[ad_1]
COEC on Thursday unanimously decided to end the investigation in S. Skvernel, in the absence of evidence that he might have known that part of the funds voted for by the redistribution would be used to pave his residential street.
The COEC emphasized that the discontinued investigation can be resumed if new circumstances are clarified.
And S.Svvernel himself was glad on Thursday that he had put a point in this unpleasant story for him.
“I am very happy that the final legal evaluation of this story has been carried out. I did not doubt that from the first day” he said at a brief press conference held after the COEC meeting.
However, did the COEC really make a legal assessment of the situation and the actions of the Prime Minister at the end of the investigation?
In accordance with the law of the Main Official Ethics Commission, the investigation can be terminated for two reasons:
- when during the investigation it is clear that the person specified in the notification is not an entity in the area of supervision of the COEC;
- when the data required for the legal evaluation of a person’s actions is insufficient.
The first reason is not adequate in the case of S. Skvernelis, because it is under the supervision of the COEC. This means that the commission ended the investigation due to insufficient data for the legal evaluation.
COEC member Virginijus Kanapinskas, 15 minutes Asked on Thursday if information was missing from the commission’s evaluation, he replied affirmatively.
“We stopped the investigation because there was not enough data … We stopped and said that if the new circumstances were clarified, we could resume the investigation, we have a legal right,” he emphasized.
Prime Minister S. Skvernelis is a lawyer by education. So why did you claim a legal evaluation was done if it wasn’t true?
“The Prime Minister said what he wanted to say, and as much as he wanted to say. No additional comments will be provided, leaving the opportunity to evaluate and interpret it”, – Position of S.Svvernelis on Thursday 15 minutes delivered by his adviser Tomas Beržinskas.
According to the law, the COEC can make 7 types of decisions, including the recognition that a person has violated the provisions of the Law of Coordination of Public and Private Interests or the recognition that a person has not violated them. The COEC did not choose any of them: the commission decided to end the investigation because it did not have enough data for the legal evaluation of the person’s actions. Considering that the commission reserved the right to reopen the investigation, 15min evaluates that S.Skvernelis’s statement that the final legal evaluation has already been made in this story is not true.
[ad_2]
