Access to the protocols of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to Craiova Court of Appeal
FEW’s request, the disclosure of 25 February 2019 and the protocols enclosed, with a link to the judgments in case 1885/83/2018.
Freies EuropaFollow the requests, responses and rulings in context.
FEW’s request, the disclosure of 25 February 2019 and the protocols enclosed, with a link to the judgments in case 1885/83/2018.
FEW’s request, the PÎCCJ letter of 14 February 2019 with the protocols enclosed, and links to the judgments and protocols previously published.
The judgments in case 69/83/2019: Satu Mare Tribunal orders SPP to disclose the unclassified protocols and specifically identify the classified ones, and Oradea Court of Appeal upholds the judgment.
Protocols disclosed in compliance with Judgment No. 131/CA/2019, which became final through Decision No. 801/CA/2019-R, together with FEW’s request and Bihor Tribunal’s letter.
The Foundation requested a copy of the electronic attachment protocol from ANAF to examine the safeguards for privacy and personal data protection. The court dismissed the appeal on points of law in a final decision and upheld the disclosure obligation.
Contract No. 2254/21.07.2011 provides for construction supervision services worth 62,500 lei, plus VAT of 15,000 lei, for three investment projects in Odoreu Commune.
In the proceedings concerning gender representation, Oradea Court of Appeal allowed the action and annulled the CNCD decision. The judgment was delivered at first instance and states that an appeal on points of law may be lodged.
Cluj Court of Appeal recognised the Foundation’s interest, arising from its objects, in bringing proceedings to protect the environment, allowed the appeal on points of law and the action, and annulled the environmental permit in the Vâlsan area. The decision is marked ‘irrevocable’.
PICCJ and MDRAP establish cooperation on interdisciplinary professional training, events and exchanges of experience in corruption prevention.
The National Council for Combating Discrimination found the access charge under examination to be discriminatory and imposed a sanction. The decision states that it may be challenged in court.