[ad_1]
The COEC clarified the information that, in November last year, R.Šimašius may have ordered municipal employees to file a complaint on his behalf with the administrative court against the decision of the Ethics Commission of the municipal council: the guard Municipal ethics found in October last year that R.Šimašius violated the Code of Conduct for State Politicians.
“The investigation did not reveal any obvious data that directly confirms that R. Šimašius had used his duties for personal gain. The COEC does not have information that the state politician has given a verbal or written instruction to the employees of the administration of this municipality to prepare a complaint against the aforementioned decision of the Ethics Commission of the Municipal Council, “says the commission.
According to the COEC, the investigation data shows that the factual circumstances of the decision “were also related to the interests of the municipality.”
The investigation did not reveal any obvious data that directly confirmed that R. Šimašius had used his duties for personal gain.
The COEC discussed the issue in a closed session on Wednesday, motivating the confidentiality of the information.
“In this case, therefore, the COEC may publish a limited amount of information about the decision taken, and only the operational part of the decision and the results of the roll call of COEC members will be published upon publication of the decision.” , declares the COEC.
The municipal council’s Ethics Commission found in October last year that the mayor had violated the Code of Conduct for Politicians with his remarks at a council meeting where he discussed a municipal legal dispute in Stockholm with the French energy company Veolia which revealed pretrial investigation data.
R.Šimašius stated that the municipality of Vilnius demonstrates that the representatives of Veolija paid bribes to his predecessor Artūras Zuokas and said that according to the data available to the municipality, the former mayor A.Zuokas “received a bribe of at least 724 thousand to protect the interests of the company, euros’ The Commission stated that R. Šimašius had published an “interpretation of the data” from the pre-trial investigation.
R.Šimašius then assured the ethics guards that he had done so “not for the purpose of disclosing data, but to inform members of the municipal council of the important circumstances for making a decision,” i. that A. Zuokas should withdraw from the topic under consideration.
The meeting took place just over a month before the elections of the municipal councils and mayors, in which R. Šimašius faced A. Zuokas in the second round.
In response to R. Šimašius’ statements, A. Zuokas requested defamation at the Prosecutor General’s Office, but prosecutors did not start the investigation.
[ad_2]
