European funds earmarked for economic development are caught in a bureaucratic maze, raising concerns about systemic issues within the justice system, according to the head of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. A case involving alleged fraud related to the Start Up Nation program has been shuffled between courts for three years, prompting questions about intentional delays.
A Case Stuck in Neutral
Table of Contents
A €22-defendant fraud case has spent years bouncing between courts, fueling suspicions of obstruction.
- Laura Codruța Kovesi, head of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, expressed concern over potential systemic issues hindering justice.
- The case involves accusations of fraudulently obtaining European and national financing through a network of over 150 companies.
- All judges at the Timiș Court recused themselves from the case due to a conflict of interest.
- The file has repeatedly moved between Bucharest and Timișoara, stalling progress for three years.
Invited to the Friendly Fire podcast with Moise and Vlad following a Recorder documentary titled “Captured Justice,” Laura Codruța Kovesi stated: “There were serious revelations because you understand what happened in reality, the mechanisms by which this was possible.” When asked if she saw a deliberate pattern, Kovesi responded, “I have the feeling that it is something systemic.”
Kovesi cited a specific case her office sent to court three years ago, initially assigned to the Bucharest Court. “An issue regarding jurisdiction was invoked during the criminal investigation and later the High Court decided that the Bucharest Court is competent to judge the case,” she explained. However, an appeal in the preliminary chamber led the Court of Appeal to unexpectedly transfer the case to Timișoara.
“In Timișoara, all the judges abstained,” Kovesi continued. “Again, the file was moved to the Bucharest Court. In three years, the file went from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Bucharest Court to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Timiș Court and absolutely nothing happened. I said it’s an accident, an unfortunate coincidence, but seeing this documentary I’m wondering if it’s not a method.”
The Details of the Case
Sources indicate the case Kovesi referenced involves 22 defendants, indicted by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in December 2022. The EPPO alleges that, starting in 2017, the individuals established more than 150 companies to “fraudulently obtain European and national financing.”
According to the EPPO, these companies requested funding for equipment or goods using “inaccurate, incomplete or false documents,” or through “fictitious invoices.” In many instances, the EPPO found that equipment listed as purchased never materialized, with the same assets repeatedly used across multiple projects.
Among those indicted are Timișoara DJ Victor Stan, Emilia Sezkely (an employee of the Timișoara City Hall), and Mircea Mereu (an employee of the Timiș SME Office).
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office regulations stipulate that cases within its jurisdiction must be tried in Bucharest, Cluj, Iasi, or Timișoara. The EPPO initially sent this particular case to the Bucharest Court.
A Year and Two Months of Delays
Court records show the file was registered at the Bucharest Court on December 19, 2022. Shortly after, it entered the preliminary chamber procedure to verify the indictment. A one-month deadline (until January 20, 2023) was set for defendants and civil parties to submit requests and exceptions.
The first preliminary chamber hearing was scheduled for March 27, 2023, but was postponed to allow a defendant to secure legal representation. At the May 8 hearing, a new deadline of May 15, 2023, was set due to procedural issues with defendant Bohoni Roxana and the absence of the case file. Further postponements occurred on May 15, 2023, and June 12, 2023.
On June 7, 2023, the judge presiding over the preliminary chamber scheduled a judgment for July 21, 2023. This was followed by ten further postponements, including one on November 29, 2023, attributed to “the lack of the substantive file and the criminal investigation file that is at the Bucharest Court of Appeal.”
On February 13, 2024, the Bucharest Court validated the EPPO’s indictment but also agreed to refer a question to the Constitutional Court, raised by Emilia Sezkely.
From Bucharest to Timișoara and Back
The Bucharest Court’s decision was appealed at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, where the case was registered on November 1, 2024. On April 24, 2025, the Court of Appeal sided with the defendants, ruling the case should be tried in Timișoara.
The Court of Appeal justified its decision by stating that “the place where the acts were committed, the place where the consequences of the acts occurred and the place where the defendants reside” is in Timiș, establishing jurisdiction for the Timiș Court. The court also noted that the signing of a contract by a minister in Bucharest did not automatically extend criminal jurisdiction to the capital, as no criminal participation was attributed to the minister.
Judicial Abstentions in Timișoara
Upon reaching the Timiș Court on May 19, 2025, the file was initially assigned to Judge Sorina Lupșa, who requested to abstain—a request that was granted. Subsequently, all judges assigned to the case recused themselves, citing “a suspicion that their impartiality is affected.”
Sources close to the case revealed that all six judges eligible to hear the case abstained because the wife of one of the defendants, Mircea Mereu, is a clerk in the Criminal Section of the Timiș Court.
The Timiș Court then requested the Timișoara Court of Appeal to designate another court to handle the case. On May 30, 2025, the Timișoara Court of Appeal reversed course, sending the file back to the Bucharest Court. While acknowledging the Bucharest Court of Appeal’s jurisdictional ruling, the Timișoara Court of Appeal reasoned that, given the Bucharest Court as the only remaining court with potential jurisdiction—and the location of the injured parties within its area—it was the most appropriate venue.
“Interrupted Course of Justice”
Following the Timiș Court’s inability to proceed and the Timișoara Court of Appeal’s decision, the file returned to Bucharest, where it was registered on June 4, 2025. On June 27, 2025, the Bucharest Court declared “interrupted the course of justice” and notified the High Court of Cassation and Justice to determine the competent court.
The Supreme Court ruled the case could be tried in Bucharest, setting a new deadline for the preliminary chamber procedure of January 29, 2026. The Bucharest Court’s preliminary chamber decision, whatever it may be, can be appealed to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. Only after a decision from the Court of Appeal, if the indictment is upheld, can the actual trial begin. A legal expert consulted stated that, given the file’s trajectory, there is a “high chance” the alleged offenses will expire due to statute of limitations.
