth was not intended to be uncovered is fueled by a series of „omissions” which, cumulatively, seem to form a complete picture of deliberate negligence:
- The only witness heard? A representative of FALCK FIRE SERVICES S.R.L., an Economic Director, without relevant technical studies or duties in firefighting or personnel training, whose role remains a mystery. A formal hearing, merely for „ticking a box.”
- Key witnesses ignored: Although Mr. Dumitrescu Adrian, head of prevention and emergency at PETROM S.A., Petrobrazi Refinery, had been nominated as an authorized and crucial person, he was not heard. Essential details thus remained shrouded in shadow.
- Possible ignored forgeries: The emergency situation records, where personnel were supposedly trained periodically by FALCK FIRE SERVICES S.R.L., were not verified. Not even a graphoscopic expertise, essential to check if the signatures belonged to the trained persons or, even more seriously, if Mr. Pop Ionut-Costin’s name was placed there under duress, as he himself claimed. A serious accusation of coercion to forgery, treated with an ignorance worthy of an absurd painting!
- DSU Bucharest, an insignificant detail: A control act from the Department for Emergency Situations Bucharest, which had previously confirmed the irregularities reported by Mr. Pop Ionut-Costin and ordered administrative measures against FALCK FIRE SERVICES S.R.L., was not requested. Why bring conclusive evidence when you can rely on the „insincere” statement of a Mr. Radu Florentin, a representative of the accused company, a statement uncorroborated by anything?
„Invisible” Services, „Real” Invoices, and Ignored Damages: A Dark Comedy with Public Money
Another grave aspect, silently overlooked by the „investigators,” is the financial one. No investigation was conducted into whether financial damage was incurred by the PETROBRAZI Refinery in Prahova County, part of PETROM S.A., through the invoicing and collection for fictitious training and preparation services. Monthly, invoices for „services” that were not rendered, with forged signatures and individuals listed in documents despite being absent! A black hole in the budget, knowingly ignored.
And, the icing on the cake of incompetence: the complainant himself, Mr. Pop Ionut-Costin, despite having identified himself and initiated the proceedings, was never summoned or heard to provide additional information. Is justice served without the one who seeks it?
In conclusion, Mr. Pop Ionut-Costin’s case is a stinging slap in the face of Romanian justice, a demonstration that sometimes, the Code of Criminal Procedure is merely an ornament on a shelf, and truth, a simple option. As long as such „formalism” prevails over the pursuit of truth and respect for the law, the ordinary citizen will forever remain a Sisyphus of bureaucracy, pushing a stone that always rolls back, under the bitter laughter of a system that seems to mock itself.
To be continued.
