CA Considered “Unjustified” the Act of the NIA Against the Judge Who Specified a Porsche for 11,000 Lei

Home / Society / CA Considered “Unjustified” the Act of the NIA Against the Judge Who Specified a Porsche for 11,000 Lei
The Court of Appeal has published the reasoned judgement in the case to annul the National Integrity Authority (NIA) document of March 2022 issued against Judge Mariana Pitic (Mariana Ursaki) of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ). Earlier, the media wrote that the judge owns a Porsche Cayenne car, which she valued at only 11,000 lei. The reasoned judgement of the Court of Appeal states that NIA’s argument is “unjustified”. We should recall that the judge of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), Mariana Pitic, known for declaring a Porsche Cayenne car for 11,000 lei, obtained a favorable decision in proceedings with the National Integrity Authority (NIA). Mariana Pitic came in sight after it became known that the judge drives a Porsche car, which she listed in her asset declaration only in 2015. The National Integrity Authority launched a probe against the judge. In July 2016, the case was closed as it was found that the judge had unintentionally violated the legal regime for declaration of income and assets for 2015. The explanation was that some of the assets she enjoyed but did not declare had been repossessed by her husband Pavel Pitic, a successful businessperson whom she divorced in 2011. At the hearing, the agency officials explained that Mariana Pitic had failed to find the sale contract to present it to the commission members and prove that the car costs only 11,000 lei. In March 2022, the NIA published another opinion, after a difference between income and expenses of about 678,000 lei had been found. The control procedure was carried out for the period from 1 January 2014 to 28 March 2019. The NIA inspector found that between 2015 and 2019, the judge entered invalid data on the value of the car in the declaration of assets in order to unjustifiably reduce the real price by more than 778 thousand lei. However, the judge did not specify the value of the owned land plot, the right to live in a building located in the capital’s suburbs and the right to rent a car.