English
Reporter: What is next, now that the Government has assumed responsibility for the law on the restitution of properties?
George Băeşu: We are waiting for the law to come into effect and we already have ready the documents which we want to submit to the Prime Minister for approval, for the creation of the national commission, which concern the manner of operation of said commission.
And then, we will ask the ministries which have representatives on the commission to designate their members, so that we can begin to solve the thousands of cases that we have on the agenda.
We have almost a thousand court rulings through which we have been required to either issue compensation deeds for specific amounts, or to make assessments and to issue compensation deeds. For us, this is the top priority.
Reporter: Former owners have expressed lots of discontent, claiming that they have never been consulted throughout the entire period of the drafting of the law. Do you think that their grievances are legitimate?
George Băeşu: The discontent of the former owners is natural. For me, the process of the drafting of the law began the moment I came to the ANRP. Since then, we have been in constant touch with the associations of former owners and also since then, we have been told what the expectations and the grievances about this process are.
There is quite a significant difference between the expectations of the former owners and what the Government can solve when it comes to compensations.
The former owners would have wanted for the ANRP to be disbanded and to receive all their money at once, this year based on the mayor dispositions or the decisions of the county councils.
Until 2007, 38,000 applications had gathered at the ANRP, for which the prefects had not conducted any verification of their legality, because the laws in effect did not stipulate this. It was only later, through an emergency ordinance, that the legality control was introduced.
Those briefs contain a disposition through which the mayors propose compensations. I can't, on behalf of the Romanian state, validate the amounts proposed, just because certain mayors, with all the people they had available, have asked for it.
You have to know, for instance, that some mayors have approved the restitution of some buildings without specifically naming them.
One of the requests of the associations of the former owners was precisely that: for us not to be the ones doing the audit of those files.
The second request is for them to be paid immediately.
Prime Minister Victor Ponta is taking a very slightly leftist responsibility, through the entire compensation of the former owners, unlike a previous right-wing government, which wanted to cap the compensations at 15%, regardless of who they were granted to, whether it was former owners, or buyers of lawsuit rights.
No national or international authority can dispute the fact that the Romanian state can't afford to pay the amounts in full at the current time.
Romania also needs hospitals, highways, doctors, teachers and others. Things need to be balanced.
The current law of restitutions is not the best, some even think it is bad, but it is the only reasonable version, at this moment.
Reporter: Why was the supplementation of the number of members of the national commissions for the evaluation of the compensation briefs with a representative of the national minorities, through the amendment of the UDMR (Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania)?
George Băeşu: It was the desire of the religious cults and of the UDMR that this commission also include a representative of the Governmental Department for Interethnic Relations, since it offers restitution solutions.
We have agreed to supplement the number of members of the national commissions from nine to eleven, and to do what had to be done to reach the quorum of the meeting, with 7 out of 11 participants.
Many of the members of the Commission have other responsibilities as well, besides the licensing of the restitution briefs - president of the ADS, representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development or of the Ministry of Justice. By supplementing the number of members, we can also reach the quorum so we don't delay this process any more than necessary.
Reporter: Victor Ponta is thanking the UDMR deputy Marko Attila for the amendments he has proposed, even though it is well known that Mr. Attila has an ongoing lawsuit concerning the restitution of a high school in Sfântu Gheorghe.
George Băeşu: The prime-minister has mentioned Mr. Fenechiu of the PPDD political party and Mr. Attila from the UDMR because, during the discussions, they have talked a lot about their amendments. We have the list of the amendments, and Mr. Marko Attila is just one of the 7-8 signers from the UDMR, which also include Mate Andras Levante who is a member on the legal commission.
From the UDMR we have only taken on 2-3 amendments, because many others were in violation of the spirit or the mechanism of the law, or those who proposed them had no knowledge of what we want to do after the implementation of the law.
There are many amendments from the PPDD, PSD or the UDMR which we have not taken on.
Some of the proposals which will be adopted in the norm for the application of the law, that we are currently working on and which will be published as soon as possible.
Reporter: What is your opinion on the action of the PDL or the Forţa Civică (Civic Force) party to file a complaint with the Constitutional Court concerning the law of restitutions?
George Băeşu: I can tell you that there are some gentlemen of the Forţa Civică and PDL parties that appear as assignees - them or their relatives - in the briefs submitted with the Authority. We are waiting for them to go through with their desire to go to the Constitutional Court. What are they actually protecting? They are protecting their status of assignees and the rights of their relatives and close friends. Don't think that there aren't people in the other parties that wouldn't be happy if things stayed the way they are now. This kind of individuals exists everywhere, it's just that at the level of the other parties they have understood the historic moment and the solution which was found to deal with this matter. Some people don't like it, so they can afford this assault on common sense. We've had parliamentarians from the Civic Force party who came knocking on the door, including ours at the ANRP, and who wanted to put in a good word for their relatives.
Reporter: Will you still go the ECHR for consultations before the law goes into effect?
George Băeşu: No. The ECHR will be informed with the support of the colleagues of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or through the Government's agent that Romania has over there.
In the talks with the representatives of the Court, we have instituted a system for monitoring of the evolution of the compensation process, in the context of the new law.
We will discuss all these things, so as to convey to the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers the image of a competent authority, which has set for itself an ambitious schedule for the restitution, which is definitely not easy, a schedule which we need to see through.
Reporter: Prime Minister Victor Ponta was saying that, out of approximately 200,000 requests for restitution, about 30,000 have been solved. There is still a lot of work to do.
George Băeşu: The Prime Minister was talking about the cases for which the ANRP has issued compensation deeds.
At the Authority, applications have been submitted on the basis of the Law no. 10, the Agricultural Real Estate and based on the cults and the minorities.
Many of these cases overlap.
For some of the cases which fall under cults and minorities there is no legal framework for a favorable solution.
This is what the prime-minister has said as well - that we still have work to do on the matter of religious cults, but not through this law. Over there we have our own legislation when it comes to restitutions.
Out of the 200,000 local requests, some of them, we hope that lots of them, can be solved locally - either by granting possession to the former owners, or by rejecting them. We anticipate that less of them will reach the Authority for alternative solutions, for compensation in cash equivalent.
It is a lengthy process, and this law sets deadlines which begin in January 2014.
Until then, the local authorities will have very limited responsibilities when it comes to the requests for plots of land, the inventorying of the necessary land, the applications.
During this time, the administrative territorial divisions can complete their work of gathering documentation, and then, starting in 2014, the deadline for solving the applications can begin.
Reporter: Why must the issuing of deeds have to be suspended until the inventorying of the public and private lands is completed on a local level?
George Băeşu: By taking on this responsibility for this amendment, every mayor, together with the members of the local council, will draw up an inventory of the Agricultural Real Estate available on a local level, which they will then send to the prefects. From that moment on, they can ask the prefecture to issue deeds of ownership, to complete those documents which are part of the restitution process. It is simple, it is good, and the hard working people will have the ability to finish their work before the deadline set through the law.
Reporter: What will happen to the plots of land of the institutes and research stations?
George Băeşu: With the approval of the government, the plots of land will be delivered to the ADS, because the agency already has a procedure and people inside all the administrative local divisions, who are members of the Agricultural Real Estate commissions.
What is important for me is that these plots of land do not end up in the hands of people who claim them using forged documents. It is important that when the Romanian state assigns one plot of land and makes it available to a town to be returned to an individual, that we are sure the request for restitution is just. That is why this needs to be done through the ADS, which is a government structure and which has representatives locally.
Reporter: What happens if the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development approves the change of the allowed use of the grazing grounds, and the population disagrees, through a referendum?
George Băeşu: If it gets to that, then the intended use of the grazing grounds doesn't change. Besides, the issues of the grazing grounds is different from one case to the next: there are cities which still have this kind of plots of lands, but which aren't used for their intended purposes, because there are no animals that need grazing, just cats and dogs, and it would therefore be in the interest of some of those cities for the law to be changed and the plots of land in question be used for other purposes.
In other locations, it is vital for the grazing grounds to continue to exist. Through this law, we have tried to find a response for the needs that some people have, while not forcing others to abandon the grazing grounds that they need. Initially, we have tried to speak only about the need to organize a referendum, and then we were notified about the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development that Romania has made a commitment of to have a minimum area of grazing grounds, and thus, an intermediate step was introduced, which consisted of consulting and obtaining a preliminary approval from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, so that Romania would not fall below the minimum limit set by the EU.
Reporter: What else do you know about the notifications sent by the National Anticorruption Department concerning the forged deeds which were used to obtain some buildings and plots of land?
George Băeşu: We talk quite often to the people at the DNA. There is a large volume of work, lots of paperwork, many people, lots of money. It's been a long time when these things where not discussed. Now, I think that the colleagues at the DNA have a big workload related to these issues.
I think that sooner or later, we will find out what is happening.
We are in a very delicate situation, because for some of the briefs are at the DNA, we have begun receiving court rulings which require us to issue compensation deeds. And we are required to issue those deeds, even though we know that the briefs are still being investigated by the DNA.
Still, I believe that one way or another, the investigations will be completed.
Euro
Dolar SUA
Franc elveţian
Liră sterlină
Gram de aur
