Retrocessed real estate for “exceptional” cases of paranoia, panic attacks or renal colic. Gov’t notifies the DNA and the Court of Auditors

0 27

The government has announced that it will give notice to the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) and to the Court of Auditors for the way there were solved some files regarding real estate retrocession over time. The government Control Body noted that cases treated as being “exceptional” of paranoia or lombosciatica, but also of osteoporosis, renal colic, depressive disorder, panic attacks, hemorrhoids and prostate adenoma, persecution on ethnic grounds were solved with priority.

The conclusions arising from a report of the PM’s Control Body, which show that during 2008-2011, the number of compensation files solved with priority by invoking these exceptional cases was much higher than that of cases solved respecting the recordings chronology, the exception being transformed rightly. During this period, 8,136 files were solved, of which 1,407 accordingly with the registration number and 2,269 with priority because of exceptional circumstances. Among those solved with priority, 131 were solved in favor of the cessionaries. For evaluation services, the National Authority for Property Restitution (ANRP) paid over 2008-2011, EUR 1.3 million for 6,473 reports.

The damages for the files considered to be exceptional amounted between RON 30.5 million and RON 108.9 million, according to Mediafax.

Moreover, it was also checked how the evaluators were involved in conducting expert reports. Thus, it was established that at the completion of the contracts between ANRP and the companies specialized in evaluation services some competitive procedures were not respected, and the result was that evaluators have not done their duty, by applying the law randomly.

The geographical criteria was not met either, and when certain retrocession files were returned for reassessment, it happened that evaluators who were not fulfilling their duties properly to check their own files.

There was also established that these evaluators often exceeded the standard terms for reporting.


- Advertisement -

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More