Bleaching undue salary income, returned to Parliament

Over the years, the audits carried out by the inspectors of the Court of Accounts revealed all kinds of irregularities in public institutions, and one of them was the granting of undue salary income. Although these amounts should have been recovered, the parliamentarians took care to exempt the budget holders from reimbursing the money. Thus, in 2018, Law no. 78 regarding the exemption of the personnel paid from public funds from the payment of some amounts representing incomes of salary nature improperly collected. Two years later, in an election year, three PSD parliamentarians registered a new legislative project, which can be included in the category of “electoral alms”, through which all public sector employees who received undue salary income, detected as a result of controls of the Court of Accounts, to be exempted from the return to the state of the respective amounts. The initiators of PSD, former deputy Valeriu Steriu and ex-senators Gheorghe Marin and Scarlat Iriza, invoked the need to adopt a new “amnesty” because the 2018 law did not include employees of self-financing institutions, thus creating “discrimination”.

In October last year, the bill also passed the vote of the Chamber of Deputies, as a decision-making body, with 277 votes in favor, 0 against and only 27 abstentions, which proved, once again, that despite the “politically correct” rhetoric , around the elections, our parties, either on the right or on the left, are doing everything to seduce the electorate. Now amending Law no. 78/2018 is waiting to re-enter the agenda of the Chamber of Deputies, and it remains to be seen whether the parliamentarians in the governmental arc will be as generous as the budget holders.

“This draft law proposes to remedy a non-unitary approach to the above-mentioned normative act which creates discriminatory treatment, due to the fact that, in similar contexts, some categories of staff in public institutions have benefited from the provisions of an exempt law payment and others not, which contradicts the constitutional principle of equality of citizens before the law, provided in art. 16 of the Romanian Constitution ”.

from the explanatory memorandum

Luxurious state employees, discriminated against

From the explanatory memorandum of the project we find out that the employees with the highest salaries in Romania, those from self-financing institutions, were discriminated against by the 2018 law. They do not comply with Law 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds, but make their salaries as they wish, because they are self-financing. The stupidity of self-financing, because, in fact, we are also talking about state money, has generated the appearance of a special category of state employees, those with Western salaries. We find them through regulatory authorities, such as the National Energy Regulatory Authority, the Financial Supervisory Authority or the National Authority for Administration and Regulation in Communications – to give just a few examples, through county councils and town halls. ‘Thus, given that the regulatory authorities mentioned above are public-law entities which, by their object of activity, ensure the achievement of a general public interest, in order to comply with the principle of equal legal treatment and ensure regulatory unity in the field, the elaboration of a normative act that would provide the same treatment (….) ”, is stipulated in the project. In fact, self-financing in the case of these institutions is an invented term, because in the middle are also the state money, coming from the taxes collected, on behalf of the Romanian state, to the economic operators operating on various markets. Also, in this category of specialties, which are now believed to be discriminated, also include the employees of the town halls and county councils, because they also do not have the salaries established by the Single Salary Law.

Undue income even after 2018

Moreover, the draft law extends the exemption from March 31, 2018, provided by Law 78, until the new normative act enters into force. The introduction of this supplement was necessary, according to the authors of the project, because even after December 31, 2018, some state employees continued to receive undue salaries, which was also found by the Court of Accounts.

Who gave the money back was stupid

Another curiosity of the proposed project is the fact that those who hurried to return the money improperly collected are discriminated against those who did not give any money back. The draft specifies that β€œthe amounts recovered until the date of entry into force of this law, as a result of the findings provided in para. (1) and (2), shall not be refunded ”. In other words, the law favors those who did not rush to give the money back.

The Civil Code says that the money must be returned

The request for re-examination states that, according to art. 1341 paragraph (1) of the Civil Code, “He who pays without debt has the right to a refund”, and from this perspective the regulations introduced by the project initiated by the three former PSD parliamentarians violate the Civil Code. Obviously, the question arises as to why the 2018 project was promulgated then, which generated this problem.

Source: by

*The article has been translated based on the content of by If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!

*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.

*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!