FIVE BANKS HAVE REVEALED THEIR HAND THROUGH VAN GRONINGEN'S MOUTH Discredited lenders

Banks continue to discredit themselves publicly, now drawing the hostility of the Supreme Council of Magistrates (CSM), in the war they are waging both against their own customers and against the Parliament: in the beginning of July, Steven van Groningen, as CEO of Raiffeisen Bank and as president of the Council of Banking Professional Associations in Romania (CPBR), sent the CSM an arrogant letter, which, as magistrates explained yesterday in a press release, affects the independence and the impartiality of our judicial system, inducing the idea that judges are not impartial and do not applying correctly the banking system regulations pertaining to the resolution of disputes between consumers and professionals.

Holland is the country that denied our accession to Schengen, on claims that Romania's judicial system has not gained its independence, but Dutchman van Groningen is now attacking that independence.

How ironic!

The legal consequences of the acknowledgement of this attack on the act of serving justice are not clear at all.

According to the CSM Regulation, "the competent entities" have to be notified in order to take "the required measures".

The wording is vague.

In the case of Steven van Groningen, one of the "competent entities" would be the Council of Banking Professional Associations in Romania, and the "required measure" would be to dismiss him from his Chairman position.

I don't think that will happen.

The problem is that van Groningen had the approval of the representatives of the five banks that are left in the CPBR (BCR, Unicredit, Raiffeisen, BancPost and ING) to send the letter to the CSM, meaning that the Professional Association would have to replace them all.

I don't think that is going to happen either.

A second "competent entity" should be the NBR, of which it would be normal to expect to check to what extent van Groningen's reputation (and that of the other four) has been compromised by this act that "affects the independence and the impartiality of our judicial system"; the NBR can sanction or dismiss bankers that present a high reputational risk.

I don't think that is going to happen either, in part or in full.

-------------------------------------

REGULATIONS concerning the organization and the operation of the Supreme Council of Magistrates

Chap. V

The attributions of the Council

Art. 15 - (1) The Council has the right and the obligation to defend the independence, the impartiality and the professional reputation of judges and prosecutors.

(2) If a judge prosecutor consider that their independence, impartiality or professional reputation are affected in any way, they can notify the Council.

(3) The Council decides the probing of the facts reported through the Judicial Inspection and, depending on the findings, publishes the results of the investigation, notifies the entities that are qualified to decide on the measures that are required or takes any other appropriate measures, according to the law.

-------------------------------------

If the NBR isn't going to take any action, then that will be further proof of its acting in cahoots with the bankers, after siding with them in the conflict around the Law of giving in payment, but even more so, that it continues to act against the law in general, as evidenced by the fact that it refuses to disclose the compensations of its executives.

Steven van Groningen comes out compromised from this attempt; the CPBR also comes out tarnished; in the absence of any distancing from the initiative of the Banking Professional Association, the rest of the banking system (31 banks) also sees its reputation affected; and even the National Bank of Romania, that has exhausted the respect of the public when it fought side by side with bankers against the law of giving in payment, and after the arrest of deputy governor Bogdan Olteanu, takes another blow when it comes to its public perception.

On the other hand, bank customers, lawyers and politicians who are engaged in the war with banks are jubilating.

They are in full offense, they are winning the lawsuits by invoking the abusive clauses practiced by banks, they have imposed the law of giving in payment and they are riding the public's dislike of banks, fueled by attacks of the politicians, but mostly by the bankers' lack of thoughtfulness, by their arrogance that pushes them to reckless actions, insolence and a disgusting public discourse.

In this context, the foreign banks' initiative to complain against Romanian legislation to an international court will emphasize a conflict between the locals and the foreigners, especially as Romanian banks are overwhelmingly dominated by foreign capital.

Another badly thought action.