[ad_1]
Can a sanitation company stop public services if it conflicts with the local administration? This is one of the questions that the judges had to answer.
This is a process by which the Bucharest Court rejected, on January 21, 2021, a presidential ordinance introduced by Romprest against the Sector 1 City Council, the Sector 1 City Council and Mayor Clotilde Armand (USR-PLUS), a case that has a connection with garbage collection in public space. Basically, we are talking about a first victory of the mayor, respectively of the local administration, in the conflict with the aforementioned sanitation company.
The decision was contested and the case reached the Bucharest Court of Appeal, which will give a final solution, according to the court’s website.
Garbage crisis
The whole story began immediately after the local elections, at the end of 2020. Clotilde Armand, the new mayor, stated that she is not satisfied with the large sums of money that Sector 1 pays to Romprest, based on a contract signed in 2008 .
Then it reached a crisis, and the company refused to collect the uncontrolled street garbage, if more debts (approximately 100 million lei) were not paid, accumulated from the mandate of the former PSD mayor, Daniel Tudorache.
Faced with this situation, the mayor hired the services of another sanitation company to collect the garbage that Romprest did not want to collect, even though the company had exclusivity.
Romprest: Stop making defamatory statements
On December 22, 2020, Romprest submitted the presidential ordinance to the Bucharest Court, a process that is being quickly judged. Specifically, the company asked the judges for three things:
Procedures on the role of the courts
These measures had to be taken until the resolution of three other important processes pending before the courts.
The public interest, superior
Could the Sector 1 City Council sign a contract with another sanitation company, even if it had exclusivity with Romprest?
The judges reason that they could and do quote from the law that “the principle of contractual freedom is subordinate to the principle of public interest.”
“Considering the principles by virtue of which the sanitation service is organized and operated, regulated by article 3 letters a, c, d, e of the Local Sanitation Service Law No. 101/2006, respectively the protection of the population, health, responsibility towards citizens, conservation and protection of the environment, ensuring the quality and continuity of the service, as well as the norm that establishes the provisions of article 8, paragraph 3 of the Law on Administrative Litigation No. 554/2004, according to which the principle of contractual freedom is subordinated to the principle of public interest:
– the court considers that the apparent right to guarantee the exclusivity of the sanitation service in the administrative area of Sector 1 cannot be withheld in favor of the plaintiff (Romprest – no), when the exercise of the contractual right to limit the activity may harm the interest of the community in favor of which the sanitation service is provided, incidental situation in question ”, explains the Bucharest Court.
READ ALSO: Sources: DNA requests a copy of the contract with Romprest from the Sector 1 City Council. The document was signed in 2008 for 25 years.
Can you prevent a mayor from writing on Facebook about a public contract?
Can a mayor be prevented from making public statements about the problems of the contractual relationship with the sanitation company? Under what conditions? Romprest had asked the judges to force Clotilde Armand to issue in the media – television, print or online press, social networks – defamatory statements about the image, name, activity, stage of the contractual relationship and / or any information or document that is part of the goodwill of the subscriber (except those that are limited to the definition of “public information”) “.
The court considers that the existence of uncontrolled landfills in the streets of Sector 1 forced the authorities of ATU Sector 1 Bucharest to present explanations to the inhabitants of this sector, because:
– On the one hand, they have the legal obligation to organize, manage, finance and control the operation of the public sanitation service, respecting the principles of protection of public health, responsibility towards citizenship, conservation and protection of the environment (art. 1 and art. 3 of Law No. 101/2006);
– on the other hand, there was no evidence that the sanitation operator, the company Romprest Services SA, had informed the public of its intention to use the contractual right to limit the public service in the midst of the refusal of the Sector 1 authorities to pay for the services already provided (although in response to the answer it states that In the context of the Delegation Agreement and the legislation on the matter, information campaigns are the responsibility of the sanitation operator, which must be carried out in collaboration with the contracting authority.) “, explains the moment.
According to the judges, without a doubt, by providing a public utility service, financed with funds from the local community, the activity of the sanitation operator is in the public interest. Thus, the magistrates point out, the authority cannot be prohibited from informing the public about the way in which these public contracts are carried out.
The magistrates also point out that the information must be presented objectively and the possible divergences of the contracting parties in relation to the execution of the reorganization contract must be resolved by legally regulated methods.
Lawyer: “Garbage, used for blackmail”
As we have shown, the court rejected the presidential ordinance inaugurated by Romprest as unfounded. The lawyer Georgiana Trandafir, who represented the City Council, the City Council and Mayor Clotilde Armand in the process, demonstrated that, in this case, Romprest was the one who decided, unilaterally, to limit the provision of the public sanitation service.
“The waste of uncontrolled sources is the most visible and generates the greatest discomfort, being used as an element of blackmail against the accused subscribers to make us pay visibly higher bills compared to the services provided by the operator,” read the answer presented by the lawyer. Georgiana Trandafir.
Faced with this situation, the City Council was forced to resort to another supplier to collect waste from uncontrolled sources, the source cited also shows. Then the City Council had to hire another provider to collect the garbage and incur additional costs.
Essential data that led to the “garbage war”
The contract between Romprest and the City Council of Sector 1 was signed in 2008 for a period of 25 years. The contract was signed during the term of Adrian Chiliman (2004 – 2015). Between 2016 and 2020, the sector was led by Daniel Tudorache. He previously held the position of Deputy Mayor of Sector 1 between 2008 and 2011.
The prices of the services of the contract signed in 2008 were adjusted twice, through additional acts, voted on by the City Council:
2012: The indices from which the rates are indexed from consumer price indices by economy to consumer price indices by branch have been modified;
2019: The prices were changed without any connection to the indices. There are different situations, but in essence there are increases of up to 300% in some operations, especially those with high frequency / incidence, and in other rates there are small decreases. For example, the price of mechanized street washing increased from 9.98 lei to 24.02 lei.
READ ALSO:
Who is behind Romprest, the company that keeps downtown Bucharest under mountains of garbage. Ignored mockery of 2016: illegal payments of tens of millions of lei
Clotilde Armand defeats Romprest in a first test. What’s going on in the courts with the “garbage war” in Sector 1?
Clotilde Armand reveals that the Sector 1 City Council pays 200 million lei annually to Romprest and that his blackmail was attempted: “I was followed and photographed”
How Clotilde Armand plans to slash the price of sanitation in Sector 1: “I estimate it will be twice as cheap”
The “garbage war” in Sector 1 is entering a critical phase, Romprest threatens not to remove the cars from the garage. Clotilde Armand: “I will no longer tolerate blackmail and threats from the mafia”
Clotilde Armand, on the waste scandal in Sector 1: “A media campaign was launched against me led by the Garbage Mafia”
[ad_2]
