English
The information published by the BURSA newspaper in the article "Damages of tens of millions of lei at Transelectrica, discovered by the Court of Auditors” attracted the attention of the media, being picked up by TV stations, but also by the online press. Moreover, it seems that the article in the BURSA daily newspaper prompted the Court of Auditors to make public the audit report at Transelectrica that I wrote about, notifying the National Anticorruption Directorate regarding the violations found, which fall under the incidence of criminal law.
The Court of Auditors sent a letter to the President of the Transelectrica Directorate, Ştefăniţă Munteanu, in March, informing him that, according to the Decision of the Plenum of the Court of Auditors no. 78/31.01.2025, the DNA was notified for the violations found in the audit report in order to initiate preliminary criminal prosecution procedures. Following our informations about the respective document, Mihai Busuioc, President of the Court of Auditors, confirmed the notification sent to the DNA, for damages of almost 30 million lei. Mihai Busuioc also stated that "in the context of constant efforts to make the specific activity transparent, by Plenum Decision no. 586/05.06.2025, the Court of Auditors of Romania decided to publish the audit reports containing findings that were the basis for approving the referral to the criminal prosecution bodies".
What the President of the Court of Auditors does not say is the fact that, as can be seen from the public institution's website, the respective reports were only published yesterday, June 17, that is, one day after the BURSA newspaper published the article regarding them.
This was briefly mentioned in the communication that the Transelectrica Directorate made to investors on the Bucharest Stock Exchange website following the article published by the BURSA newspaper. In that communication, the Transelectrica Directorate claims that the Court's report would contain only "recommendations", without establishing any "measure" of an enforceable nature, and the idea of a prejudice would be, in essence, unrealistic in the absence of a decision by the administrative court. In this vein, Transelectrica implied that the entire dispute is more a matter of procedural interpretation than one of legality.
However, the internal documents analyzed by our editorial team, including the detailed point of view of the majority of the Transelectrica Directorate, the prior complaint submitted to the Court of Auditors and its firm response, outline a significantly more complex picture than the one projected in the communication to the BVB.
First, even though the Court's report does not contain formal recovery measures, the audit document explicitly notes a series of findings considered non-compliance. Among them: the granting of special bonuses and salary increases in the absence of explicit provisions in the BVC, the establishment of fixed gross monthly indemnities above the legal limits for the company's management, but also the implementation of investment contracts with serious deviations from the contractual clauses - all of these aspects being considered with the potential to generate damages, damages that the Court of Auditors claims are real and even estimates them in different chapters in the audit report.
• Court of Auditors: Transelectrica's request to partially annul the findings and recommendations of the Compliance Audit Report and the Management Letter is unfounded
Moreover, in the response officially sent to the company, rejecting its complaint regarding the recommendations established following the audit report, the Romanian Court of Auditors indicates that Transelectrica did not provide sufficient supporting elements to modify the initial conclusions of the audit. According to this response, which is in the possession of the BURSA newspaper, the Court promptly and in detail rejected all the arguments of the Transelectrica Management, from the alleged legality of the redistribution of salary funds, to the interpretations regarding the mandate of the Supervisory Board in establishing benefits. The Court of Auditors reiterated that the amounts paid cannot be justified solely by union agreements or budgetary savings, but must be strictly within the legal limits, which, in the auditors' opinion, did not happen.
In the respective document, the Court of Auditors states: "The preliminary complaint, although it was filed against the Plenum Decision no. 47/23.01.2025, does not contain arguments regarding the illegality of this decision, being unfounded in fact and in law. The arguments invoked by the filed complaint concern some findings from the audit report regarding deviations from legality and regularity, as well as recommendations for their remediation from the Letter to Management, documents that are not part of the category of administrative acts. (...) The request for partial annulment of the findings and recommendations from the Compliance Audit Report and the Letter to Management is unfounded (...). Transelectrica SA's claims regarding the findings and recommendations in points 1.1/5.1 of the contested documents, according to which no violations of legal provisions were mentioned, so that the management and opportunity decision could be qualified as prejudice, in our opinion are unfounded considering the following arguments. Thus, the provisions were violated: art.t4.15 paragraphs 1 and 2 and art.7.2 of the Collective Labor Agreement of CNTEE Transelectrica registered at ITM Bucharest under no. 417/28.11.2018, applicable in the period 2020-2022; the provisions of art. 6 paragraph 2 of the Accounting Law no. 82/1991, republished; art.5 paragraph 1 and art. 40 paragraph 2 letter c of the Labor Code, art.101 letter a and art.115 of Law 367/2022 on social dialogue (previously art.148 of Law 62/2011 on social dialogue); points 9.1, 9.2.2, 9.2.4 and 9.2.7 of OSGG no. 600/2018 on the approval of the Code of Internal Managerial Control of Public Entities; OMFP no.3818/30.12.2019 on the approval of the format and structure of the income and expenditure budget of economic operators, as well as of its supporting annexes; Annex 6.III point 2 and art. 5 paragraph 1 of OG 119/1999, on internal control and financial-preventive control with subsequent amendments and additions. Failure to comply with the aforementioned provisions led to the payment of unjustified bonuses and allowances. (...) The complaint also claims that the resulting savings were directed, with the agreement of the trade union organization, to temporary measures, but the entity did not provide proof of the savings from the execution of the BVC (editor's note - the income and expenditure budget), the bonuses and allowances being granted without presenting documents that would distinctly highlight the savings made in the execution of the annual salary fund provided for in the BVC that would cover their level. (...) Special bonuses were granted to employees who were hired by the company in the month of their award or in the previous month (example - employees with the mark 4475, 44477, 4480, 1329 and 4455 were hired in November 2012 and December 2021 and benefited from bonuses in December 2021), without mentioning the major impact actions carried out by them within a few days of employment or a month.
These bonuses were granted without being based on a document (Protocol/Notes, etc.) from which the application and compliance with the criteria established by the Protocols concluded with the trade union organization (...). The tables by which the granting of the bonuses was approved were drawn up before or even on the day the protocol between Transelectrica and FNSF Univers was concluded, by which the award criteria were established, which means that at the time of approving the nominal granting of the bonuses, an analysis was not carried out on the fulfillment of the criteria agreed by the parties”.
• Transelectrica management divided following the Court of Auditors' report
Transelectrica's position according to which "damages do not exist in the absence of a court decision” ignores the fact that, in the practice of external public auditing, the finding of damage by the Court of Auditors is not equivalent to a court decision, but it does not need one to maintain its institutional relevance. It is a declaratory act with the value of administrative evidence, which can trigger remedial measures or litigation, without being devoid of authority until a court decision. In addition, the very fact that the criminal prosecution bodies, in this case the DNA, were notified confirms the seriousness of the interpretation given by the Court of Auditors to the findings in the audit report drawn up at Transelectrica.
Internally, the documents analyzed also show a fracture in the executive management of Transelectrica. Two members of the Board of Directors - Victor Moraru and Cosmin-Vasile Nicula - issued a separate opinion, criticizing the decision of the majority of Transelectrica's management to contest the Court of Auditors' report. However, their position was harshly criticized by the other members, who accused them of being late in demarcating themselves from previously voted decisions and of risking compromising the company's right to act legally in contesting the report.
Beyond the accounting and legal aspects, the dispute between Transelectrica and the Court of Auditors highlights a broader conflict between corporate governance requirements and responsibility towards public funds. Although the company invokes the periodicity and preventive nature of audit missions, the current report reveals recurring issues regarding compliance with the legal framework in the management of significant funds, aspects that cannot be mitigated by simple statements of transparency or institutional cooperation.
Investors and the public should be fully and balancedly informed, not just through messages optimized to reduce the stock market impact. The legal and fiscal reality of a company cannot be redefined through strategic communication, but only through solid, verifiable clarifications assumed at all levels by management.
Euro
Dolar SUA
Franc elveţian
Liră sterlină
Gram de aur
Reader's Opinion