In 2004, the Control Body of the minister of Administration and Interior carried out some verifications for establishing the circumstances in which were concluded the acquisition contracts, the feasibility study for the Integrated Border Security System with “BEARING POINT” and the Frame-Contract with the multinational Company “EADS”, with a view to creating the Integrated System for Securing the State Border.

The verifications proved that the Feasibility Study accomplished by the ?BEARING POINT' Firm was, in fact, a synthesis of some previous studies on the same topic, accomplished by other companies for the Romanian Border Police; this is upheld by some cadres' statements, as well as by the fact that, on 15 July 2004, the Ministry of Administration and Interior signed the contract with “BEARING POINT”, and the following day, that is 16 July 2004, the Feasibility Study was forwarded to the Romanian party.

With regard to this contract signed with the “BEARING POINT” company for accomplishing the Feasibility Study and the Technical Project, the verifications proved that, after the assignment of the contract, “BEARING POINT” announced the Romanian party that they could only make the Feasibility Study.

Consequently, the Romanian party agreed on the German company's accomplishing only the Feasibility Study, and paid to the German party, in ROL, a sum equivalent to 430,000 euro, although the negotiation mandate of the commission referred to 500,000 euro for the Feasibility Study and the technical Project.

There was drawn up a legal complaint at the Prosecutor's office near the High Count of Cassation and Justice, for committing abuse in service, towards the persons who negotiated and signed the contract with “BEARING POINT”, namely quesor-in-chief (r) Toma Zaharia, former secretary of state, quesor-in-chief Carp Gheorghe, the head of the Missions and Resources Organizing and Planning General Directorate, questor Bădescu Mihai, former head of the General Directorate for Juridical Regulations and Contentious, questor (r) Gagiu Anton, former head of the Unit for the Project Management and the commissioner-in-chief (r) Tătut Mihai, former deputy of the head of the General Directorate for Juridical Regulations and Contentious.

With regard to the Acquisition Contract of the Integrated Border Security System, the verifications revealed some shortcomings in its form and content, which severely affected the effectiveness of the mentioned acquisition.

The contract was negotiated in euros, at the sum of 650 million euro as a minimum price, without considering in detail nor the aspects regarding the goods and services that were going to be acquired, or their detailed price, and the annexes of the contract were negotiated only after that, a while after the concluding of the frame-contract. The absence of a firm price represented a high risk: the final price of the contract could be much higher than the anticipated one.

The description of the supplementary system, the details regarding the goods and services that were going to be acquired were not specified in the frame-contract, and through its first detailed annex, dated 8.10.2004, the character of the contract was changed, from a contract of acquiring goods into a contract of acquiring integrated systems, without mentioning the future owner of the source codes of the programmes which would be implemented by “EADS”.

As for the resolving of the litigations between the contract's parties, according to the contract signed with EADS, they do not obey the Romanian legislations and are to be arbitrated by the instances of the France.

The verifications revealed that the effectiveness principle in using the public funds was defied, and the persons participating in the negotiation infringed the legal prerogatives granted by their positions, and consequently, the activity in the interest of the institution was not appropriately administrated.

Responsible of these shortcomings are questor-in-chief (r) Toma Zaharia, questor-in-chief Carp Gheorghe, questor (r) Gagiu Anton and questor Badescu Mihai, towards whom there was drawn up a legal complaint for abuse in service, at the prosecutor's office near the High Court of Cassation and Justice.