The High Court of Cassation and Justice HCCJ admitted Tuesday, July 9, the request of the Section for Investigating Crimes within the Justice System SIIJ to reopen criminal prosecution in the case file that investigated crimes that allegedly had been committed by Judge Bogdan Mateescu, CSM member, and his father, mayor in Băile Govora.
The file reopened by SIIJ is mainly aimed at Bogdan Mateescu, CSM member judge, and his father, Mihai Mateescu, mayor of Baile Govora. In-rem research (on facts) was closed in 2015 by the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Vâlcea Tribunal, which declined its competence in 2016 to DNA Piteşti. In 2017, after Bogdan Mateescu was elected representative of the judges in the CSM , the central structure of the DNA resumed without explanation the file from the DNA of Pitesti. On August 21, 2018, in the context of the control of the DNA Judicial Inspection, which targeted the magistrates' files, prosecutor Florentina Mirica took the decision to classify the case.
Judge Mateescu's father is facing, among other things, bribe-taking suspicions, including from two senators. Bogdan Mateescu is facing allegations of complicity in bribe taking, continuous influence trafficking and buying of influence in a continuous form.
Specifically, according to the ordinance, representatives of commercial companies executing contracts concluded with Băile Govora Mayor's Office had carried out modifications to the personal property of Bogdan Mateescu, in the change of favoring commercial companies by civil servants from the City Hall of Baile Govora, with a view to concluding and executing public works contracts.
Moreover, according to the ordinance, the judge would have received money or other property benefits from different people, so that he could intervene in front of the judges of the Râmnicu Vâlcea Court for the adoption of favorable solutions.
HCCJ has repeatedly postponed a decision on the SIIIJ request. The decision of the HCCJ on the reopening of the prosecution had to take place on 6 June, but it was postponed to 20 June, in order to clarify a conflict of competence between the SIIJ and the Criminal Division of the ICCJ, regarding the representation before the court. Although the SIIJ representative was forbidden to support the request at the HCCJ, the prosecutor from the Criminal Division of the County Court of Cassation defended the merits of the request of the ICS. The pronouncement should have taken place on Friday, June 28, but it was postponed again because the case judge went to an event abroad. Upon his return to the country, Judge Dan Marius Foitos admitted the SIII request, although there was information about his pressure to reject the request for re-prosecution.