The magistrate who, as court hearing prosecutor, objected to businessman Dan Adamescu’s conditional release, although he proved with documents that he was severely ill, now wants to be a boss at the DNA.
This is George Daniel Cojocaru, who now requests to be delegated as head of the records, registry, archive and public relations department of DNA. Dan Adamescu died shortly after the case prosecutor obtained a court decision for him to remain in prison. As the court hearing prosecutor, on 19 May 2016, Cojocaru also obtained a decision to have Dan Adamescu’s son arrested. Cojocaru is a “regular applicant” of the CSM, as he requests for transfer from one Prosecutor’s office to another almost on a yearly basis.
Caption: Dan Adamescu and his son, Alexander Adamescu
High-ranking prosecutor with no exam
In 2003, George Daniel Cojocaru was appointed prosecutor at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to Giurgiu Court. In 2006, the agenda of the Prosecutor’s Section included the Note of the Human Resources Division regarding the approval of Cojocaru’s appointment as a DNA prosecutor. By court solution 427/1154/2006, Cojocaru, with less than 3 years of experience, became a DNA prosecutor. In July he asked the CSM to recognise his Supreme Court rank.
Thus, prosecutor Cojocaru, like more than 500 of his colleagues, submitted a request for promotion as a result of his being appointed at the DNA based on an interview. The CSM denied his request, given that the law provides for upranking by exam alone. Cojocaru appealed against CSM’s decision at the Disputes Division of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The Supreme Court automatically granted his appeal by the already established legal practice, even if he had been a prosecutor only for a few years.
HCCJ. Decision no. 4251/2008. Matters in dispute. Dispute on magistrates. Appeal
ROMANIA
HIGH COURT OF CASSATION AND JUSTICE
SECTION FOR DISPUTES ON ADMINISTRATIVE AND TAX MATTERS
Decision no. 4251/2008
Case file no. 6189/1/2008
Open session of 20 November 200.
Regarding this appeal;
After reviewing the proceedings in the case file, finds as follows:
Decision no. 591 of 19 June 2008 ruled by the members of the Superior Council of Magistracy dismissed the claim filed by C.G.D., prosecutor with the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, DNA [National Anticorruption Directorate], central structure, whereby he requested that his professional rank be recognised as being consistent with the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
In passing this decision, the members of the Superior Council of Magistracy mainly considered that, should it be reckoned that by appointing prosecutors, according to the special procedure, in the specialised structure of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, such prosecutors automatically acquire the professional rank consistent with the said prosecutor’s office, the legal provisions on promotion by contest to higher executive positions would be circumvented.
Also, the members of the Superior Council of Magistracy pointed out that G.E.O. no. 43/2002 on the National Anticorruption Prosecution Office, as amended and supplemented, does not provide for removal of the obligation to participate in the contest held for obtaining the professional rank; instead, the provisions of Law no. 303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors apply.
Another reason for dismissing the magistrate’s claim documented in the decision appealed against is that an appointment within the D.N.A. cannot be the same as promoting to executive positions within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, as the conditions provided by the law for the two situations are different.
The members of the Superior Council of Magistracy also pointed out that the legislator expressly provided that, at the end of his/her activity within the D.N.A., the prosecutor returns to his/her initial prosecutor’s office or to another prosecutor’s office where s/he has the right to perform his/her activity according to the law, which means that the appointment, unlike a promotion to an executive positions, has a temporary nature.
They also considered that the remuneration of prosecutors within the D.N.A is not exactly the same as the remuneration of the prosecutors within the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and that such remuneration does not lead to the acquiring of a professional rank.
On 26 February 2009, Cojocaru (together with Dănuț Volintiru, Tiberiu Nițu, Daniel Morar, Doru Țuluș etc.) received the maximum professional rank, that of a Supreme Court Prosecutor, with no exam, by decision of the Disputes Division led at that time by judge Victoria Bârsan.
In no more than three years, George Cojocaru went from car theft directly to DNA’s grand criminality (that is from District Court Prosecutor’s Office directly to the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office, without the preliminary stages of the Tribunal Prosecutor’s Office and the Court of Appeal Prosecutor’s Office) and, with a 2-year leap (2006- 2008) at the DNA, he managed to obtain the highest Prosecutor’s Office rank. Thus, he came to have the maximum rank and remuneration, which allowed him to withdraw overnight even from lower ranking Prosecutor’s Offices. For instance, in 2013 he left from the DNA to the Bucharest Tribunal and from there to the District Court of Sector 6 (Bucharest). Cojocaru kept his wage and privilege as prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s office, obtained with no exam, therefore as a result of sheer discrimination within the legal system. His “instability” with the Prosecutor’s Offices raises serious suspicions.
Cojocaru’s situation is one of many cases showing discrimination, incompetence and abuse leading the way to the torture era of the communist legal system. A system including prosecutors with ranks and remunerations similar to those of the Supreme Court, but with poor experience and training and with considerable costs to the budget.
Prosecutor Cojocaru’s transfers
• PROSECUTOR’S SECTION SETTLED AGENDA OF 12 NOVEMBER 2013
26724/1154/2013 CESSATION OF ACTIVITY: 2) Report of the Human Resources and Organisation Division no. 25061/1154/2013 on the request submitted by Mr COJOCARU GEORGE DANIEL, prosecutor, for cessation of activity with the National Anticorruption Directorate. The Prosecutors Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy decided on the cessation of activity within the National Anticorruption Directorate of the prosecutor whose professional rank is consistent with the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, COJOCARU GEORGE DANIEL, as of 14-Nov-2013 and return to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to Bucharest Tribunal as of the same date.
• PROSECUTOR’S SECTION AGENDA OF 28 MAY 2014, 2:00 p.m.
Description of proceeding 11267/2014, point 17: Cojocaru George Daniel Prosecutor’s Office attached to Bucharest Tribunal transfer upon his request to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Sector 6, Bucharest
• PROSECUTOR’S SECTION SETTLED AGENDA OF 31 JANUARY 2017
2161/2017: Note of the Human Resources and Organisation Division on approval of the appointment within the National Anticorruption Directorate of the prosecutors declared admitted at the interview organised on 26-Jan-2017. Settlement The Prosecutor’s Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy gave a favourable opinion on the appointment with the National Anticorruption Directorate of the following prosecutors declared admitted at the interview of 26-Jan-2017:
• Mr COJOCARU GEORGE DANIEL, prosecutor with the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Sector 6, Bucharest
CSM no. 670 22453/2018
• Note of the Human Resources and Organisation Division no. 21390/2018 on the request submitted by Mr COJOCARU GEORGE DANIEL, prosecutor, for cessation of activity with the National Anticorruption Directorate and continuation of activity with the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
The Prosecutor’s Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy decided to reject the request submitted by Mr COJOCARU GEORGE DANIEL, prosecutor, for cessation of activity with the National Anticorruption Directorate and continuation of activity with the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
• PROSECUTOR’S SECTION Settled agenda of 18 April 2019, 9:00 a.m. Point 6. 7884/2019
Prosecutor Cojocaru’s persistence was successful last year as well. Thus, on 18 April 2019, CSM’s decision no. 7884 approved another transfer, from the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) to the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ).
Transfer requests in 2019 and, in less than a year, in 2020
In less than a year after his latest transfer, Cojocaru now asks in 2020 to be transferred back to the DNA, by delegation, as head of the records, registry, archive and public relations department of the DNA.
According to the agenda published on the site of the Superior Council of Magistracy, Cojocaru’s request is to be examined on 26 February 2020, which is today.
Irrespective whether the CSM’s Prosecutor’s Section approves or not his new request, Cojocaru’s impossibility to settle into a certain job is in itself a source of suspicion.
