The EU funds scandal that Labour Minister Ioan Botiș is involved in could affect EU funding, at least for the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development (POSDRU), 4.5 billion euros). The scandal broke out Monday evening after the minister admitted in a televised programme that his wife was working with an NGO in Bistrița registered in his home, which develops a programme declared eligible for funding (500,000 euros) through POSDRU – a programme managed by the Labour Ministry, the institution he runs. Prime Minister Emil Boc said Botiș will submit his resignation if the National Integrity Agency (ANI), which has started an investigation, concludes there is a conflict of interest. The Department of Anti-Fraud Fight (DLAF), which also opened an investigation, said in a release that in the case of the minister, there are clues that would suggest national and EU legislation on the conflict of interest may have been infringed upon.
“We understand from the Managing Authority of the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development (SOPHRD) 2007-2013 that no payments will be done for this project until the situation is clarified.Pre-financing was paid on November 29th 2010 and, if the national authorities (ANI, DLAF) conclude that there is a conflict of interest, measures will be taken by the SOPHRD Managing Authority to recover the pre-financing money,” said Christina Arigho, spokesperson for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusions, within the European Commission.
According to Vasile Pușcaș, professor at the Cluj University, who teaches courses on EU legislation, former chief negotiator of Romania with the EU, the fact that the labour minister is set to grant EU funding to a project that his wife was involved in could put the entire POSDRU on the line, because the EU could ask for a re-evaluation of the programme, but the investigation could extend to the other programmes, as well.
“POSDRU can be put on the line, but the investigation could extend to include the other programmes, as well. Then, when an analysis is made in the EU Parliament, MPs discuss things along general lines, they talk about EU funds, not about the programme. When the European Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office do an analysis, they refer to one programme, but MPs refer to a country and to EU funds in general.”