404 files of international adoptions disappeared without trace

404 files of international adoptions disappeared without trace

It is a story about international adoptions, which in the 90s were made in an impressive number and that made their mark on the image of Romania. At the time of the accession negotiations, from the beginning of the 2000s, it was necessary for Romania to amend its legislation and close the series without staving off the sending of orphaned children or without possibilities across borders. One of the most difficult conditions to meet was the stopping of international adoptions, and the rapporteur for Romania, Baroness Emma Nicholson, invoked then the "rule of law" which must be respected also regarding adoptions. Romania changed its vision, but the era of the 90s left 404 international adoption files that disappeared. Entirely.

On February 20, 1997, the management of the Bucharest Tribunal, provided by Judge Viorel Ro?, notified the Police about the disappearance from the court archive of 248 civil files regarding international adoptions.

The Minister of Justice has since ordered an extensive control at the Bucharest Court and the court inspectors of the superior court, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, finds that 404 civil adoption files have disappeared: 173 from 1990 to 1993 and 231 from 1994 to 1995 . With the files, several meeting conditions from 1994-1995, meeting maps and records of records disappeared.

"We asked for a verification and a report on the situation created. The report was made and afterwards I think a criminal complaint was made. Unfortunately, as far as I can remember, the criminal investigation did not lead to any result, that is, it did not find the perpetrators ”, declared Valeriu Stoica, former Minister of Justice.

He says he no longer has the report drawn up at his request, but that it should be in the ministry's archive. The Ministry of Justice argues that at the level of 1997 there was a structure that checked the activity of the judges, but did not find the report ordered by Valeriu Stoica.

"During the period referred to in your request, respectively 1997, the competence of the control activity was divided and assigned, according to the subject, to several compartments within the Ministry of Justice, the Inspection Body having the powers of verification and control of the activity, training and professional skills of the judges. . (...) At the level of the Control Body no inventory with control reports of the activity of judges / courts since 1997 has been identified ”, the ministry's reply shows.

"Unfortunately, the criminal investigation did not clarify the situation and it was not known in the end what happened to those files. It was very unpleasant, unfortunately ”, Valeriu Stoica told us.

The report was not kept in Bucharest Court either, the administrative documents being destroyed every 3 years.

However, the conclusions of the report were presented at a press conference in 1997, and they were published in the newspapers of the time.

Fragile irregularities

Thus, we find out from the material that the control team that carried out the checks was composed of four inspecting judges, among them Gabriela Victoria Bîrsan then a judge at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, who later reached the High Court and was accused and tried for bribe-taking and which was finally paid.

The control lasted two months, between April and May 1997. The magistrates involved escaped the disciplinary sanctions, because, according to the law then, the sanctions could be applied within 1 year from the date of committing the facts.

One of the conclusions of this control is that "another cause that led to the perpetuation of the phenomenon over time was the distribution of the files by sections, respectively their judgment, especially by the Civil Section III, especially by a certain whole: Daniela Br?g?u and Claudia Gherbovan Silinescu ". The latter is the daughter of former SIE general Constantin Silinescu.

If on the administrative side things were clear and those involved could not be sanctioned, on the criminal side the investigations stagnated until the facts were prescribed.

In March 1997, the Prosecutor General's Office starts the criminal investigation "in rem" in connection with the disappearance of the files from the court and, six months later, it is proposed by report "the delay without delay of the criminal prosecution" and the sending of the file to the Bucharest Municipal Police "in order to be included in the records of cases with unknown authors ”.

In this case, the police heard several clerks and archives from the Bucharest Court on charges of destroying documents. Subsequently, there were indications that the court also involved judges from the court, so that the file was declined to a higher parquet structure, which, in turn, separated the file.

Line rankings

In the final resolution of non-commencement of the criminal prosecution, of October 26, 1999, the judges on whom they suspected of falsification in files with international adoptions are nominated. In motivating the solution of the non-commencement of the criminal prosecution, prosecutor Alexandru Serban argues that the disappearance of the files and the terms and conditions of the proceedings occurred due to the poor management of the court's archives, which cannot be imputed to the judges working there.

Thus, the prosecutor Serban showed that "the deed of Judge ?ega Marius Constantin, a lawyer at that date, who requested that two adoption files be reinstated, a request initially accepted by the President of the Civil Civil Section (...) does not gather the elements constituting an offense, which is why the criminal prosecution will not be initiated against it ”, is shown in the classification resolution of 1999.

Mirela Pod and Mihai Tomescu were two other judges who were investigated and brought out the fairy tale. The two solved three files, which approved the adoption of Romanian children by Italian citizens. "After the rulings were delivered, the two judges handed over the files of the sitting clerk, who, in turn, submitted them to the chief clerk of the Section, recording this aspect in the meeting notebook." Subsequently, this booklet was not found, and prosecutor Serban found it appropriate that there is no evidence against the two judges.

Other judges against whom acts were carried out before the criminal prosecution were Daniela B?r?g?u and Claudia Gherbovan Silinescu, accused of "inserting untrue statements". Prosecutor Serban did not agree with the conclusions reached by the police, namely that the two have entrusted children for adoption to foreign nationals without the opinion of the Romanian Committee for Adoptions, which stipulated that the child's custody was tried internally for at least 6 months. The magistrate rejected this hypothesis, claiming that the European law must be applied in this case and that there is no such term.

Thus, all these judges accused of falsification in the documents were removed from criminal prosecution by the General Prosecutor's Office.

In 2019, Judge Marius ?ega retired from the Bucharest Court.

Mirela Pod retired in 2014 from the Bucharest court, and Mihai Tomescu, who became a judge at the Bucharest Court of Appeal, died in 2018.

In 1996, a few months before the subject of the missing files exploded, Claudia Silinescu Gherbovan resigned from the judiciary and became a lawyer.

Celerity to envy

I spoke to a former witness from this file, who chose to remain anonymous. "I was called along with 7 other colleagues to the prosecutor's office. It was a tough interview, cross-examination. I told them about the improper storage conditions of the files. The control team did not go down in the archive, they demanded certain files. Some were missing tabs, others were not at all. That was in 1997. Then, I was only called once to a police station after 4 years. They asked me if I remember anything. Since then I do not know what happened to the file ”, the witness told us.

Asked what he thought happened to the 404 missing adoption files, he said: "The adoption procedure took quite a long time, months to days. Filing the file, summoning the parties, then the time limits. It would be an option for the files to come packet from somewhere. If anything was done, it was done to bypass administrative procedures, which are long-lasting. One is to resolve an adoption in three days, another in three months. In chaos you find it harder to blame. It was a depressing time. Heavy for me, hard for colleagues, "added the quoted witness.

The Romanian investigations into the international adoptions were also opened following the notifications of high representatives of the EU, which showed that dozens of adoption sentences were pronounced in one day, by the same judge.

How these children left the country in such a short time is still a mystery today. “Normally, they definitely needed passports. At that time there were collective passports or for minor citizens there was the possibility of a minor child being passed into the passport of an adult, a parent. In the 90s it was a very strict record of the departures of the territory of Romania ”, declared the Mirador Toanc?, the deputy director of the Passport Directorate.

Long-term friends

I pointed out above that, in 1997, one of the judicial inspectors who verified the solutions given by the magistrates of the Bucharest Court, including the files judged by Claudia Silinescu Gherbovan, was Gabriela Bîrsan.

In July 2014, the lawyer Silinescu and Judge Bîrsan, meanwhile reached the supreme court, were sent to court by the DNA prosecutors for giving or taking bribes. According to prosecutors, Silinescu Gherbovan would have paid more, such as parties for the judges' own anniversaries at exclusive restaurants in Paris and Bucharest, vacations and plane trips. In exchange for these favors, the judges gave favorable solutions to the companies represented by lawyer Silinescu Gherbovan.

In the same file, Judge Alina Corbu was sent to the Supreme Court, accused by prosecutors of having warned "as a friend" Silinescu Gherbovan that she was intercepted by DNA.

In May 2018, all the persons sent to trial in this file were definitively acquitted by the supreme court.

A year later, in May 2019, lawyer Silinescu Gherbovan requests the Judges Section of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) to be repressed in the judiciary without examination. "I left for personal reasons, in 1996, after family problems arose regarding my father's health (Constantin Silinescu, former deputy of the Foreign Intelligence Service n.red.). The program was much more flexible, the husband being a lawyer. I was nostalgic for this profession. I want to return, because I trained as a judge with a sense of duty, it is the profession with which I want to finish my career ”, said Silinescu Gherbovan in front of the judges from the SCM. With the vote of 6 of 9 magistrates from the Judges Section, Claudia Silinescu Gherbovan was assigned to a judge position at the Ilfov Court.

On May 30, 2019, the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, signs the decree appointing Claudia Silinescu Gherbovan as judge.

June 2019, the paid judge Alina Corbu is the only candidate for the head of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, a 3-year term that will take over from September 2019.

Romanian:

Este o poveste despre adop?ii interna?ionale, care în anii 90 s-au f?cut în num?r impresionant ?i care ?i-au pus amprenta inclusiv pe imaginea României. În momentul negocierilor de aderare, de la începutul anilor 2000, a trebuit ca România s?-?i modifice legisla?ia ?i s? închid? seria f?r? stavil? a trimiterii copiilor orfani sau f?r? posibilit??i peste grani?e. Una dintre condi?iile cel mai greu de îndeplinit era oprirea adop?iilor interna?ionale, iar raportorul pentru România, Baronesa Emma Nicholson, invoca atunci „statul de drept” care trebuie respectat ?i cu privire la adop?ii. România ?i-a schimbat viziunea, îns? epoca anilor 90 a l?sat în negur? ?i 404 dosare de adop?ii interna?ionale care au disp?rut. Cu totul.

Pe 20 februarie 1997, conducerea Tribunalului Bucure?ti, asigurat? de judec?torul Viorel Ro?, sesiza Poli?ia cu privire la dispari?ia din arhiva instan?ei a 248 dosare civile având ca obiect adop?ii interna?ionale.

Ministrul Justi?iei de atunci dispune efectuarea unui control amplu la Tribunalul Bucure?ti ?i inspectorii judec?tori ai instan?ei superioare, Curtea de Apel Bucure?ti, constat? c? au disp?rut 404 dosare civile de adop?ii: 173 din perioada 1990-1993 ?i 231 de dosare, din perioada 1994 -1995. Odat? cu dosarele au disp?rut mai multe condici de ?edin?e din anii 1994-1995, mape de ?edin?e ?i registre de eviden??.

„Am cerut s? se fac? o verificare ?i s? întocmeasc? un raport privind situa?ia creat?. S-a f?cut raportul ?i dup? aceea cred c? s-a f?cut ?i o plângere penal?. Din p?cate, din câte îmi aduc aminte, investiga?ia penal? nu a dus la niciun rezultat, adic? nu a descoperit autorii”, ne-a declarat Valeriu Stoica, fost ministru al Justi?iei.

El spune c? nu mai are raportul întocmit la cererea sa, dar c? ar trebui s? fie în arhiva ministerului. Ministerul Justi?iei sus?ine c? la nivelul anului 1997 era o structur? care verifica activitatea judec?torilor, îns? nu a g?sit raportul dispus de Valeriu Stoica.

„În perioada vizat? în solicitarea dumneavoastr?, respectiv anul 1997, competen?a activit??ii de control era împ?r?it? ?i atribuit?, dup? materie, mai multor compartimente din cadrul Ministerului Justi?iei, Corpul de inspec?ie având atribu?ii de verificare ?i control al activit??ii, preg?tirii ?i aptitudinilor profesionale ale judec?torilor.(...) La nivelul Corpului de control nu au fost identificate inventare cu rapoarte de control a activit??ii judec?torilor/instan?elor judec?tore?ti din anul 1997”, se arat? în r?spunsul ministerului.

„Din p?cate, investiga?ia penal? nu a l?murit situa?ia ?i nu s-a ?tiut pân? la urm? ce s-a întâmplat cu acele dosare. A fost foarte nepl?cut, din p?cate”, ne-a mai declarat Valeriu Stoica.

Nici la Tribunalul Bucure?ti nu s-a p?strat raportul, documentele administrative fiind distruse la fiecare 3 ani.

Totu?i, concluziile raportului au fost prezentate într-o conferin?? de pres? a anului 1997, ele fiind redate în ziarele vremii.

Nereguli fragrante

Astfel, din material afl?m c? echipa de control care a f?cut verific?rile a fost compus? din patru judec?tori inspectori, printre care ?i Gabriela Victoria Bîrsan judec?toare pe atunci la Curtea de Apel Bucure?ti, care ulterior a ajuns la Înalta Curte ?i a fost acuzat? ?i judecat? pentru luare de mit? ?i care a fost achitat? definitiv.

Controlul a durat dou? luni, între aprilie ?i mai 1997. Magistra?ii implica?i au sc?pat de sanc?iunile disciplinare, deoarece, potrivit legii de atunci, sanc?iunile puteau fi aplicate în termen de 1 an de la data comiterii faptelor.

Una dintre concluziile acestui control este c? „o alt? cauz? care a condus la perpetuarea fenomenului în timp a fost ?i repartizarea dosarelor pe sec?ii, respectiv judecarea acestora cu prec?dere de Sec?ia a III-a civil?, îndeosebi de un anumit complet: Daniela Br?g?u ?i Claudia Gherbovan Silinescu". Cea din urm? este fiica fostului general SIE, Constantin Silinescu.

Dac? pe latur? administrativ? lucrurile au fost clare ?i cei implica?i nu au mai putut fi sanc?iona?i, pe latur? penal? anchetele au stagnat pân? la prescrierea faptelor.

În martie 1997, Parchetul General începe urm?rirea penal? „in rem” în leg?tur? cu dispari?ia dosarelor de la tribunal ?i, ?ase luni mai târziu, se propune prin referat „amânarea f?r? termen a urm?ririi penale” ?i trimiterea dosarului la Poli?ia municipiului Bucure?ti „pentru a fi inclus în eviden?a cazurilor cu autori necunoscu?i”.

În acest caz, poli?i?tii au audiat mai mul?i grefieri ?i arhivari de la Tribunalul Bucure?ti sub acuza?ia de distrugere de înscrisuri. Ulterior, au ap?rut indicii c? în dosar sunt implica?i ?i judec?tori de la tribunal, astfel încât dosarul a fost declinat la o structur? de parchet superioar? care, la rândul ei, a disjuns dosarul.

Clas?ri pe linie

În rezolu?ia final? de neîncepere a urm?ririi penale, din 26 octombrie 1999, sunt nominaliza?i judec?torii asupra c?rora au planat suspiciuni de fals în dosare cu adop?ii interna?ionale. În motivarea solu?iei de neîncepere a urm?ririi penale, procurorul Alexandru ?erban sus?ine c? dispari?ia dosarelor ?i a condicilor de ?edi?e ?i de termene s-a produs pe fondul unei proaste gestion?ri a arhivelor tribunalului, lucru care nu poate fi imputat judec?torilor care lucreaz? acolo.

Astfel, procurorul ?erban a arat? c? „fapta judec?torului ?ega Marius Constantin, avocat la data respectiv?, care a solicitat repunerea pe rol a dou? dosare de adop?ii, cerere acceptat? ini?ial de pre?edinta Sec?iei a III-a Civil? (...) nu întrune?te elementele constitutive ale unei infrac?iuni, motiv pentru care fa?? de acesta se va dispune neînceperea urm?ririi penale”, se arat? în rezolu?ia de clasare din 1999.

Mirela Pod ?i Mihai Tomescu au fost al?i doi judec?tori cerceta?i ?i sco?i basma curat?. Cei doi au solu?ionat trei dosare, prin care au încuviin?at adop?ia unor copii români de c?tre cet??eni italieni. „Dup? pronun?area hot?rârilor, cei doi judec?tori au predat dosarele grefierei de ?edin??, care, la rândul ei, le-a depus la grefiera-?ef? a Sec?iei, consemnând acest aspect în caietul de ?edin??”. Ulterior, acest caiet nu a mai fost g?sit, iar procurorul ?erban a g?sit de cuviin?? c? împotriva celor doi judec?tori nu exist? probe.

Al?i judec?tori fa?? de care s-au efectuat acte premerg?toare urm?ririi penale au fost Daniel? B?r?g?u ?i Claudia Gherbovan Silinescu, acuzate c? „au inserat men?iuni nereale”. Procurorul ?erban nu a fost de acord cu concluziile la care au ajuns poli?i?tii, respectiv faptul c? cele dou? au încredin?at copii spre adop?ie unor cet??eni str?ini f?r? avizul Comitetului Român pentru Adop?ii, care prevedea c? s-a încercat cel pu?in 6 luni încredin?area copilului pe plan intern. Magistratul a desfiin?at aceast? ipotez? sus?inând c? în cauz? trebuie aplicat? legisla?ia european? ?i c? acolo nu exist? acest termen.

Astfel, to?i ace?ti judec?tori acuza?i de fals în înscrisuri au fost sco?i de sub urm?rire penal? de Parchetul General.

În 2019, judec?torul Marius ?ega s-a pensionat de la Tribunalul Bucure?ti.

Mirela Pod s-a pensionat în 2014 de la tribunalul Bucure?ti, iar Mihai Tomescu, ajuns judec?tor la Curtea de Apel Bucure?ti, a decedat în 2018.

În 1996, cu câteva luni înainte ca subiectul dosarelor disp?rute s? explodeze, Claudia Silinescu Gherbovan ?i-a dat demisia din magistratur? ?i s-a f?cut avocat.

Celeritate de invidiat

Am stat de vorb? cu un fost martor din acest dosar, care a ales s?-?i p?streze anonimatul. „Am fost chemat al?turi de al?i 7 colegi la parchet. A fost un interogatoriu cam dur, întreb?ri încruci?ate. Le-am povestit despre condi?iile improprii de depozitare ale dosarelor. Echipa de control nu a coborât în arhiv?, cereau anumite dosare. Din unele lipseau file, altele nu erau deloc. Asta a fost în 1997. Apoi, am mai fost chemat o singur? dat? la o sec?ie de poli?ie dup? 4 ani. M-au întrebat dac? îmi mai amintesc ceva. De atunci nu mai ?tiu ce s-a întâmplat cu dosarul”, ne-a declarat martorul.

Întrebat ce crede c? s-a întâmplat cu cele 404 dosare de adop?ii disp?rute, el a precizat: „Procedura adop?iei dura destul de mult, luni de zile. Înregistrarea dosarului, citarea p?r?ilor, apoi termenele de judecat?. Ar fi o variant? ca dosarele s? vin? pachet de undeva. Dac? s-a f?cut ceva, s-a f?cut pentru a se ocoli procedurile administrative, care sunt de durat?. Una e s? rezolvi o adop?ie în trei zile, alta în trei luni. În haos g?se?ti mai greu un vinovat. A fost o perioad? ap?s?toare. Grea pentru mine, grea pentru colegi”, a mai ad?ugat martorul citat.

Anchetele din România privind adop?iile interna?ionale s-au deschis ?i în urma sesiz?rilor unor înal?i reprezentanti ai UE, care au ar?tat c? s-au pronun?at zeci de sentin?e de adop?ii într-o singur? zi, de c?tre acela?i judec?tor.

Cum au ie?it din ?ar? acei copii într-un timp atât de scurt este ?i ast?zi un mister. „În mod normal, cu siguran?? aveau nevoie de pa?apoarte. La vremea respectiv? existau pa?apoarte colective sau pentru cet??enii minori exista posibilitatea ca un copil minor s? fie trecut în pa?aportul unui adult, al unui p?rinte. În anii 90 era o eviden?? foarte strict? a p?r?sirilor teritoriului României”, ne-a declarat chestorul Mirel Toanc?, directorul adjunct al Direc?iei de Pa?apoarte.

Prietenii de durat?

Am ar?tat mai sus c?, în 1997, unul dintre inspectorii judec?tori care au verificat solu?iile date de magistra?ii Tribunalului Bucure?ti, printre care ?i dosarele judecate de Claudia Silinescu Gherbovan, a fost Gabriela Bîrsan.

În iulie 2014, avocata Silinescu ?i judec?toarea Bîrsan, ajuns? între timp la instan?a suprem?, erau trimise în judecat? de procurorii DNA pentru dare, respectiv luare de mit?. Potrivit procurorilor, Silinescu Gherbovan ar fi pl?tit mai multe, precum petreceri pentru anivers?rile proprii ale judec?torilor la restaurante exclusiviste din Paris ?i Bucure?ti, vacan?e ?i c?l?torii cu avionul. În schimbul acestor favoruri, judec?toarele d?deau solu?ii favorabile firmelor reprezentate de avocata Silinescu Gherbovan.

În acela?i dosar, a fost trimis? în judecat? ?i judec?toarea Alina Corbu de la instan?a suprem?, acuzat? de procurori c? a aten?ionat-o „în calitate de prieten?” pe Silinescu Gherbovan c? este interceptat? de DNA.

În mai 2018, toate persoanele trimise în judecat? în acest dosar au fost achitate definitiv de instan?a suprem?.

Un an mai târziu, în mai 2019, avocata Silinescu Gherbovan face cerere c?tre Sec?ia pentru Judec?tori a Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii (CSM) s? fie reprimit? în magistratur? f?r? examen. „Am plecat din motive personale, în 1996, dup? ce au ap?rut probleme în familie referitoare la s?n?tatea tat?lui meu (Constantin Silinescu, fost adjunct al Serviciului de Informa?ii Externe n.red.). Programul era mult mai flexibil, so?ul fiind avocat. Am r?mas cu nostalgia acestei profesii. Doresc s? m? întorc, pentru c? m-am format ca judec?tor cu sim?ul datoriei, este profesia cu care vreau s?-mi închei cariera”, a sus?inut Silinescu Gherbovan în fa?a judec?torilor din CSM. Cu votul a 6 din 9 magistra?i din Sec?ia pentru judec?tori, Claudia Silinescu Gherbovan a fost repartizat? pe un post de judec?tor la Tribunalul Ilfov.

Pe 30 mai 2019, pre?edintele României, Klaus Iohannis, semneaz? decretul de numire în func?ia de judec?tor a Claudiei Silinescu Gherbovan.

Iunie 2019, judec?torea achitat? Alina Corbu este singurul candidat pentru ?efia Înaltei Cur?i de Casa?ie ?i Justi?ie, mandat de 3 ani pe care îl va prelua din septembrie 2019.

.