wake up INM aspirants and comment (Fraud National Institute of the Magistracy)
wake up INM aspirants and comment
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
romulus_the_good
wake up INM aspirants and comment
Post by romulus_cel_bun » May 30, 2007, 5:15 PM
The competition for the promotion of judges, organized by the Superior Council of the Magistracy and the National Institute of the Magistracy, on February 4 this year, was grossly falsified.
Several questions were cancelled, although some candidates had correctly given the written answers to the theoretical and practical tests. Some of the 500 judge-candidates have filed appeals, which reached the Supreme Court today. According to the Regulation on the organization and conduct of the competitions for the promotion of magistrates, approved by the CSM through Decision 621/2006, the commissions for the elaboration of the subjects are proposed by the INM.
The members of these commissions, who take responsibility for drafting the content of the questions and answers from the grid tests, are - according to the same Regulation - "persons who have been registered in the INM database and have attended the courses of this institution regarding evaluation methods and techniques". That's what it says on paper. In reality, however, INM has turned into a hive of incompetence and corruption, under the mandate of director Mihail Selegean and deputy director Lavinia Lefterache. These two jurists inherited and perfected the working style of the former heads of INM, Georgeta Nicolae (1998-2001) and Marilena Uliescu (2001-2003), under whose mandates suspicions of fraud in competitions for entry into the judiciary multiplied, through bribes or arrangements. In 2001, for example, a lawyer reported to the General Prosecutor's Office that "at the time of admission to INM, in the 2000 competition, an auditor's position cost 12,000 USD", giving the prosecutors indications of acts of judicial corruption that took place inside the institute. However, Joita Tanase's investigators hastened to close the file and the denunciation, due to the lack of evidence.
Tricked judges
The 481 candidate-judges who participated in the competition in February found out, after the exam ended, that for most of the test disciplines (Criminal Law, Civil Law, Family Law, etc.) the INM commissions have rectified subjects and scales, although the Regulation CSM does not allow this. Moreover, the same commissions allowed themselves to cancel questions for which the candidates had already formulated answers, during the time allocated to the contest, concluded without any official of the INM or CSM notifying those who participated in the exam of problems that arose in connection with the subjects in the grid tests. Thus, the candidates-judges, after the end of the contest, saw themselves deceived, because the rectification and cancellation of some subjects was ordered in an abusive manner, that is, outside the situations provided by the CSM Regulation. The consequences of these dirty arrangements were immediately felt by the candidates put by the INM in discriminatory, unfair situations. More precisely, they found that "the allocation of points ex officio, to replace those from the canceled questions, generates advantages for some and disadvantages for others". The candidates who challenged this rigged contest claim that "the criterion for selecting competitors based on the level of professional training was eliminated".
Through this scheming action, endorsed by the INM representatives, we reached the aberrant situation that "it is no longer possible to award a ten mark except by assigning some points ex officio - a situation not allowed and not provided for by the CSM Regulation". Candidate judges contested, at the Supreme Court, the correctness and legality of the organization and conduct of this competition with subjects changed or canceled after the testing. The appellants prove the fact that the abuses of the INM commissions "had the consequence of defrauding the competition, whose candidates were misled, illegally imposing a different scoring system than the one published and approved by the competent authority". The almost 500 judges, thus deceived by the INM,
Frauds on public money
The abuses of the Commissions for developing the subjects, complained by the hundreds of candidates-judges, are visible if the provisions of art. 13 of the CSM Regulation, which establishes the attributions and competencies. More precisely, art. 13 shows, in point 1 (a), that one of these attributions is "the preparation of subjects for the grid tests, (...) which should be in accordance with the subject matter and the bibliography approved and published by the CSM and the INM".
Therefore, the responsibility for the scientific content and for writing the questions and answers from the grid tests belongs, first of all, to the INM Commission, more precisely to the Scientific Council of this institution, but also to the CSM that formalizes the exam subject. As the supreme forum of the judiciary accepted everything proposed and drafted by the INM of Selegean and Lefterache, this is another equally serious problem. A fact that would require - according to some candidates of the contest of February 4, 2007 - the urgent dismissal and drastic sanctioning of all INM lawyers and academics involved in these acts of incompetence, financed from public money.
Problems with the answers
The instructions for completing the grid tests, distributed in the competition halls by the INM-CSM Commissions to each candidate, were not respected either. Initially, in the halls, scales with only one correct answer to certain sets of questions were formalized, and after the appeals were formulated, two "correct answers" were admitted.
Among the magistrates, the questions and answers formalized by the Commission for the preparation of subjects in the chapter "ECHR Practice - Criminal Law" (for candidates from the appeal courts) have arrived. It was determined that only one answer is correct. Under the rain of appeals, through which the well-prepared candidates complained about the erroneous wording of many questions, the Subject Elaboration Commission had to go back on its own decision, establishing without any embarrassment that some questions have two variants of correct answers. "Thus, an ECHR practice question received a different treatment than the other 109 questions from the two tests, the theoretical and the practical, being assessed - after appeals - with two variants of correct answers, contrary to the rules initially established by the organizers of the contest".
In a case inspired by the "Pantea versus Romania - 2003" case, for example, the INM commission discussed the situation of the detainee beaten by his cellmates, who filed a criminal complaint with the competent bodies. The INM commission for the preparation of the subjects for the contest of February 4, 2004 asked the candidate: "With reference to the complaint of the detainee applicant regarding the investigation in question, the ECHR will consider that the positive obligation to carry out an ex officio investigation: A- is limited to situations when agents of the state are involved; B- exists in all cases of ill-treatment; C- cannot be considered, in principle, to be limited only to cases in which ill-treatment is committed by agents of the state". In the first displayed scale, the INM Commission specified option "c" as the correct answer. After the wave of appeals, in which the magistrates with book knowledge reported the mistake to the INM Commission, it specifies that "version B is also correct". Although the well-prepared candidates showed that only option B is the true correct answer, and not option C (recorded in the initial scale), the INM Commission imposed the two options as correct, in order to mask its intention to remove the judges from the scale competent, but not on the arrangement list. Similar aberrant situations happened in the case of other questions. The INM Commission imposed the two options as correct, in order to mask its intention to remove the competent judges, but not on the list of arrangements, from the bar. Similar aberrant situations happened in the case of other questions. The INM Commission imposed the two options as correct, in order to mask its intention to remove the competent judges, but not on the list of arrangements, from the bar. Similar aberrant situations happened in the case of other questions.
Subjects with dedication
At the competition for the promotion of judges on February 4, 2004, the Commission of the National Institute of Magistracy also "served" the candidates with subjects with dedication, that is, without carrying out the procedure of drawing lots for the competition variant.
Many candidates revolted against the fact that the organizing committee did not demand more options from the committees for developing the subjects. According to the CSM Regulation, the drawing of lots procedure had to be carried out, in the presence of the candidates' delegate, of a variant of the proposed subjects. After the drawing of lots, which did not take place, the version had to be multiplied and distributed in the competition halls. That's what it says on paper, that is, in the CSM regulation, violated by the INM Commissions. In reality, it was done differently. The contest subjects were brought to the halls without the contest version being drawn. Many candidate-judges have reported this fact, considered as a flagrant violation of Article 19 of the CSM regulation. However, the notifications and protest of the magistrates were not taken seriously,
Wholesale aberrations
A visible proof of the modification ("rectification") by the INM Commission of the subjects and scales, after the contest of February 4, 2007, are - in addition to the testimonies and findings of the deceived candidates - the electronic pages of the INM-CSM website (chapter " Final results, after resolving the appeals - publication date: February 19, 2007"). Dozens of topics have been abusively, illegally modified by the INM Commission (for the elaboration and drafting of the content of the questions and answers in the grid tests). The phrases "Subjects rectified" and "At least definitively rectified", appeared in the Civil Law, Criminal Law, Commercial Law, Family Law, etc. tests. shows the extent of the professional waste committed by the INM Commission. For example, the aberrations included in the answer scale to question no. 32 from grid no. 4 for appeal courts (criminal law), regarding continued crimes and the criminal participation of the perpetrators. Candidates-judges who knew the book noticed that the answer scale established, contrary to the doctrine, that "participation is realized only when (perpetrator - no) participates in all the acts of the composition of the crime, not accepting partial participation". In their objections, the candidates cited the criminal doctrine in force, according to which "participation in the continued crime can be total (...) and partial, when one contributes to the commission of only a part of the inactions or component actions". regarding the continued crimes and the criminal participation of the perpetrators. Candidates-judges who knew the book noticed that the answer scale established, contrary to the doctrine, that "participation is realized only when (perpetrator - no) participates in all the acts of the composition of the crime, not accepting partial participation". In their objections, the candidates cited the criminal doctrine in force, according to which "participation in the continued crime can be total (...) and partial, when one contributes to the commission of only a part of the inactions or component actions". regarding the continued crimes and the criminal participation of the perpetrators. Candidates-judges who knew the book noticed that the answer scale established, contrary to the doctrine, that "participation is realized only when (perpetrator - no) participates in all the acts of the composition of the crime, not accepting partial participation". In their objections, the candidates cited the criminal doctrine in force, according to which "participation in the continued crime can be total (...) and partial, when one contributes to the commission of only a part of the inactions or component actions".
Two landmarks of INM
This scandal in INM is symptomatic of what is happening in the institution. We remember that, in January 2005, INM publicly presented the staff of the Scientific Council in a special press conference. Then they gave a speech about professionalism and scientific competence, in the activity of INM, prof. univ. Valeriu Stoica and the lawyer Marin Voicu. The first was Minister of Justice between 1997-2000, involved in several scandals over time. The second was president of CA Constanta. Appointed by the PSD regime as a judge at the ECHR Strasbourg, in 1996, Voicu was involved in the release of the Shogun (one of the looters of the Romanian fleet, under the name Calin Marinescu) and in the exclusion from the judiciary, between 1999-2000, of the Constanta judge Aurelia Nasta, who refused to execute the orders given to the court in the Flota case. Here are two "moral and professional milestones" of the scientific staff at INM
================================================================
desteptati-va aspiranti ai INM si comentati
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
romulus_cel_bun
desteptati-va aspiranti ai INM si comentati
Post by romulus_cel_bun » 30 May 2007, 17:15
Concursul de promovare a judecatorilor, organizat de Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii si Institutul National al Magistraturii, in data de 4 februarie a.c., a fost falsificat grosolan
Mai multe intrebari au fost anulate, desi unii candidati dadusera corect raspunsurile scrise la probele teoretice si practice. O parte dintre cei 500 de judecatori-candidati au formulat contestatii, ajunse astazi pe rolul instantei supreme. Potrivit Regulamentului de organizare si desfasurare al concursurilor de promovare a magistratilor, aprobat de CSM prin Hotararea 621/2006, comisiile de elaborare a subiectelor sunt propuse de INM.
Membrii acestor comisii, care isi asuma responsabilitatea redactarii continutului intrebarilor si raspunsurilor din testele-grila, sunt - conform aceluiasi Regulament - "persoane care au fost inscrise in baza de date a INM si au urmat cursurile acestei institutii privind metodele si tehnicile de evaluare". Asta scrie pe hartie. In realitate insa, INM s-a transformat intr-un viespar al incompetentei si coruptiei, sub mandatul directorului Mihail Selegean si al directorului adjunct Lavinia Lefterache. Acesti doi juristi au mostenit si au perfectionat stilul de lucru al fostilor sefi ai INM, Georgeta Nicolae (1998-2001) si Marilena Uliescu (2001-2003), sub mandatele carora s-au inmultit suspiciunile de fraudare a concursurilor de intrare in magistratura, prin mita sau aranjamente. In anul 2001, de exemplu, un avocat a denuntat la Parchetul General ca "la admiterea in INM, la concursul din anul 2000, un loc de auditor a costat 12.000 USD", oferind procurorilor indicii ale unor acte de coruptie judiciara petrecute in interiorul institutului. Anchetatorii lui Joita Tanase s-au grabit insa sa claseze dosarul si denuntul, din lipsa de probe.
Judecatori pacaliti
Cei 481 de candidati-judecatori care au participat la concursul din februarie au aflat, dupa ce s-a incheiat examenul, ca pentru majoritatea disciplinelor de testare (Drept Penal, Drept civil, Dreptul familiei etc.) comisiile INM au rectificat subiecte si baremuri, desi Regulamentul CSM nu permite acest lucru. Mai mult, aceleasi comisii si-au permis sa anuleze intrebari asupra carora candidatii formulasera deja raspunsuri, in timpul alocat concursului, incheiat fara ca vreun oficial al INM sau CSM sa-i anunte pe cei care au participat la examen de probleme aparute in legatura cu subiectele din testele-grila. Astfel, candidatii-judecatori, dupa incheierea concursului, s-au vazut inselati, deoarece s-a dispus rectificarea si anularea unor subiecte in mod abuziv, adica in afara situatilor prevazute de Regulamentul CSM. Consecintele acestor aranjamente murdare au fost imediat simtite de candidatii pusi de INM in situatii discriminatorii, inechitabile. Mai precis, ei au constatat ca "alocarea unor puncte din oficiu, care sa le inlocuiasca pe cele din intrebarile anulate, genereaza avantaje pentru unii si dezavantaje pentru altii". Candidatii care au contestat acest concurs trucat sustin ca "a fost eliminat criteriul selectiei concurentilor pe baza nivelului de pregatire profesionala".
Prin aceasta actiune de masluire, girata de reprezentantii INM, s-a ajuns in situatia aberanta ca "sa nu se mai poata acorda nota zece decat prin atribuirea unor puncte din oficiu - situatie nepermisa si neprevazuta de Regulamentul CSM". Judecatorii-candidati au contestat, la instanta suprema, corectitudinea si legalitatea organizarii si desfasurarii acestui concurs cu subiecte schimbate sau anulate dupa efectuarea testarii. Contestatarii probeaza faptul ca abuzurile comisiilor INM "au avut drept consecinte fraudarea concursului, ai carui candidati au fost indusi in eroare, impunandu-li-se ilegal un alt sistem de notare decat cel publicat si aprobat de autoritatea competenta". Cei aproape 500 de judecatori, astfel pacaliti de INM, atentioneaza instanta suprema si asupra faptului ca prin aceste nerespectari ale Regulamentului CSM "au fost finalizate alte rezultate decat cele bazate pe criteriul strict valoric al candidatilor, situatie ce impune anularea concursului din 4 februarie 2007".
Fraude pe bani publici
Abuzurile Comisiilor de elaborare a subiectelor, reclamate de sutele de candidati-judecatori, sunt vizibile daca se analizeaza dispozitiile art. 13 din Regulamentul CSM, care stabileste atributiile si competentele. Mai exact, art. 13 arata, la punctul 1 (a) ca una din aceste atributii este "elaborarea subiectelor pentru testele grila, (...) care sa fie in concordanta cu tematica si bibliografia aprobate si publicate de CSM si de INM".
Asadar, responsabilitatea pentru continutul stiintific si pentru redactarea intrebarilor si raspunsurilor din testele-grila aprtine, in primul rand, Comisiei INM, mai precis Consiliului Stiintific al acestei institutii, dar si CSM care oficializeaza materia de examen. Ca forul suprem al magistraturii a luat de bun tot ce a propus si redactat INM-ul lui Selegean si Lefterache, aceasta este o alta problema la fel de grava. Fapt ce ar impune - sustin unii candidati ai concursului din 4 februarie 2007 - demiterea urgenta si sanctionarea drastica a tuturor juristilor INM si universitarilor implicati in aceste acte de incompetenta, finantate din bani publici.
Probleme cu raspunsurile
Nici instructiunile de completare a testelor-grila, distribuite in salile de concurs de catre Comisiile INM-CSM fiecarui candidat, nu au fost respectate. Initial au fost oficializate, in sali, baremuri cu un singur raspuns corect la anumite seturi de intrebari, iar dupa formularea contestatiilor s-au admis doua "raspunsuri corecte".
De pomina au ajuns, in randurile magistratilor, intrebarile si raspunsurile oficializate de Comisia de elaborare a subiectelor la capitolul "Practica CEDO - Drept penal" (pentru candidatii de la curtile de apel). S-a stabilit ca un singur raspuns este corect. Sub ploaia contestatiilor, prin care candidatii bine pregatiti au reclamat redactarea eronata a multor intrebari, Comisia de elaborare a subiectelor a fost nevoita sa revina asupra propriei decizii, stabilind fara nici o jena ca unele intrebari au doua variante de raspunsuri corecte. "Astfel, o intrebare de practica CEDO a primit alt tratament decat celelalte 109 intrebari din cele doua probe, cea teoretica si cea practica, fiind apreciata - dupa contestatii - cu doua variante de raspunsuri corecte, contrar regulilor stabilite initial de organizatorii concursului", s-au plans, la CSM si la instanta suprema unii candidati.
Intr-o speta inspirata de cauza "Pantea versus Romania - 2003", spre exemplu, comisia INM a pus in discutie situatia detinutului batut de colegii de celula, care s-a adresat cu o plangere penala organelor competente. Comisia INM de elaborare a subiectelor de la concursul din 4 februarie 2004 a intrebat candidatul: "Cu referire la plangerea detinutului reclamant privind ancheta in cauza, CEDO va aprecia ca obligatia pozitiva de a se efectua din oficiu o ancheta: A- este limitata la situatii cand sunt implicati agenti ai statului; B- subzista in toate cazurile de rele tratamente; C - nu poate fi considerata, in principiu, ca se limiteaza numai la cazurile in care relele tratamente sunt comise de agentii statului". In primul barem afisat, Comisia INM a precizat varianta "c" ca raspuns corect. Dupa valul de contestatii, in care magistratii cu stiinta de carte au sesizat gafa Comisiei INM, aceasta precizeaza ca "si varianta B este corecta". Desi candidatii bine pregatiti au aratat ca doar varianta B este adevaratul raspuns corect, si nu varianta C (consemnata in baremul initial), Comisia INM a impus cele doua variante ca fiind corecte, pentru a-si masca intentia de a-i scoate din barem pe judecatorii competenti, dar neaflati pe lista cu aranjamente. Situatii la fel de aberante s-au petrecut si in cazul altor intrebari.
Subiecte cu dedicatie
La concursul de promovare a judecatorilor din 4 februarie 2004, Comisia Institutului National al Magistraturii a "servit" candidatilor si subiecte cu dedicatie, adica fara a se efectua procedura tragerii la sorti a variantei de concurs.
Foarte multi candidati s-au revoltat impotriva faptului ca acea comisie de organizare nu a pretins comisiilor de elaborare a subiectelor mai multe variante. Conform Regulamentului CSM, trebuia indeplinita procedura tragerii la sorti, in prezenta delegatului candidatilor, a unei variante din subiectele propuse. Dupa tragerea la sorti, care nu a mai avut loc, varianta trebuia multiplicata si distribuita in salile de concurs. Asa scrie pe hartie, adica in regulamentul CSM, incalcat de Comisiile INM. In realitate s-a procedat altfel. Subiectele de concurs au fost aduse in sali fara a fi fost trasa la sorti varianta de concurs. Foarte multi candidati-judecatori au sesizat acest fapt, considerat ca o incalcare flagranta a articolului 19 din regulamentul CSM. Sesizarile si protestul magistratilor nu au fost insa luate in serios, fapt ce a fost consemnat in contestatia ajunsa la instanta suprema.
Aberatii en-gros
O dovada vizibila a modificarii ("rectificarii") de catre Comisia INM a subiectelor si baremurilor, dupa desfasurarea concursului din 4 februarie 2007, sunt - pe langa marturiile si constatarile candidatilor pacaliti - si paginile electronice ale site-ului INM-CSM (capitolul "Rezultate finale, dupa solutionarea contestatiilor - data publicarii: 19 februarie 2007"). Se observa zeci de subiecte modificate abuziv, ilegal, de Comisia INM (de elaborare si redactare a continutului intrebarilor si raspunsurilor din testele grila). Sintagmele "Subiecte rectificate" si "Barem definitiv rectificat", aparute in dreptul testelor de la Drept Civil, Penal, Comercial, Dreptul familiei etc. arata amploarea rebutului profesional savarsit de Comisia INM. De pilda, uluitoare sunt aberatiile cuprinse in baremul de raspuns la intrebarea nr. 32 din grila nr. 4 pentru curti de apel (drept penal), referitor la infractiunile continuate si participatia penala a faptuitorilor. Candidatii-judecatori care stiau carte au sesizat ca baremul de raspuns stabilea, contrar doctrinei, ca "participatia se realizeaza numai cand (faptuitorul - n.r.) participa la toate actele din compunerea infractiunii, neacceptand participatia partiala". In contestatiile lor, candidatii au citat doctrina penala in vigoare, conform careia "participatia la infractiunea continuata poate fi totala (...) si partiala, atunci cand se contribuie la infaptuirea numai a unei parti din inactiunile sau actiunile componente".
Doua repere ale INM
Acest scandal din INM este simptomatic pentru ceea ce se intampla in institutie. Ne amintim ca, in ianuarie 2005, INM si-a prezentat public, intr-o conferinta de presa speciala, staff-ul Consiliului Stiintific. Atunci au tinut un discurs despre profesionalism si competenta stiintifica, in activitatea INM, prof.univ. Valeriu Stoica si avocatul Marin Voicu. Primul a fost ministru al Justitiei intre 1997-2000, implicat in mai multe scandaluri de-a lungul timpului. Cel de-al doilea a fost presedinte al CA Constanta. Numit de regimul PSD ca judecator la CEDO Strasbourg, in 1996, Voicu a fost implicat in eliberarea Shogun-ului (unul din devalizatorii flotei romanesti, pe numele sau Calin Marinescu) si in excluderea din magistratura, intre 1999-2000, a judecatoarei constantene Aurelia Nasta, care a refuzat sa execute ordinele date instantei in cazul Flota. Iata doua "repere morale si profesionale" ale staff-ului stiintific de la INM