Former director of the State Chancellery Jānis Citskovskis was informed that decisions regarding special flights were being made in the office of then-Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš, but no actions were taken on his part to put an end to this practice and ensure the procurement of alternative services, the prosecutor's office indicated.
The statement from the prosecutor's office notes that the prosecutor's office urges the public not to speculate on the validity of the accusations against Citskovskis, as this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the court, and public contestation of the charges may be interpreted as pressure on the court and the prosecutor's office.
The prosecutor's office stated that a criminal process was initiated as a result of an investigation conducted by the General Prosecutor's Office regarding the use of special flights for Kariņš's foreign business trips.
In this criminal case, Citskovskis has been charged with failing to fulfill the duties of a public servant, if this resulted in serious consequences. Serious consequences in this case should be understood as the legally established criterion - material damage, which at the time of the crime amounted to no less than fifty minimum monthly salaries, the prosecutor's office stated.
In the criminal process, the responsibility of all individuals involved in the decision-making chain regarding the ordering of special flights for the Prime Minister's trips is being assessed. In particular, the official powers of the Prime Minister, the head of his office, and the employees of the State Chancellery who had or could have had any relation to the organization of the trips are being analyzed.
Since the Prime Minister's office is not an independent institution but a structural unit of the State Chancellery, the head of the institution - the director of the State Chancellery - is responsible for the legality and appropriateness of the use of state budget funds, including financial obligations for organizing the Prime Minister's business trips, in accordance with the budget and financial management law and other regulations.
In this case, the contracts for special flights were concluded by Citskovskis, who also approved the expenses for specific business trips.
At the same time, the criminal process did not assess or question the considerations of appropriateness related to the Prime Minister's powers to make independent decisions about business trips. Thus, in this criminal process, the charges were not brought for making decisions about ordering special flights, but for improper control over the use of state budget funds in the selection and payment for transportation, the prosecutor's office stated.
Taking into account both external legal acts and documents regulating the activities of the State Chancellery, it was concluded that such control should have been exercised by Citskovskis.
Leave a comment