R. Masiulis stated in the COEC that S. Skvernelis complained about the pavement on Upės Street: the suspension of his wife’s car collapsed in a couple of years.

On Wednesday, the COEC published the conclusion of the investigation terminated due to S. Skvernelis’s activities with all material collected during the investigation.

It contains a certificate from the former Minister of Transport.

Although the minister’s name is not mentioned in the document for any reason, it is obvious that the testimony was provided by former Minister of Transport and Communications Rokas Masiulis. Did it last week 15 minutes approved the commission with written explanations.

R. Masiulis told COEC that he learned of the allocation of funds for Upės Street from the media and this surprised him as it was not considered a priority.

“As Minister, the then Director of the Department of Road Transport Policy and Civil Aviation of the Ministry (KTCAPD) (current Vice Minister of Transport Vladislavas Kondratovičius – aut.) He was informed that the Municipality of the Vilnius District did not consider the streets to be intensive, therefore, funds could not be allocated under normal circumstances.

In addition, in its requests for financing the reserve, the municipality, when presenting the list of streets to pave in order of priority, once Up incluidas Street has been included, but at the end of the list, not at the beginning. (…) The Lithuanian Highway Administration held the same opinion: when evaluating the lists presented by the municipality, it rated the street as low and did not recommend allocating funds ”, the COEC recorded the data obtained.

R. Masiulis stated that no one submitted a request to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications nor to personally allocate funds for Upės Street.

However, the discussion on this street with the prime minister, according to testimony, has come up more than once. This was said to be the case with gravel paving or landscaped streets, with the participation of him, Prime Minister S. Skvernelis, in some cases the head of the Lithuanian Highway Administration (LAKD) and the Deputy Minister of the then KTCAPD (current Deputy Minister of Transport Vladislavas Kondratovičius – aut.).

Remembered at least three conversations.

R. Masiulis said that at least three of those talks were held, during which the Prime Minister noted that the traffic conditions on the street are bad, the cars are broken, the suspension of the wife’s car collapsed in a couple years and the Administration Security Department (VAD) complains about road dust.

The Prime Minister asked about possible technical solutions to pave this type of street.

“The Prime Minister asked about possible technical solutions for paving this type of street, asked if there was cheaper asphalt that could be paved on such light roads, asked if the width of the road could be reduced (considering that this would not cause practical interruptions due to to low car traffic “.), thus saving the costs of the project,” R. Masiulis testified to the commission.

According to him, after several such conversations with S. Skvernelis, he invited experts from the Ministry of Transport and Communications to discuss “the Prime Minister’s problems”.

“The conclusion of the discussions was always the same: the Ministry of Transport and Communications cannot contribute to the paving of the street, because it is not intensive, in addition, the street is in the jurisdiction of the municipality of the Vilnius district, but not in the LAKD.

From conversations with the current official of the Ministry of Transport and Communications (V. Kondratovičius – aut.), He understood that the latter had been invited to the Government House several times, where the issue of the street was also discussed, “stated R Masulis before the COEC.

R. Masiulis was unable to say exactly whether V. Kondratovičius met with the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Government, who, while minister, allegedly oversaw all road affairs.

The former minister explained that the most important criterion for reallocating road reserve funds is their actual use by the end of the year. He assumed that because of this, the Minister of Transport and Communications (Jaroslav Narkevičius – aut.) Could not ignore the objects for which funds were allocated at the end of the year.

An unidentified person stated that V. Kondratovičius handled the affairs

In its conclusion, the COEC writes that the commission also received a report from another unidentified person.

Whether the Commission knows his identity or whether the information was provided anonymously is not clear from the data provided in the conclusion.

The man noted that in the first half of 2018, the current Deputy Minister for Transport was personally invited to S. Skvernel at least twice. It seems to mean V. Kondratovičius.

During the meetings, the Prime Minister wondered if there were opportunities to pave the street on which he lives.

“During the meetings, the Prime Minister wondered if there were opportunities to pave the street where he lives. After these meetings, the Deputy Minister, who was the Director of the Ministry of Transport and Communications KTCAPD in 2018 (V. Kondratovičius – aut.), He recounted the Prime Minister’s words to his colleagues and relayed the Prime Minister’s question, which way of paving the streets could be the cheapest.The speaker drew the commission’s attention to the fact that the street was never on the list of priority objects, “according to a report by an unnamed person received by COEC.

V. Kondratovičius denied everything

COEC data shows that V. Kondratovičius told the commission that he had participated in meetings with the Prime Minister at the invitation of R. Masiulis.

He assured that there was no talk of paving Up Street during his participation.

V.Kondratovičius told the commission that in 2017 a complaint was received about the condition of Upės street and its paving possibilities, it was sent to the municipality of Vilnius district.

According to him, during the working meeting held at the Ministry of Transport and Communications, issues related to road development were discussed in the presence of the administration, and Upės street was mentioned during the discussion of the applications received, he said in the meeting that the complaint was sent to the municipality.

There was talk of programs, of various sectors, but not of a specific street.

V.Kondratovičius on Wednesday 15 minutes He said that he had been invited to the Government a couple of times, but together with the Minister.

“There was talk of programs, of various sectors, but not of a specific street. They haven’t spoken to me, “the Vice Minister of Transport and Communications assured me.

He stated that he had not received any request from the Government Chancellor, Algirdas Stončaitis, nor from the Prime Minister regarding said street.

So, in the Vice Minister’s opinion, is your former leader R. Masiulis lying?

“I don’t know, I haven’t seen any explanation, I don’t know what you’re saying. I can say that it wasn’t spoken in the part of the meetings that I attended. The meetings continued: I just left after discussing what was on my agenda I don’t know what happened next, “said the deputy minister.

Government Chancellor A.Stončaitis told COEC that the financial needs of Up ofs Street had not been received or assessed in any way at the Chancery and that draft financial decisions had not been coordinated.

COEC: Even if there were such conversations, they prove nothing

In its conclusion, the COEC emphasized that the testimonies of people that S. Skvernelis had spoken with the Ministry of Transport and Communications officials about Upės Street should not be considered with a pre-established evidentiary value in the circumstances of the case, therefore, they should be evaluated in light of the evidence.

“Importantly, the testimony of these individuals is not corroborated by other data collected by the commission during the investigation, and officials identified as possibly aware of the circumstances witnessed categorically denied them to the commission,” the conclusion highlights.

The COEC noted that even if such conversations with S. Skvernelis regarding the Upės Street settlement were to take place, the content of the testimony does not provide sufficient grounds for the COEC to establish that such conversations could directly lead to or encourage the adoption of a Government resolution assigning an additional 300,000 LTL to the Vilnius district municipality in October last year. euros

The SAD first asked that the street be fixed and then paved

The Vilnius district municipality has repeatedly stated that it was decided to manage Upės Street also due to the fact that the Administration Protection Department, which protects and transports state leaders, has complained about their condition.

15 minutes Director of the Rymantas Mockevičius Department 15 minutes explained in November last year that the department had repeatedly approached the municipality, but that he was not asked to pave the street, just fix it.

R. Mockevičius stated that he originally compared this path to a qualifier.

“It just came to our attention then. What now? Is asphalt already being laid there? (…) Is this at our request?” He asked in surprise.

However, from the material collected by the COEC it can be seen that R. Mockevičius requested that the asphalt be laid.

R. Mockevičius told the commission that since 2016, VAD has requested this street three times. In 2016, he really asked to take care of the street, clean and disperse properly.

However, in June 2019, the department had already explained that problems caused by the road surface made it difficult for the department to “properly escort the protected person.” Therefore, SAD asked to address the issue of street reconstruction and asphalt paving.

It can be seen from the COEC material that SAD made another request just before the money was allocated for the paving of this street.

We will remind you that the Municipality of Vilnius District asked the Ministry of Transport and Communications to allocate additional money for the streets on October 22 of last year without specifying which street it was requesting or how much money it needed. On October 25, the ministry prepared a document on the redistribution of funds, and on October 30, it was blessed by the government and the municipality received 300,000. euros

According to the material compiled by the COEC, on October 22, the director of the SAD R. Mockevičius wrote a letter to the mayor of the district Marija Rekst, indicating that the department had not responded to the request and asked to resolve the problem of paved faster.

For what reason was the investigation terminated?

The COEC noted that people working in the public service are prohibited from participating in the preparation, deliberation or decision-making or otherwise influencing decisions that cause a conflict of interest.

The law defines a conflict of interest as a situation in which a person who works in the public service, while performing tasks or making an assignment, must make a decision or participate in its adoption, or execute an assignment that also concerns their interests. private.

The COEC evaluates that the resolution was adopted with extreme urgency

The Commission noted that the Government Resolution on the allocation of funds of October 30 had not received all the coordination documents from the institutions concerned, and that the Government Legal Group had carried out only an informal review of the document. Therefore, the COEC evaluates that the resolution was adopted with special urgency, without coordination with the interested state institutions in accordance with the procedure established by its draft.

In its conclusion, the Commission emphasizes that Upės Street is owned by the Vilnius district municipality, which is obliged to deal with it. The COEC emphasized that additional funds that are densely populated by minority municipalities are allowed at its discretion. The municipality explained that its decision to pave the street was also determined by requests from the “Valle de Neris” community.

The attractiveness and commercial value of the home has increased

“For S. Skvernelis, as a private person living with his family near the street, the possibility of organizing it was also important, in the opinion of the commission, since it also increases the attractiveness and commercial value of his home. However, During the investigation, the commission did not receive official data on the possible participation of S. Skvernelis or people close to him in presenting the aforementioned street improvement requests to representatives of the Neris Valley community, other residents of the Barrio de the Street, the Municipality of the Vilnius District and / or other institutions writes the COEC in the conclusion.

The Commission noted that, according to the Vilnius District Municipality, its actions and decisions regarding street paving were also determined by SAD’s constant requests.

“The Commission has not received any official information that SAD may or could have pursued and / or encouraged for any other purpose in complying with these requests, other than for official purposes,” says the conclusion.

The conclusion is that, in view of the totality of the facts established during the investigation and the previous arguments, the commission does not have sufficient reasons to affirm that S. Skvernelis, who chaired the Government on October 30. “During these procedures, he objectively and unequivocally knew (and perceived) that the state allocations assigned by the Government to the roads of the Municipality of the Vilnius District by this decision, will undoubtedly only be used for 1.6 km of asphalt road” .

Therefore, the related part of the investigation was terminated.

Such a conclusion, according to the COEC, must be made taking into account the constant practice of the commission and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania that reviews its decisions, that the violation of the provisions of the law cannot be proven by assumptions, speculations, hypotheses .

“The Commission, recognizing that a person who works in the public service has violated the requirements of the Law, must in each case clearly and unequivocally declare the factual circumstances that confirm it. The assessment of these circumstances cannot be based on assumptions, unrealistic or unlikely hypothetical conclusions, and speculation about a person’s possible or future interest in the public service. The law cannot be interpreted too broadly, since in many cases its application would be impossible. The evidence of the signs of a conflict of interest must be determined in each specific case, ”states the conclusion.

The Commission explains that it has no right to evaluate compliance with the decisions made by the municipality on the street and the Government Resolution with the laws and other legal acts, such as the provisions of the Description of the procedure for the use of program funds. of maintenance and development of roads.

“This is not the subject of the commission’s investigation, therefore the commission does not comment on these circumstances in this decision,” says the conclusion.

However, the COEC drew the attention of the Ministry of Transport and Communications and the Government Chancellery to the fact that the current situation, when many settlements do not receive paved roads for decades (the paved streets in the municipality of Vilnius district represent only 1/5 of all roads), requires maximum resolution. the transparency of decisions of this nature and all related procedures, including the coordination of draft decisions with the institutions concerned (allowing control and financing authorities to know and verify the exact objects to which these credits are allocated) and clear and understandable communication to the public in accordance with the Law; so there is no doubt about a possible conflict of public and private interests.

COEC’s decision also emphasizes that a new version of the commission law went into effect this year, which no longer prohibits the use of one’s duties, powers and name to influence the decision of others, which would cause conflict. of interests, therefore, the investigation against S. Skvernel was terminated. .

S. Skvernelis claimed to have been slandered

S. Skvernelis repeatedly emphasized that he had no influence on the allocation of funds for the paving of Upės Street where he lives.

After the COEC decided to end the half-year investigation into him, the prime minister said he was pleased that a final legal assessment has been made in the story. 15 minutes I checked.

The prime minister said that he had been accused, slandered, that he had suffered reputational damage and that the family had suffered psychological violence, for which conservatives were responsible.