29/07/2011 12:45 Borys Kushniruk, У чому саме звинувачує Тимошенко Генеральна прокуратура
In recent days I hear one and the same question: “So what exactly Tymoshenko is accused of?”.
Prosecutor General's Office believes that she abused power and exceeded her powers by issuing directives which she had no right to do. PGO makes his conclusion, recalling that under the law of Ukraine “On the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine” and Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Prime Minister of Ukraine has no authority to issue directives. And this is true. This is not difficult to verify by reading these two documents.
The fact is that as a general rule, ordinary citizens have the right to do anything except what is directly prohibited by law. Instead, officials are allowed only those actions that are expressly provided by law or regulation. This applies to all, including the Prime Minister of Ukraine.
The only statutory document that governs the preparation of directives is the Decree of President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma № 841/96 of 18 September 1996. Paragraph 7 of this Decree provides that the “Directive, guidelines, terms of reference are being prepared taking into account positions of relevant central executive bodies relevant executive body authorized to participate directly in international consultations, negotiations, conferences, sessions of international organizations, meetings of intergovernmental commissions and other bodies, and after approval from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine adopted no later than three days before the event relevant to the executive authority.”
Further in this paragraph it is stated that: “Directives for negotiations, especially concerning important issues of bilateral and multilateral cooperation and international agreements on behalf of Ukraine and on behalf of the Government of Ukraine are approved by the President of Ukraine, Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”.
Thus, reasoning from this, prosecutors concluded that she exceeded and abused the powers, when she issued an order, but called it directives of the Government of Ukraine.
That's why prosecutors sought a court to obtain testimony from witnesses to confirm that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine did not approve the directive. Furthermore, based exactly on this logic, investigators obtained findings, including in the Justice Department and Prosecutor General's Office, that document the Tymoshenko presented to the former head of Naftogaz Oleg Dubina, can not be considered directives of the Cabinet. For if that were written down in the form of government directives, then she could be charged with forgery of an official document.
Another question is why did the Prime Minister called her personal authorization directives. As it is known, this is due to the fact that Oleg Dubina demanded from Yulia Tymoshenko government directives when he saw the draft Gazprom-Naftogaz contracts. In his testimony before Prosecution investigators, that was leaked in the media, he said, that he demanded that Prime Minister Tymoshenko gives him government directives.
Tymoshenko had no time at that moment, and perhaps she also lacked a desire to collect government and convince the government of the need to adopt such directives. So she resorted to put it mildly, questionable from a legal point of view, step and prepared a document tagged directives. After receiving a document from the Prime Minister of Ukraine Oleg Dubina removed his responsibility for signing the extremely unfavorable contracts. In his testimony Mr. Dubina said that he did not know what document he received from Prime Minister Tymoshenko are not government directives. If he confirms this in the court, it will create additional problems for Yulia Tymoshenko. For then there would be reasons to believe that Yulia Tymoshenko deliberately introduced him astray. No wonder in his testimonies in court a close to Tymoshenko's former Minister of Fuel and Energy Yuriy Prodan tried to present the case as if he was the one who passed the directives from Tymoshenko to Oleg Dubina, and, probably, not he, and probably Oleg Dubina took them somewhere on the table. Given this, we can assume that Oleg Dubina can change his testimony and tell that he does not remember who gave him those directives.
Given all these circumstances, it can be suggested that the main line of defense of Yulia Tymoshenko will be built not so much that she had not had the right to sign such directives as to the denial of the presence of losses, as well as explanations that she acted in an extremely complex conditions, and therefore made some violations. From a formal point of view I do not see any other way of defense for Tymoshenko to find justification for her actions.