CASE FILE NO. 3/95/2005
| Date / Institution | Events / Rulings | Personal notes of Nicolae Mischie concerning the above-mentioned event |
| 2003 | NAPO | Self-denouncement of Clement Mocanu at the National Anticorruption Prosecution Office (NAPO). | A group of 5-6 “friends” of the local government met at the “DANTEX” restaurant in Tg-Jiu to prepare an evil plot: blackmailing businessman Clement Mocanu with the closing down of his company if he doesn’t falsely denounce Nicolae Mischie for bribery. He accepts. |
| 30th April 2004 | NAPO | Following the “self-denouncement” of Clement Mocanu, a criminal investigation begins. | NB: Clement Mocanu said, in the testimony given in another trial involving Nicolae Mischie, before the Hunedoara Court of Law, that his denouncement “was not made on my own initiative, but because I was asked to do so by the investigators, who told me that the NAPO is moving slowly and that they intended to take action in this case file”, that “there were a number of interests that made themselves known, from the political and administrative circles, concerning the accused, Nicolae Mischie.” |
| 13th June 2005 | The case was prosecuted. | The NAPO indictment was superficial, and an expert report was ordered, to which both parties were supposed to take part, including Nicolae Mischie. Unjustifiably, this decision was not observed. The conclusions of the NAPO representatives weren’t even brought to the attention of Nicolae Mischie, as stipulated by the law. |
| 12th July 2007 | Ruling of the Gorj Court of Law | Sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment, to be served. | The ruling of the Gorj Court of Law was given in absentia, as Nicolae Mischie was not present having to attend the proceedings of another trial in Deva, and as such he could not defend himself in this trial. The requests of the lawyer to set a new court day were not taken into account, which would have allowed Nicolae Mischie to attend the proceedings when the final ruling was given by the Gorj Court of Law. |
| 17th February 2010 | Ruling of the Timisoara Court of Appeal | The appeal lodged by Nicolae Mischie is rejected, and the appeal of the Prosecution Office is received. | The testimonies of several witnesses were omitted, as well as several expert reports that were crucial for the case. One of the judges, Gheorghe Bugarski, expressed a dissenting opinion, namely that Nicolae Mischie was innocent. (download here the dissenting opinion of Judge Gheorghe Bugarski). Subsequently he was “replaced” by another judge. Interesting, isn’t it? |
| 3rd March 2011 | Ruling of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) | The court received the appeals lodged by Mischie and by the National Anticorruption Directorate, and ruled that the previous sentence be reversed and remanded the case for retrial before the Timisoara Court of Appeal. | |
| 13th June 2012 | Ruling of the Timisoara Court of Appeal | Sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment, to be served. Ruling appealed. | The trial was judged by another panel, without gathering further information and without requesting the necessary expert reports. The case file was returned to the HCCJ. |
| 13th March 2013 | Ruling of the HCCJ | The HCCJ upheld the previous ruling of the Timisoara Court of Appeal. Final sentence to 4 years of imprisonment. | |
| 16th May 2014 | Gorj Court of Law | Nicolae Mischie was released on parole. | |
| 29th September 2015 | European Court of Human Rights | Rules in favour of Nicolae Mischie and orders the State of Romania to pay damages amounting to EUR 4,300. | ECHR finds that there were procedural flaws affecting the case file.
In the ruling given on the 16th September 2014 in the case Mischie vs. The Strasbourg Court sharply criticised the High Court of Cassation and Justice for having issued a one-year suspended sentence to be served by Nicolae Mischie without new evidence, but by reinterpreting the same rules of evidence based on which lower courts had issued rulings for acquittal. The High Court proceeded to a new interpretation of the statements of witnesses that it had not heard. Thus, it overturned the rulings of the lower courts that had acquitted the Plaintiff based on the testimonies given by these witnesses before them, during the hearings. Since the analysis of the evidence was conducted by the court of appeal, it should be noted that the Plaintiff was convicted based on the same evidence that had been deemed sufficient by the lower courts to doubt the allegations and substantiate his acquittal. Under these circumstances, the High Court’s failure to hear these witnesses before convicting the Plaintiff significantly lowered his right to defend himself. The ECHR notes, first of all, that the High Court of Cassation and Justice has heard the Plaintiff in person, but that it had convicted him without hearing again the witnesses heard at the trial court stage, whose testimonies led to his acquittal. (…)chitarea sa. (…) |
The fact that the court did not take into account the fair trial conditions and the arguments and witness statements proves that the trial was “ordered”.
The same thing happened in case file no. 3158/221/2006 (“HUNTING RIFLE”), the ECHR ruling eventually in favour of Nicolae Mischie, as well as in the case file no. 3352/221/2006 (“Ganescu House”). For example, in the the Ganescu House case file, although the Gorj County Council did not take part in the trial as an injured party for the works carried out in the guest house of the Gorj County Council, the court unduly ordered Nicolae Mischie to pay damages equal to the amounts due for the works.
Other documents of Case file no. 3/95/2005
CASE FILE NO. 3158/221/2006 | THE “HUNTING RIFLE” CASE
| Date / Institution | Events / Rulings | Personal notes of Nicolae Mischie concerning the above-mentioned event |
| ??? | The accusation: arms trafficking. | No weapons were trafficked. |
| ??? HCCJ | Suspended 1-year sentence. | explanations |
| 29th September 2015 | European Court of Human Rights | Rules in favour of Nicolae Mischie and orders the State of Romania to pay damages amounting to EUR 3,000 for the procedural flaws identified in the case file. |
CASE FILE NO. 3352/221/2006 | THE “GANESCU HOUSE” CASE
|
Date / Institution |
Events / Rulings |
Personal notes of Nicolae Mischie concerning the above-mentioned event |
| Date ??? / Duration: 6 years | The prosecution for the renovation works of the Ganescu House, owned by the Gorj County Council, started after the denouncement made by Clement Mocanu before the Prosecution Office attached to the Gorj Court of Law. | In relation to this denouncement, Clement Mocanu said, in the testimony given in the trial, before the Hunedoara Court of Law, that his denouncement “was not made on my own initiative, but because I was asked to do so by the investigators, who told me that the NAPO is moving slowly and that they intended to take action in this case file, that “there were a number of interests that made themselves known, from the political and administrative circles, concerning the accused, Nicolae Mischie.” None of Nicolae Mischie’s duties involved holding tenders for the execution of the works required to renovate the Ganescu House. The tendering activities were carried out by a panel, presided by Ion Calinoiu and which included members Maruta Rodica, Rosu Vasile, Badescu Nicolae, Raus Daniel, Isuf Leontin and Blendea Marius. The only contribution brought by Nicolae Mischie to this activity was issuing invitations to the companies managed by Clement Mocanu, but such invitations were sent to other companies as well. The overzealous case prosecutor ordered, immediately after the denouncement regarding Nicolae Mischie, his pre-trial detention, according to warrant no. 8 of 26/01/2015 on grounds that later proved to be unsubstantiated, and alleging that Nicolae Mischie had “ordered a payment of RON 817 million to be made to the contractor… without being requested to do so by the contractor.” After 5 days of being held in custody (from 26/01/2005 to 30/01/2005) the request of the contractor was “found” – SC ARC SA, represented by Clement Mocanu, a request that had been approved by the Economic Directorate of the Gorj County Council and which proposed, based on GD 264/2003, art. 1, para. (1). This request had been “lost” in the case file of Prosecutror Emil Mota. |
| 16th March 2006 | Deva Court of Law | Nicolae Mischie is convicted and payment of damages to the Gorj County Council. | Following the criminal prosecution proceedings of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Gorj Court of Law, it was decided that Nicolae Mischie be brought before justice. The case was referred to the Deva Court of Law, and by ruling no. 375/2009 in case file no. 3352/221/2006, Nicolae Mischie was found guilty on all counts. |
| 3rd November 2010 | Hunedoara Court of Law | Nicolae Mischie is acquitted. | An appeal was lodged on behalf of Nicolae Mischie before the Hunedoara Court of Law, the presiding judge being also the President of the Court in question, and the criminal ruling no. 325/A/2010 was issued in case file 3352/221/2006, by means of which Nicolae Mischie was acquitted on all counts, except for the lack of the approval issued by the Ministry of Culture (the Ganescu House was a listed building of special architectural or historic interest), for which he received a suspended sentence of 1 year, although the Gorj County Council had specialised departments which should have obtained this approval. The Hunedoara Court of Law, by its ruling, rejected the appeal lodged by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Deva Court of Law as unfounded, which also resulted in the annulment of the requirement to pay the sum of RON 82,653 as damages to the Gorj County Council, which did not take part in the proceedings as injured party, according to the letters transmitted to the Hunedoara Court of Law. |
| 22nd March 2011 | Alba-Iulia Court of Appeal | Quashes the criminal ruling. The amount of RON 82,653 is seized. | Although the Gorj County Council did not take part as an injured party, as there were no grounds (according to testimonies given during the trial), the court ordered Nicolae Mischie to pay damages. Appeals were lodged before the Alba-Iulia Court of Appeal, which upheld, by ruling no. 343 of 22/03/2011, the appeal lodged by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Hunedoara Court of Law. All the counts on which Nicolae Mischie was acquitted by the Hunedoara Court of Law were maintained by the Alba Iulia Court of Law: the conviction, the other provisions of the contested criminal rulings, including the seizure of the amount of RON 82,653. With reference to this amount, the ruling no, 343/22/03/2011 specifies, on p. 44: “Given the damage caused in the case and the circumstances that the civil party did not maintain its request for compensation, pursuant to Art. 118 (e) of the CC, it is hereby ordered that the amount of RON 82,653 be seized from Defendant Mischie” (the injured party being the Gorj County Council, which, by letters no. 1/2884 of 09/04/2010, no. 1/3392 of 28/04/2010, and no. 1/5738 of 20/09/2010 does not appear as injured party). So you’re innocent but still have to pay compensation … Strange, isn’t it? |
It should be noted that the issues related to Ganescu House were also subject to case file no. 3/95/2005, first on the docket of the Gorj Court of Law, then on that of the Court of Appeal of Timisoara and of the HCCJ of Bucharest.
OTHER DOCUMENTS OF POLITICAL CASE FILES
