|[||Tags|||||crisis, deception, gazprom, kgb, putin, timoshenko, treason, tymoshenko, ussr, Газпром, Путін, аналітика, енерготранзит, зрадник, зрадники, кгб, корупція, кремль, москва, тимошенко, троянська кобила, шахрайство, імпорт||]|
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
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.
More information on this topic