Nova24TV English

Slovenian News In ENGLISH

Vinko Vasle filed a criminal complaint with the prosecutor’s office against CPC President Robert Šumi on suspicion of abusing his official position

We have recently reported that Vinko Vasle has filed a request for an investigation procedure on suspicion of corruption in the case of the President of the Court of Audit Tomaž Vesel in the case of his side earnings. As is well known, the CPC then reacted by announcing that there would be no proceedings or that the proceeding has been stopped, saying that there had been no violation of the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act.

Apparently, this is not the end of the story, as Vasle announced to the District State Prosecutor’s Office in Ljubljana the suspicion of a criminal act by CPC President Robert Šumi“In his explanation, Robert Šumi repeatedly came into complete contradiction with the actual situation at CPC, or interpreted certain rules and regulations completely arbitrarily, which also leads to the suspicion of a criminal offense of abuse of office, which continues to provide great financial gain to Tomaž Vesel of 200,000 euros a year, paid to him by FIFA as the supervisor of its operations. And it also legalises it retrospectively,” Vasle wrote in the complaint. The complaint was also sent to the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office.

And how does Vasle explain the reasons for the complaint? Article 15 of the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act requires an official of the CPC to apply for a written permit to perform – additional activities. When considering the case, the commission wrote that it did not have such a document, to which Tomaž Vesel also referred, nor did it submit it to Tomaž Vesel at the repeated request of the commission. The commission notes that misleading and making false statements by officials can be considered by the commission as a suspicion of breach of integrity, and then adds – “However, since in this particular case it is not possible to completely refute the allegations about the existence of the document (the issuance of the opinion was confirmed by the former CPC president, it was also referred to by the President of the Court of Audit in his declarations of changes in assets), the commission could not consider the public allegations and references to the document, which was not subsequently submitted as misleading and did not initiate proceedings on suspicion of breach of integrity.” “This definition of the commission is an illegal exercise and a legal monster, because it is clear to a complete layman that the truth is proven by a document. In this case, Tomaž Vesel publicly referred to the fact that he has a written opinion, and that it was probably somewhere in his computer in Switzerland. He later adjusted his opinion and added that, as he recalls, there was no written opinion of the permit, but that the former president of the CPC, Boris Štefanec, gave him only an oral permit. Štefanec also got involved. He first claimed that written permission must be somewhere at the CPC, but it was not in the system where any permission is required to be recorded. He then claimed that he “now remembers” that he had given Vesel only an oral permit, which, of course, does not count because it was against the law, even if Štefanec had given such a permit. Nevertheless, he still claimed that the permit must be somewhere on the CPC, in order to later remember that he did not give the permit, but only an opinion!” Vasle wrote. Accordingly, it should be emphasised that Tomaž Vesel should also have been given permission by his employer – the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia, but he did not apply for this permission there and did not receive it, the complainant reminded.

Unbelievable and legally perverted is the CPC’s explanation that it is enough for Vesel to refer to the existence of such a document, even though Vesel later said that he received only the oral permission of the then CPC president, Vasle recalled. “In this case, it is a matter of consciously “adjusting” the regulations in favour of the President of the Court of Audit, Tomaž Vesel, although it is clear that there were so many different interpretations of it that it is more than justified to claim that this document never existed. Moreover, Štefanec stated that “in the sporting activity of the FIFA World Cup, the official does not need any consent – neither from the employer nor from the CPC. However, Mr. Vesel wanted to have an opinion and a position (?) and we gave him these two.” They never talked about the amount that Vesel receives, which is very unusual, as it is 200,000 euros a year, and according to the public claim of the CPC president Robert Šumi, corruption can already be “just one coffee”. During this time, Tomaž Vesel assured that he was ready to publicly announce the announcement of cooperation with FIFA (!) sent by the CPC and the response he received from the commission. Shortly afterwards, the CPC announced that the CPC did not have documentation with an opinion on the incompatibility of functions and conflicts of interest in performing additional activities at FIFA. The CPC said at the time that it was obviously a direct communication between Vesel and Štefanec. At one point, Štefanec even stated that the commission does not issue such permits, which is not true – permits are necessary and are registered in a special system within the CPC. Also, the claim that Štefanec did not give Vesel written consent to work for FIFA, but the opinion that this work is not against the law, is a legal blasphemy, a disgrace to the legal system in this area, especially because the law specifically requires permission. In general – the so-called explanatory exercise of both Tomaž Vesel and Boris Štefanec about the permit leaves no doubt that this permit does not exist at all, so in this sense, as the former president of the CPC, Boris Štefanec is also fully criminally liable,” Vasle wrote in the complaint.

And the third reason for the indictment? “The commission, chaired by Robert Šumi, further explains that the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act prohibits professional officials from performing additional gainful activities, but exceptionally allows them to perform gainful sports activities. In this particular case, the commission continues, it is neither a sport nor a gainful activity, despite the payment received for performing the function of the chairman of the Audit and Compliance Committee at FIFA. What are profitable and what are non-profitable activities is defined by the Rules of the Ministry of Finance (UL-109-07), according to which, of course, T. Vesel’s contract with FIFA in the amount of 200,000 euros per year represents a profitable activity because it is not a sports activity, as this sum represents the gainful activity of the President of the Court of Audit T. Vesel. The Commission also refers to the example of the judgments of the EU Court of Justice in the Thiau case, where this court defined FIFA in complete contrast to the CPC and clarified that performance of functions at FIFA is also considered a gainful activity at FIFA. The Commission has therefore established that in this case it is not a sports activity, but that it is a non-profit activity, which is inconsistent with the definition of the EU court,” Vasle wrote.

The CPC commission composed of Robert Šumi and deputies Uroš Novak and Simon Savski therefore wrote that it had not found any violations of the ZIntPK, so it stopped the proceedings against the president of the Court of Audit, Tomaž Vesel. It follows from the above that the commission acted contrary to the law – the CPC Act, the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Court of Audit Act, which also defines incompatibility of functions in the Court of Audit in Article 16. “The CPC Commission thus – as follows from the above – objectively enabled – also retrospectively – the abuse of official position of the President of the Court of Audit T. Vesel and continues to provide him with a large financial benefit, which he should not receive, because this is in in complete conflict with its function and laws,” wrote the complainant, who hopes that the prosecution will seriously examine the report and take action in accordance with the findings.


Share on social media