These years, Romania has become the scene of economic, public health and – of late – political experiments, meant to be later multiplied in other states of the European Union (EU), more than likely related to the increasingly clear and abrupt shaping of the EU federalisation project.The first experiment was the policy of austerity and annihilation of the social state. This experiment, initiated in 2009 with the EUR 21 bln loan from the IMF, the European Commission and the World Bank, was repeated in Greece, Portugal and Spain, with equally inconclusive results in terms of financial stabilisation, but with disastrous social and human effects, and with still unknown consequences for the future of the respective nations. Two years into austerity, it is obvious for all the citizens of Europe that this austerity beyond what the public can endure is a barbaric experiment that has failed.

Yet, the European leaders stick to this economic dogma, although the economies of member states collapse one after another under the burden of public debt, most of which consists in the private debts of the banks rescued from disaster by governments. In Romania, the ruthless policy of austerity that was zealously implemented by the PDL-Basescu regime only curbed the budget deficit and led to a precarious economic growth, without improving the general economic and social situation, nor attracting the wave of investors anticipated by the IMF.Another experiment, going on under our very eyes, is of political nature and refers to the European Commission taking the liberty to directly intervene in the policy of the Bucharest government, by unilaterally imposing a relation of subordination. The famous 11-point list unveiled by Jose Manuel Barroso in July, also included in the July Report on the Mechanism of Cooperation and Verification (which has never included political considerations only technical evaluations) was the first step in imposing this new type of relation between Bucharest and Brussels. With the precedent being created, this has all chances to be repeated in the relations with other member states. Unfortunately, at that moment, the Ponta government was in no position to reject these orders, because – assaulted by the tsunami of hysterical misinformation launched by MEP Monica Macovei and her PDL colleagues – the entire Europe was under the false impression that a coup d’etat was unfolding in Romania.The concerns expressed in the MCV report proved to be completely unfounded, yet the European Commission did not apologise to the Romanian government. On the contrary, the Commission insists to impose its point of view in appointing the two chief prosecutors.For the first time in Romania, the nomination of the general prosecutor and of the DNA chief prosecutor are conducted transparently, through a selection procedure open to all Romanian prosecutors with at least ten years of experience in magistracy, based on clear criteria of competence and management skills, which must be demonstrated during the selection procedure. Although the nomination for the top prosecutors is the exclusive prerogative of the Justice Minister, Mona Pivniceru took extra care to consult the prosecutor’s section of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) over the selection criteria, as well as former general prosecutor Laura Codruta Kovesi. As a comparison, a former minister of Justice, Monica Macovei in 2006 nominated the chief prosecutors out of the blue, without no previous announcement or selection procedure…Known for its close ties with the PDL-Basescu regime, CSM ruled overnight, in August, the change of the procedure regarding its consultative opinion (Kovesi was appointed prosecutor general in 2009 for a second term by Traian Basescu despite the opposition of CSM) for the proposals made by the Justice minister, from 60 to 90 days, without providing any explanation. It is obvious that CSM wanted to delay the nomination of the new prosecutors until after the December 9 elections. The reason? A possible and pertinent answer would be that both the Prosecutor’s Office and the DNA keep under lock many criminal complaints filed by the acting government against the former ministers of the presidential party, which are accused of corruption, embezzlement, rigged auctions and other serious crimes of misuse of authority, which no prosecutor dared to investigate while Kovesi and Morar held the reins. An independent chief of the DNA could, for instance, start the investigations in these cases of frauds worth billions of euros, dealing a serious blow to the score of PDL in the parliamentary elections. Add to this the really big cases swept under the rug during the mandates of the same tandem, like the Fleet file and, why not, the very messy file of the journalists kidnapped in Iraq.Back to the nomination of chief prosecutors, an unacceptable intervention was made Wednesday by the secretary general of the European Commission, Catherine Day, which criticised the procedure initiated by Mona Pivniceru and demanded that DNA prosecutors are included in the selection committee. It is strange and unsettling to see that Mona Pivniceru, former president of the Romanian Association of Magistrates and a former judge at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, with an impeccable career in magistracy, has no credibility in Brussels and is forced to accept new procedures that are not stipulated by the Romanian law, while Monica Macovei, who was a member of the Romanian Communist Party ever since she was a student and began her career as prosecutor during the Ceausescu regime, enjoys so much credibility in Brussels, even after her lie about a coup d’etat was exposed to light… As a prosecutor, Macovei performed “disappointingly,” as a control ordered in 1997 by then general prosecutor Nicolae Cochinescu has revealed. According to judiciary sources, the control found Macovei with a backlog of unsolved cases between 60 and 1,030 days old, and ruled that she treated superficially the complaints made by the public. As a minister of Justice, Macovei had a performance that was not only poor, but also very controversial. As for reopening a number of cases, it is worth knowing that Monica Macovei refused in 2005 to request the extradition from the U.S of Omar Hayssam’s accomplice in the abduction of Romanian journalists, Mohammad Munaf, although he was the key witness that could have shed light over many mysteries of this case, such as the disappearance of some 3 million US dollars of the ransom that should have been paid for the journalists’ release. Eventually no payment has been made, but the money vanished and, after the resignation of former general prosecutor Ilie Botos and the appointing of Kovesi, no prosecutor further probed this case. The (apparently) unexplainable refusal of the Justice minister to make this request made the former general prosecutor sue Macovei in court, but… as a sign that justice was ‘independent’ under her rule, the court rejected Botos’ lawsuit and kept secret both the trial and the sentence. It is incredible for an official of a country whose citizens were the victims of serious crimes to refuse trying the culprits on its territory, under the law of the country, in order to render justice and reparation to the victims. The European Commission obviously exceed its competencies, once again, in the case of appointing the chief prosecutors in Romania and now, with the door open, we can also expect other actions meant to undermine the national sovereignty.It would be interesting to learn the Commission’s explanations for the fact that the CSM did not find it appropriate to approve the delegation of Mona Pivniceru from the High Court to the Ministry of Justice, boycotting for weeks her appointment as minister, until Ms. Pivniceru simply resigned from magistracy in order to become minister. Meanwhile, the same CSM approved in 5 minutes the delegation of Mrs. Kovesi in a comfortable job, in Brussels… This episode should be mentioned by the future MCV report due for the end of the year, were it only for the sake of saving the appearances of impartiality and concern for the transparency of the decision-making process and for the independence of the judiciary…