In the motivation, the judges write that the decision in the case of the then mayor of sector 4 was taken because “a club was given an operating license that did not have a fire permit and did not actually implement adequate fire safety measures, aspects which, by overlapping other actions and inactions of other defendants in the present case, for which the defendant is not responsible, led to a fire with tragic consequences “, according to the published motivation of rejust.ro.
Basically, the mayor violated the Fiscal Code (law 571/2003), in force in 2015 when the fire in the Colectiv club took place, reported to Law 215/2001 of the local administration, according to G4Media.
“The maximum penalty provided by law for the crime committed will not be applied to the defendant because the permanent endangerment of the life, health, bodily integrity of the persons, the employees who were inside the club during January – October 30, 2015 is imputable, in – a considerably larger measure, to the defendants And # #, ISU officers who, finding the condition unsuitable from the perspective of non-existence of fire safety measures and non-existence of PSI authorization, did not sanction SC SRL, did not establish measures to remedy the deficiencies found, no they reported the existence of this situation which could lead even to the notification of the mayor’s office for the closure of the club “, it is also shown in the court’s decision.
Piedone blamed himself in statements to the press
The judges also say that “in a televised interview, given the day after the fire (…) he showed that, ‘the operating agreement sums up all the agreements from all the institutions authorized to issue operating licenses: public catering, PSI rules and so on. amd ‘The reference to the operating agreement is inappropriate, as it actually refers to the authorization, not the agreement. In this sense, it is found that the defendant also talks about the agreements from all the competent institutions, or, these institutions issued authorizations not agreements’ “, thus,” the defendant’s support regarding the incidence of the error on typicality or the error on illegality cannot be received. A person who clearly states, in a televised interview, that the PSI authorization is required for the operation authorization cannot claim that he did not know that the legal provisions impose this ”.
Cristian Popescu Piedone was sentenced, on Thursday, to 4 years in prison, in the Collective case, the punishment being reduced compared to the first instance, when he had been sentenced to 8 years and 6 months in prison for abuse of office.
–
