[ad_1]
In mid-January, the Vilnius Regional Court decided to arrest 145,2 thousand. 3 million euros from Profarma. 542 thousand EUR – Bona Diagnosis, more than 158.3 EUR Pig – Grains of Ruan LV.
In their appeals, the three companies claimed that this decision was unfounded. They pointed out that the court had incorrectly assessed the probable merits of the prosecutor’s action and the extent of the threat that the action might not be carried out if a decision favorable to the State was taken.
According to the appeals court, it is not necessary to have evidence that the threat of a future recovery will undoubtedly arise.
“The court, when deciding on the request for precautionary measures, does not need to have evidence that the threat to the execution of the sentence will undoubtedly arise in the future, it is sufficient to convince the
The companies’ arguments that the accusation of the prosecutor’s action was allegedly incorrectly assessed were also rejected.
According to the court, the claim hearing evaluates your claim and the factual and legal arguments on the basis of which it decides whether the claim is not manifestly unfounded, but does not assess the validity and legality of the evidence supporting the claim. .
“At the initial stage of the proceeding, the (in) validity of the claim should be assessed only from the point of view of probability,” the court noted.
“The Court of Appeals finds that the arguments of the appellants in the individual appeals do not establish that the action is manifestly and manifestly unfounded,” the order added.
The complainant, Profarma, also stated that the amount of the claim against him was small, so he would be in full capacity to pay 145.2 thousand. if such amount is awarded by a court.
In the Tribunal’s view, this claim is unfounded and the evidence provided by the company does not support it. According to the court, the data provided by the Prosecutor’s Office record that in all the company’s accounts in September there were just over 40,000. No significant income was credited to the accounts during the restriction period.
Marshals are also expected to make two recoveries from this company for a total of nearly 20,000. in the amount of EUR.
“In these circumstances, the appeals court finds that the arguments of the individual appeals do not justify the annulment of the order of the court of first instance,” emphasized the appeals court.
At the beginning of January, the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation filed a lawsuit requesting the nullity and cancellation of the operations concluded in relation to the acquisition of rapid COVID-19 EXPRESS tests and the award of more than 4,142,600 euros to the State by part of companies.
According to the prosecution, the contract was awarded for overpayments due to undisclosed negotiations, so the goal is to recover the portion of the contract value that prosecutors consider unreasonable.
According to law enforcement data, the sales contract was concluded after the public procurement was carried out through unannounced negotiations and was concluded in violation of the principle of transparency enshrined in the Public Procurement Law.
It was established that the norm established in the Public Procurement Law that funds destined for the purchase of goods, services or works must be used in a rational manner was also violated during the contracting and execution of the contract.
According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the National Public Health Laboratory and the company signed a contract for 510 thousand. acquisition of tests for approximately 6 million. EUR, but no other offers were evaluated, no supplier was found who could offer a better price.
Estimating that the evidence was purchased roughly three times as expensive as its actual value, public interest prosecutors are asking the court to award the companies more than $ 4 million. euros.
The pre-trial investigation into the purchase of the COVID-19 rapid tests is ongoing and the anticipated procedural steps are being taken. There are currently six people under suspicion.
The investigation is carried out by officials of the Special Tasks Board of the Financial Crimes Investigation Service, and is organized and controlled by prosecutors from the Organized Crime and Corruption Investigation Department of the Attorney General’s Office and the Third Division of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office. .
Previously it was reported that the complaints in this investigation were made to the former Deputy Minister of Health Lina Jaruševičienė and the representatives of the Profarma company, the head of the company Bona diagnosis Redas Laukis.
Then-Deputy Prime Minister Lukas Savickas and then-Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis’ health advisor, Jonas Kairys, were questioned as special witnesses in this pre-trial investigation.
[ad_2]
