Lost in Administration — Romania’s Sluggish Corruption Trials

They say that the journey matters more than the destination in life. Perhaps this is a good motto to live your life by but when it comes to the struggle against corruption it is most definitely the destination that matters more — the destination, hopefully, being prison. Unfortunately, due to the incredible backlog of corruption files clogging up the Romanian justice system, the journeys are turning into odysseys.

In a sense, the Romanian justice system is like a crowded street with bumper-to-bumper traffic. Some cars are trying to get to their destination but are either stuck in traffic, delayed due to construction or willingly turned around by traffic officials intent on not doing their job or doing it very, very slowly. Which is why, while the average time for a trial to reach completion seems to be around 136 days, or about a year with appeals, there are corruption cases that have lasted for almost ten years, so much so that some cases have reached their statute of limitations freeing corrupt politicians such as Neculai Onțanu from any fear of further prosecution.

In some situations, the sheer amount of work and witnesses that have to show up before the court is the reason causing delays. The National Anticorruption Directorate has to handle a significant number of cases with a limited staff and the courts are quite careful in corruption cases, balancing the inevitable political pressure, public scrutiny and fears of the accused getting off on a technicality. But then there are political levers that delay trials considerably more than the prosecution doing its due diligence.

For decades now, one of the biggest hindrances in prosecuting corruption cases has been the concept of “parliamentary immunity”. Parliamentary or legislative immunity is a system that guarantees MPs the right to legislate without fear of other branches prosecuting them unfairly for their political positions. This works by giving MPs partial immunity from prosecution while they are in office, immunity which can only be lifted by the legislative body. Theoretically a boon for a fledgling democracy where some state institutions are stronger than others, immunity has widely been abused by MPs and other officials investigated by the DNA and other institutions.

For instance, an infamous case revolving around the provision of cheap gas to Romanian Businessman Ioan Niculae has been hung up for almost six years because senators refused to allow the prosecution of Varujan Vosganian, one of their peers. Anne-Marie Jugănaru, indicted in an European funds fraud case alongside the now infamous Adrian Severin has been free from prosecution for almost 5 years due to her appointment as undersecretary in the environment ministry. Romanian authorities are not even always to blame. Ovidiu Silaghi, indicted for influence trafficking quit Parliament to become a European MP and the DNA’s requests towards the European Parliament for the lifting of Silaghi’s immunity have been given the cold shoulder.

A report by the Romanian Academic Society reveals more technical obstacles. Some, the report states come from ineffective legislation, namely laws that are flawed by design. Others come from “wrong attitudes within the system” — an instrumental example being that of two judges who tried to speed up proceedings in their courtrooms. Both were taken off their respective cases, and one suit went to a different court and the other causing its judge to be forcefully removed. This is not a matter of procedure as judges are allowed to set what terms they will under Romanian legislation. Instead it is a case of the legal system being calcified in its ways and reacting violently at even a hint of change.

For a very long time, however, the main way to delay a trial was the “unconstitutionality exception”. The defendant could raise said exception (argue that a certain part of the prosecution’s case is in breach of the Constitution) and the trial would have to be put on hold while the incredibly overworked and generally slow Constitutional Court would decide on the matter. Furthermore, in corruption cases, it wasn’t unusual for up to a dozen exceptions to be raised by the defence as a delaying tactic. Fortunately this loophole was closed, with the trial no longer being automatically put on hold when such an exception is raised. Expert witnesses are another problematic factor, according to that same SAR report. Experts are few and far between and can be easily swayed to take more time with their testimony than otherwise. Usually forensic expertise applies to corruption cases only in auditing paperwork, but in such cases the sheer volume of documents that have to be sifted through is enormous.

Fortunately there are silver linings. Successive legal reforms have smoothed out procedures for corruption cases, and even in an increasingly hostile environment to the DNA, the “traffic” on Anticorruption Road seems to be speeding up. In fact, according to a specialised website, the trial periods for cases, corruption or otherwise seems to be steadily going down each year. So there is still hope that most of the many corrupt officials awaiting sentencing will arrive at their destination before their trials reach the statute of limitations.

Romania Corruption Watch

Romania Corruption Watch

)
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade