Clotilde Armand's Conviction: What the Preliminary Chamber Judge Said About the "Dangerousness" of the Acts
The preliminary chamber judge had flagged the "dangerousness" of Clotilde Armand's acts as early as 2024. Gândul analysed the reasoning behind the decision to send the case to trial.
Preliminary chamber, 2024: the acts of the former mayor of Sector 1 present "dangerousness"
Gândul re-examined the reasoning by which the preliminary chamber judge at Sector 1 Court decided, at the end of 2024, to send Clotilde Armand, the former mayor of Sector 1, to trial on the merits. The document reveals that the magistrate flagged the "dangerousness" of the acts that were to be tried even at that time.
At that moment, the court rejected all requests and exceptions raised by the defence of the former official, reasoning that the investigation was free of defects and that the evidence gathered by investigators could be re-administered by judges. This reasoning prefigured, in broad terms, the arguments that subsequently led to the non-final conviction of Clotilde Armand.
The exception concerning the description of the offence
Clotilde Armand's defence raised the irregularity of the act of referral to the court, arguing that the offence of abuse of office for favouring certain persons, provided for in art. 301 para. (1) of the Criminal Code, was not described appropriately. The lawyers argued that the increase in monthly allowances through an individual administrative act, in the capacity of manager of a project financed from non-reimbursable European funds, does not automatically lead to the retention of the offence.
The preliminary chamber judge rejected these submissions as unfounded. In his reasoning, the magistrate showed that the act of referral clearly delimits the concrete actions of the defendant, which, in the opinion of the prosecutors, constitute the material element of the offence.
The facts retained by prosecutors
According to the indictment, in the period May 2022 – August 2022, Clotilde Armand, in her capacity as mayor of Sector 1, issued several orders after being appointed manager of the project "Improving the capacity of local administration regarding the development, implementation and promotion of anti-corruption measures", through Order no. 715/18.02.2022.
The subsequently issued orders — no. 1708/06.05.2022, no. ####/07.06.2022, no. 2517/05.07.2022 and no. 2853/01.08.2022 — would have produced, according to the charge, financial benefits for the defendant, in the form of increases in monthly allowances totalling 18,720 lei in gross income.
The judge's assessment of the description of the facts
"The judge is of the opinion that the factual situation contained in the act of referral is described sufficiently completely and coherently for the court to be able to make assessments regarding it, without violating the principle of separation of judicial functions," wrote the preliminary chamber magistrate.
He further noted that the detailed description of the facts allows for a clear and objective analysis, ensuring respect for the procedural rights and guarantees of the parties. The criminal investigation body carried out, in the judge's view, an appropriate description of the nature of the facts imputed, the manner, means and circumstances of fact, corroborating the evidence obtained.
Additionally, the act of referral describes individually the four material acts which the prosecutor considered elements constitutive of the continuing offence. "It can be observed that all the constitutive elements of the offence retained against the defendant can be readily identified, both from the objective aspect and from the subjective aspect," the magistrate further noted.
The limits of the preliminary chamber
The judge emphasised that the merits of the accusations could not be analysed at this procedural stage. "It will be the responsibility of the trial court to analyse to what extent it considers the prosecutors' submissions correct and proven, as well as their legal classification or the fulfilment of the constitutive elements of the offence, such an analysis exceeding the object of the preliminary chamber phase," the document states.
The preliminary chamber has, according to the magistrate, a restricted object, limited to verifying the legality of the referral to the court, the administration of evidence and the carrying out of criminal investigation acts, in accordance with art. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Criticisms of the defence regarding the objective aspect
The defence further contested that the indictment did not identify the social relations harmed by the issue of the four mayoral orders — administrative acts signed by Clotilde Armand in her capacity as principal budget holder, a prerogative which, the lawyers maintained, belonged exclusively to the person holding the office of mayor.
Furthermore, the defence criticised the absence of a prosecutorial opinion regarding the existence or otherwise of a material object of the offence, namely whether the sums obtained by the defendant in her capacity as manager of the European project constitute or not the material object of the imputed act. These arguments were not, however, retained by the preliminary chamber judge at that procedural stage.
Source: Gândul