Mircea Ursache, the head of the department for managing the state"s interests in the economy of the Social Democrat Party (PSD), and former president of the AVAS, has a completely different opinion than Sebastian Vlădescu. He says that the violation of the requirement to take BCR public could set up a very dangerous precedent and that the state has the option to go to court to impose the honoring of the contract.
Moreover, Mircea Ursache says that at this time, the Authority for the Recovery of State Assets (AVAS) has a major problem: it is the one to blame for the fact that the privatization of BCR was not honored.
Reporter: Is the agreement which the SIFs signed with Erste valid from a legal point of view?
Mircea Ursache: In my opinion, the listing of BCR is a post-privatization condition; it has to abide by the same rules as any of the other post-privatization conditions.
Reporter: Some say it is not exactly a condition...
Mircea Ursache: As far as I know, that is not true. I am strongly behind my opinion that it should have been listed (ed. note: BCR) and that it is a post-privatization condition.
Reporter: What would be the consequences if it weren"t listed?
Mircea Ursache: Like any post-privatization condition, there is the option of going to court, and suing for damages.
Reporter: Who needs to file the lawsuit?
Mircea Ursache: The AVAS, obviously.
Reporter: Why would it do that? What could it possibly get?
Mircea Ursache: The contract is something that the parties have agreed upon. It can only be changed with the mutual agreement of the parties. They could have met and draw up an appendix... It"s true that they would have needed a memorandum with the government, but they could have done it. But they went with this informal agreement... This is definitely a mistake made by the AVAS!
