The giving of a vote of no confidence by Parliament to the administration of the National Agency for Energy Regulation (NAER), which is named by the legislature, does not mean the dismissal of the directors. Even if the MPs asked for the resignation of the Agency’s Administration Board, this can happen only if the five directors decide themselves that they should resign.
Contacted by IPN for details, the head of the Parliament’s commission on economy, budget and finance Petru Burduja said the decision by which the legislative body described the NAER administration’s activity as inefficient is to be published in the Official Gazette. Later, the Administration Board led by the director general will take a decision as to the eventual resignation. The Board could yet refuse to resign. The directors are named for a particular period of time and cannot be dismissed by a legislative initiative.
Contacted by IPN for a comment, the head of the NAER’s Communication Service Galina Sanduţa said the Agency fulfills her legal duties and will not pronounce on documents that are political in character.
The law on energy provides that the NAER director is dismissed by Parliament if this loses the nationality of the Republic of Moldova; is unable to fulfill the duties for health reasons for a period longer than six consecutive months; is named to another post; is convicted for intentionally committing offenses or is jailed by final court decision or a definitive decision by which the National Integrity Authority ascertains that the director issued an administrative document or signed a legal document in breach of the legal provisions on the conflict of interests.
On March 12, the MPs gave a vote of no confidence to the managers of the National Agency for Energy Regulation and asked that the Agency’s Administration Board should resign. The decision was adopted by a majority of votes of MPs following hearings centering on the rises in fuel prices. The MPs described the NAER administration’s activity as inefficient. The Parliament’s decision says that in times of a pandemic and economic crisis, the national regulator didn’t take any measure to prevent the increase in fuel prices and didn’t play a proactive role in preventing the sudden rise in these prices.