Court Justifies House Arrest for Călin Georgescu: No Violence and No Risk of Flight
Judge Andriescu explained why he granted Georgescu's defence request, citing the economic nature of the alleged offences and appropriate procedural conduct. DIICOT contests the decision at Bucharest Court of Appeal.
Georgescu Transferred from Preventive Detention to House Arrest: Court's Full Reasoning
The judge for rights and liberties at Bucharest Tribunal has published the reasoning behind the decision to transfer former presidential candidate Călin Georgescu from preventive detention to house arrest. According to Gândul, the contest filed by DIICOT will next be heard at Bucharest Court of Appeal.
Judge Andriescu identified several factors that led to the change of measure: the economic and non-violent nature of the alleged offences, the natural pace of the investigation, and Georgescu's conduct towards the judicial authorities.
The Alleged Offences Involve No Violence
The judge emphasised that the defendant is subject to the most serious preventive measure despite being accused of offences of an economic character, committed without violence. In the judge's view, precisely this nature of the facts means that preventive detention is no longer proportionate to the gravity of the accusations.
"House arrest is a sufficient measure for the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, to eliminate any risk of flight and to prevent the commission of further offences," the judge for rights and liberties concluded.
Investigation Proceeded Without Obstruction
The reasoning shows that the criminal investigation proceeded "at a natural pace", suited to the specific character of the facts, including through letters rogatory in foreign countries — procedures that ordinarily require extended periods of time. A report was also drawn up to establish the trail of the sums of money.
The evidence gathered was varied: witness and party hearings, investigation records, interceptions and environmental recordings, telephone conversations, electronic communications, computer searches, letters rogatory. The judge found that the gathering of such evidence "appears to be proceeding in good order", both before and after the ordering of preventive detention.
Georgescu Returned to the Country and Complied with Obligations
A central argument invoked by the judge concerns the risk of flight. The judge noted that in the other judicial proceedings against Georgescu — within the jurisdiction of the court and the court of appeal — there is at present no preventive measure in place.
"The defendant Georgescu was thus in a state of complete freedom, without any preventive measure, for several months, a period in which he had ample opportunity to flee the country and to evade criminal investigation and prosecution. However, the defendant did not do this; on the contrary, when he left the country he subsequently returned and answered the calls of the judicial authorities," the judge wrote in the reasoning.
The judge further found that there is no evidence that Georgescu evaded calls from the judicial authorities or failed to comply with obligations imposed during the period in which he was under judicial control. This procedural conduct "permits anticipation of such conduct in the future", the judge found.
Reasonable Suspicion Remains, but the Measure Changes
The decision does not equate to an acquittal of suspicions. The judge explicitly stated that there remains evidence from which a reasonable suspicion can be drawn that the defendant committed the alleged offences, with reference to the evidence presented by the Prosecution and previously analysed by both Bucharest Tribunal and Bucharest Court of Appeal.
The legal basis invoked is Article 242, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits replacement of a preventive measure with a lighter one if the legal conditions are met and if, following evaluation of the defendant's procedural conduct, the lighter measure is considered sufficient to achieve the purpose provided by law: proper conduct of criminal proceedings, prevention of flight, and prevention of the commission of new offences.
Constitutional Court Cited in Reasoning
The judge recalled that the constitutional review body has ruled repeatedly on the nature of preventive measures. By decision no. 650 of 11 November 2014, the Constitutional Court held that both preventive detention and house arrest are measures that restrict liberty, with a character of coercion, both aimed at ensuring proper conduct of criminal proceedings.
DIICOT's Contest Follows
The Tribunal's decision is not final. DIICOT has filed a contest, which will be heard by Bucharest Court of Appeal. Pending resolution of the contest, Călin Georgescu remains under house arrest.
Source: Gândul