I was not incompatible because the suspension upon request remains valid
The NIA never issued the incompatibility findings report as a normative act of final character

The High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the recourse filed by the National Integrity Agency against the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bucharest which ruled in favour of Victor Alistar in his process against the NIA and the National Agency of Civil Servants.

Hence, the Department for contentious administrative matters of the High Court of Cassation and Justice has decided that the suspension upon my request from the civil service under NACS was made through administrative acts which remain valid and legal and which cannot be annulled after the suspension has been carried out.

Today, due to the withdrawal of my recourse, the decision of the Court of Appeal has remained irrevocable. The decision concerned the exception of unlawfulness of the report of findings no. 1139/I.I/2009 of NIA, and established that this report does not have the characteristics of a definitive administrative act, but represents an act still under control procedure non-finalized by the NIA, which cannot have judicial effects and that it cannot be brought before the court until the investigation by NIA is finalized on the basis of the measures stipulated at pages 19 and 20 of the report of findings. Thus, the decision of the court means that absent a definitive administrative act there is no, and there could never be, such an interdiction during this period (“the remaining of the decision of incompatibility as definitive”). This decision has remained definitive after I withdrew my recourse upon coming to know the motivation of the judgment, which is in my favour and integrally confirms my statements during this entire period.

The decision of today demonstrates the misinformation that the NIA has been making to the media and the public opinion when claiming that it issued a definitive control act that was to be brought to the court and that there is a decision of incompatibility remained definitive, in the context in which the NIA has not finalized its investigation and has not stood over to check whether the suspension administrative acts are dismissed by the court or whether the Prosecutor’s Office confirms by prosecution the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the reason for suspension.

The question is who will pay for this abuse of law, for misinformation and defamation brought during this period? Can what happened define a normal society in which the rights of the citizen are elementary? Can the reputation built through programmes that have had real impact nationally be destroyed by authoritarian behavior of the “men of law” who, instead of apprehending the corrupt, get even on those who do not share the same opinions?

In this context, I also mention that in the conflict initiated by NIA against Victor Alistar and his family, the following causes have been pursued:

  • Fine issued by the NIA to Victor Alistar for the alleged delay in submitting the financial and interests disclosure statement, appealed in court which established both on first instance and on recourse that the fine was abusive and illegal.
  • Penal court claim for misrepresentation of the reason for suspension, against Victor Alistar and his colleagues, solved through two consecutive judgments to not commence the criminal prosecution on the grounds that the acts referred are invalidated, the last judgment being definitive.
  • Penal court claim against Victor Alistar’s wife and her colleagues at her former workplace, solved through two consecutive judgments to not commence the criminal prosecution on the grounds that the acts referred are invalidated, the last judgment being definitive.


Data publicare: 18/05/2012