EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.7.2021 SWD(2021) 724 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report











Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report











The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}



Abstract Since accession to the EU in 2007, Romanian reforms in the areas of justice and anti-corruption have been followed by the Commission through the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), as an important framework for progress in these areas. The CVM continues in parallel to the rule of law mechanism, of which Romania is an integral part – as any other Member State until all benchmarks are satisfactorily met. The Government is proposing reforms aimed at addressing the concerns raised by the amendments of the justice laws of 2017-2019, which drew criticism for their negative impact on independence, quality and efficiency of justice. In a preliminary ruling of 18 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the EU has examined several aspects of these reforms and confirmed those concerns, in particular in relation to the Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary. A draft law to dismantle this Section is being examined in Parliament. A legislative procedure has been initiated to amend the justice laws. Human resources shortages have been accentuated by the lack of recruitment of new magistrates, combined with the retirement of a significant number of magistrates. These shortages have added more pressure on magistrates, with implications for the quality and efficiency of justice. The institutional framework to combat corruption is comprehensive, but its effectiveness will require sustained political will as committed by the Government. The adoption of a new Anti-corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 is a key priority. The effectiveness of the investigation and sanctioning of medium and high-level corruption has improved, confirming the previous track-record. The National Anti-Corruption Directorate has achieved better results, though the 2017-2019 amendments to the justice laws continue representing a major impediment to its good functioning. Amendments to the criminal codes remain necessary. In the absence of solid legislative and policy solutions to Constitutional Court decisions, there are increased obstacles and legal uncertainty for the fight against corruption. Increased institutional cooperation in the context of the elections in 2020 could mark a change of approach on the integrity for elected officials. The Agency for the Management of Seized Assets remains fully operational and the PREVENT electronic system on conflict of interests is effective. Legal safeguards concerning media freedom and pluralism are in place. However, concerns remain in relation to the implementation and enforcement of the existing legislative framework, particularly regarding access to information. The National Audiovisual Council still lacks the resources to fully perform its tasks, and its activity has been affected by the expiry of several mandates of its members. Transparency of media ownership continues to be incomplete. Media can be prone to political pressure, especially when their revenues depend on state advertising. Lawsuits against investigative journalists for defamation continue to be reported. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, media received support through funds allocated for governmental media campaigns aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19. Concerns remain on the stability and predictability of legislation, as legislation is changed often and the resulting laws can be contradictory, and on a limited use of impact assessments. Following the May 2019 referendum, no significant Government Emergency Ordinances were adopted in the field of justice. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, a state of alert is in place, with increased parliamentary scrutiny. Following the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU of 18 May 2021 on several aspects of the justice laws, the Constitutional Court gave a judgment on 8 June 2021, which raises serious concerns, as it questions the principle of primacy of EU law. The legislation on associations and foundations was amended in 2020 to lower the bureaucratic burden for NGOs. The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was established at the accession to the European Union in 2007 as a transitional measure to facilitate Romania’s continued efforts to reform its judiciary and step up the fight against corruption . In line with the decision setting up the mechanism and as underlined by the Council, the CVM ends when all the benchmarks applying to Romania are satisfactorily met. In its reports of January 2017, the Commission adopted a comprehensive assessment of Romania’s progress over the ten years of the CVM. It also set out a path towards the conclusion of the Mechanism based on 12 final key recommendations that, if complied with, would be sufficient to meet the goals of the CVM, if developments were not such as to reverse the course of progress. The November 2018 report concluded that developments had reversed or called into question the irreversibility of progress, and that eight additional recommendations had to be made. The Commission’s latest CVM report, adopted in June 2021, assessed progress on the 12 recommendations of January 2017 and the eight additional recommendations of November 2018. That report concluded that since the last CVM report in 2019, the situation within the parameters of the CVM benchmarks has seen a clear positive trend, and welcomed the fact that a strong renewed impetus has been given in 2021 to reform and to repair the backtracking of the 2017-2019 period. The result is that there is progress across all the remaining CVM recommendations and many are on the path to being fulfilled if progress remains steady. I.Justice System The Romanian judicial system is structured in four instances, both civil and military: the first instance county courts, the ordinary and specialised tribunals, the courts of appeal and the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The High Court of Cassation and Justice judges first instance and appeal criminal cases for certain categories of persons , as well as appeal cases for certain civil and administrative cases. A fundamental role of this Court is to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of the law by the other courts. The Superior Council of Magistracy, tasked with guaranteeing judicial independence, is divided into two sections, the section for judges and the section for prosecutors. Each section has exclusive competence for the recruitment and management of the career of judges and prosecutors respectively, and acts as a disciplinary court in disciplinary matters. The prosecution service is headed by the Prosecutor General of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The Public Prosecutor’s Office includes specialised structures with special jurisdiction and organisation, the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) and the Directorate for Investigation and Combating Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT), led by chief prosecutors, and, since 2018, the Prosecutorial Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary (SIIJ) . There are also military prosecutorial offices. The Prosecutor General and the Chief Prosecutors of the specialised structures, DNA and DIICOT, are appointed by the President of the Republic, upon a proposal of the Minister of Justice and after having received a non-binding opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy . Romania participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Romanian National Union of Bar Associations is a legal entity of public interest, comprising all 41 bars in Romania. The Constitutional Court is responsible for the constitutionality check of laws and for settling conflicts of constitutional nature between public authorities. Independence The perception of judicial independence is average, having improved significantly as compared to previous years among the general public. The level of perceived judicial independence among the general public is now average (51%), up from 37% in 2020 . Among the companies, the level of perceived judicial independence is average (45%), a decrease of 8 percentage points as compared to 2020 . Whereas the reason most often invoked by the general public for the perceived lack of judicial independence remains interference or pressure from the Government and politicians, the first source of concern among companies is interference or pressure from economic or other specific interests . The 2017-2019 amendments of the justice laws are being reviewed. The Justice laws, as amended between 2017 and 2019, define the status of magistrates and organise the judicial system and the Superior Council of Magistracy. These laws are central for the independence of magistrates and the good functioning of the judiciary. The amendments to the justice laws, still in force, had a serious impact on the independence, quality and efficiency of the justice system. Major issues were identified in particular with the creation of a Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary (SIIJ), the system of civil liability of judges and prosecutors, early retirement schemes, entry into profession, and the status and appointment of high ranking prosecutors. As mentioned in the 2020 Rule of Law Report and in the CVM 2021 Report, the implementation of the amended laws soon confirmed concerns, and new issues have emerged in the intervening years. With the amended laws still in force, the concerns related to the adverse impact on the functioning of the justice system remain. In particular, the SIIJ is still operational, and serious concerns regarding its functioning remain, although it has been less active over the last year. On 30 September 2020, the then Minister of Justice presented for a six-month public consultation draft texts for comprehensive amendment of the justice laws. According to the Minister of Justice, the draft laws were elaborated following an analysis of the requirements of the European Commission's CVM Report, GRECO reports and Venice Commission's opinions. The stated objective of the draft laws is to remedy the negative effects of the 2017-2019 amendments, and propose solutions to many issues identified in CVM reports, in particular as concerns the dismantling of the SIIJ, increasing the degree of professional independence of prosecutors by repealing the legislative provisions as modified in 2018, the civil liability of magistrates, the restrictions on the freedom of expression of magistrates, and the procedures for revocation and appointments of prosecutors in management positions. In January 2021, the Government adopted a memorandum reflecting the political commitment to address all pending CVM recommendations. The plans set out in the memorandum include a draft law abolishing the Section for investigating criminal offences within the judiciary (SIIJ) and amendments to the justice laws, both directly connected to CVM recommendations. At the end of the public consultation and following several rounds of debates with the judiciary, on 29 March 2021, the current Minister of Justice sent the three draft amended laws to the Superior Council of Magistracy for an opinion. The Minister of Justice committed to sending the draft laws to the Venice Commission for an opinion, at the same time as these would be sent to the Parliament. It is important that these legislative changes safeguard judicial independence, in line with EU law and taking into account Council of Europe recommendations. One important development is the judgment of the CJEU of 18 May 2021, which considered a number of provisions of the justice laws in the light of Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU and of the CVM decision, in particular as regards the SIIJ and the ad interim appointments to management positions within the Judicial Inspectorate, as well as the personal liability of judges as a result of judicial error . The CJEU also recalled that a Member State cannot amend its legislation, particularly as regards the organisation of justice, in such a way as to bring about a reduction in the protection of the value of the rule of law . A separate draft law aimed at dismantling the prosecutorial Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary (SIIJ) is being discussed in Parliament. The draft law was published on the website the Ministry of Justice on 4 February 2021. On 11 February 2021, the Superior Council of Magistracy issued a negative opinion on the draft law, arguing that additional guarantees to protect magistrates from potentially abusive corruption investigation are needed. The Government adopted the draft law unchanged on 18 February and sent the draft to Parliament. On 24 March 2021, the Chamber of Deputies adopted the draft law, but added provisions which in its view are necessary to protect magistrates against abusive corruption investigations proposing that a request for approval of sending to court should first pass through the Superior Council of Magistracy for corruption-related offences. This proposal was met with strong criticism from civil society, a large part of the judiciary as well as from within the Superior Council of Magistracy since it was considered that it could have the effect of limiting the accountability of magistrates. The draft law is now under discussion in the Senate as decisional chamber. On 29 March 2021, the Minister of Justice requested the Venice Commission an opinion on the draft law, and in particular on the additional guarantees, to ensure consistency with Council of Europe standards. In its opinion of 5 July 2021, the Venice Commission welcomes Romania’s intention to dismantle the SIIJ and restore the competence of the specialised prosecutors’ offices such as the DNA and DIICOT, but recommends to remove the amendments of the Chamber of Deputies. In its judgment of 18 May 2021, in relation to the SIIJ, the Court of Justice ruled that the legislation creating such a specialised section must be justified by objective and verifiable requirements relating to the sound administration of justice, ensure that that section cannot be used as an instrument of political control over the activity of judges and prosecutors and that the section exercises its competence in compliance with the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In a judgment of 7 June 2021, the Pitești Court of Appeal was the first referring court to apply the ruling of the Court of Justice, declaring that the SIIJ’s existence is not justified by objective and verifiable requirements relating to the sound administration of justice and that it is therefore not competent to investigate a case brought before it. It is important that the ongoing legal reform in the sense of dismantling the SIIJ and restoring the material competence of the specialised prosecutors’ offices for the ongoing cases is carried out in line with EU law, in particular with the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU, and taking into account European standards. The Court of Justice of the EU issued a preliminary ruling regarding the civil liability of the judges and prosecutors. The 2020 Rule of Law Report mentioned concerns with the regime of civil liability introduced in the 2017-2019 justice laws, in particular as regards the power assigned to the Ministry of Finance in this context , as the rules entitle the latter to assess whether a judicial error was committed in bad faith or by gross negligence and, subsequently, to initiate recovery actions against judges for the damage caused by their judgments. The Council of Europe noted the potential chilling effect that this new regime could have on judges and prosecutors, especially in conjunction with the creation of the new Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary . In its judgment of 18 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled on the regime of civil liability of judges , indicating that it must provide clearly and precisely the necessary guarantees ensuring that neither the investigation nor the action for indemnity may be converted into an instrument of pressure on judicial activity. The new draft justice laws of March 2021 on which the Minister of Justice requested the opinion of the SCM propose amendments to the provisions on civil liability of judges and prosecutors. It is important that the proposed amendments duly reflect the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU, and take into account the relevant European standards. The draft justice laws include changes to the rules governing the appointment and accountability of the Judicial Inspection management. The Court of Justice examined the compatibility with Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU of the power for the Government to carry out interim appointments to management positions within the Judicial Inspection, which is responsible for conducting disciplinary proceedings against judges and prosecutors. In its judgment of 18 May 2021, the Court found that, since the persons occupying managerial positions within the Judicial Inspection are likely to exercise a decisive influence on the latter’s activity, the rules governing their appointment must be designed so that they cannot give rise to any legitimate doubt as to the use of the prerogatives and functions of that body as an instrument of pressure on judicial activity or of political control of that activity. In recent years, judicial institutions, including the Superior Council of Magistracy itself, highlighted concerns with the lack of accountability of the Judicial Inspection, citing the high proportion of cases brought by the Inspection eventually rejected in court, the concentration of all decision making with the Chief Inspector and the limits to the oversight powers of the Superior Council of Magistracy . The new draft justice laws of March 2021 on which the Minister of Justice requested the opinion of the SCM, proposes amendments to the provisions on the appointment of the Chief and deputy Chief Inspectors, as well as the control mechanisms regarding the activity of the Judicial Inspection. The procedure for appointment of high-ranking prosecutors is being reviewed as part of the amendments to the justice laws. As highlighted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, CVM reports and several opinions of the Venice Commission, there continue to be concerns with the current law regarding the balance between the influence of different institutions on the appointment process and the concentration of power with the Minister of Justice. In 2020, two out of the three high-ranking prosecutors were appointed despite a negative opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy. In the new draft justice laws under preparation, the Minister of Justice aims to address these concerns by proposing changes to the appointment procedure. In particular, the new draft laws proposes the strengthening of the role of the Superior Council of Magistracy, by introducing the requirement of a binding opinion of the section for prosecutors of the Superior Council of Magistracy on the appointment proposed, and that the President could reject the appointment any number of times instead of once, in accordance with recommendations from the Venice Commission. The dismissal procedure of top prosecutors is to be amended following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). On 5 May 2020, the ECtHR held that the former chief prosecutor had not been able to effectively challenge in court the reasons for her removal from the position . In the draft amendments of the justice laws, a review procedure before an administrative court has been added to the procedure for dismissal of top prosecutors. The Government presented its action plan for the execution of the judgment in February 2021, and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe assessed its implementation in June 2021. Quality The deficit of human resources in the justice system remains a concern. As of December 2020, almost 10% of the judges’ positions and close to 16% of the prosecutors’ positions were still vacant, which has also an impact on the efficiency of the justice system. Although the early retirement scheme for magistrates introduced in 2018, which allowed the possibility of retirement after 20 years of service, was repealed by Parliament in March 2021 following recommendations from both the Venice Commission and GRECO, close to 300 magistrates retired in 2020 and close to 150 during the first quarter of 2021, further increasing this deficit. The judgment of the Constitutional Court declaring unconstitutional the provision requiring the Superior Council of Magistracy to approve the regulation on the organisation and conduct of the competition for admission to the judiciary created a legal void, which led to no competition to recruit new magistrates being organised in 2020. In order to bridge this legislative gap, on 22 June 2020, the Ministry of Justice submitted to public debate a draft law on the admission to the National Institute of Magistracy, which was adopted by the Senate on 3 February 2021. However, upon ex ante referral by a group of parliamentarians, the Constitutional Court declared the law in question unconstitutional. As a result, the legislation in force did not allow for the organisation of competitions for admission to the judiciary, leading to further delays in new recruitments and to an increase in the caseload of judges and prosecutors, adding pressure on judges and prosecutors with implications for the quality and efficiency of justice. A new law, adopted by Parliament on 28 June 2021, addressed the abovementioned legal void and will allow competitions for admission to the judiciary to take place in 2021 and 2022. By Decision of 14 July 2021, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of that law which would have decreased from ten to seven years the seniority required for taking part in the competitions for the appointment of DNA and DIICOT prosecutors.

The Strategic Judicial Management has not been able to operate effectively. It was set up in 2017 to address major strategic questions for the judicial system, bringing together the main institutions with responsibility for the functioning of the judicial system. The 2021 CVM Report confirmed earlier findings that the Strategic Judicial Management had not been operating as intended and that the action plan remained largely unimplemented. While several meetings of the Strategic Judicial Management took place in late 2019, and the professional institutional cooperation could resume, no tangible results were achieved. In early 2021, the Minister of Justice started reconvening meetings, and first discussions took place on the functioning of the Strategic Judicial Management and on the human resources strategy for 2021-2022. The Constitutional Court declared that judgments in criminal matters must be reasoned in fact and in law at the time of their delivery. Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed such judgments to be drawn up no later than 30 days after their delivery, which gave rise to situations where a final judgment had to be executed while the convicted person was still not aware of the reasons for the sentence. On 7 April 2021, the Constitutional Court held that the drafting of a criminal judgment subsequent to its delivery deprives the convicted person of the right of access to justice and the right to a fair trial. This time discrepancy between decision and reasoning had already been highlighted as a long-standing issue. On 12 May 2021, a new law entered into force, which requires that the delivery and the publication of the reasoning of a judgment in criminal cases should happen at the same time within a given deadline after the end of the hearing. Data show that, overall, there is a good level of digitalisation of the justice system. In 2020, a large amount of information about the judicial system is provided online for the general public. Digital technology such as the electronic management case system, the electronic case allocation and distance communication technology, is broadly used by courts. Arrangements for producing machine-readable judicial decisions in civil, commercial and administrative cases are also in place. However, stakeholders report that improvements are still necessary. The COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in the use of digital tools in the justice system. During 2020, the number of videoconferencing systems in courts increased, which led to a higher number of videoconference hearings. However, stakeholders report that remote hearings remain limited, as judges still favour holding the hearings in person rather than by videoconferencing. In September 2020, the Ministry of Justice announced a draft law regarding remote justice during the COVID-19 pandemic that would extend the possibility to hold videoconference hearings. In criminal matters, the draft law provides the possibility for persons deprived of liberty to be heard by videoconference at the place of detention without their consent, if the court considers that this means is without prejudice to the proper conduct of the proceedings and to the rights and interests of the parties. The draft law also provides for the possibility for persons, other than those deprived of their liberty, to be heard by videoconference, but only with their consent. The draft law was adopted by Parliament on 28 April 2021. Efficiency The overall efficiency in civil, administrative and commercial cases remains stable. In 2019, the length of proceedings at first instance courts in civil and commercial cases slightly decreased in comparison to 2018, while it somewhat increased for administrative cases. The clearance rate for resolving civil, commercial, administrative at first instance cases decreased to some extent and is now at 100%. The length of proceedings regarding specific areas of EU law remains low, except for money laundering cases, where it considerably increased. The challenges in terms of workload are however uneven among courts. For instance, lower courts in civil matters have reported a particularly high caseload, and the suspension of the activity of the courts during the state of emergency worsened the situation. Romania remains under enhanced supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning the execution of measures to address the excessive length of proceedings following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee of Ministers has noted that the reform of the civil and criminal procedure was, by all accounts, successfully completed, but an impact assessment still has to be made to evaluate the effect of those measures. II.Anti-Corruption Framework Romania has a legislative and institutional anti-corruption framework broadly in place. A National Anticorruption Strategy is in place since 2016 and coordination of its implementation is ensured by the Ministry of Justice. The institutional anti-corruption framework remained unchanged. The specialised anti-corruption prosecution, the National Anti-corruption Directorate (DNA) has the competence to investigate medium and high-level corruption cases, while the Prosecutor General’s office investigates all other corruption cases. DNA also investigates offences committed against the financial interests of the EU, as well as certain categories of serious offences of economical-financial criminality. A specialised anti-corruption directorate exists in the Ministry of Interior (DGA), competent for integrity and corruption issues within the staff employed by the Ministry, including the police. The National Integrity Agency (ANI) carries out administrative investigations regarding conflicts of interests, incompatibilities and unjustified wealth, and is responsible for the monitoring and verification of declarations of assets, including of all elected officials. The National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets (ANABI) ensures the management of seized and confiscated criminal assets and facilitates the tracing and identification of proceeds. The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in the public sector remains high. In the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Romania scores 44/100 and ranks 19th in the European Union and 69th globally. This perception has been relatively stable over the past five years. Adoption of a new National Anti-corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 is a priority for the Government. Progress on the National Anti-Corruption Strategy is a key national priority on the political agenda of the Government. The 2016-2020 National Anticorruption Strategy came to an end in 2020. An internal evaluation and an external audit, performed by the OECD, are currently ongoing, in view to inform the preparation of the new National Anti-Corruption Strategy (2021-2025). The Ministry of Justice, coordinating the Strategy, reports that it achieved progress in the implementation of the 2016-2020 strategy in many of the participating administrations and public bodies, although it has been uneven, in particular in high risk areas such as health, education or public procurement. The progress included improved procedures to deal with sensitive issues, a significant decrease of integrity incidents, increased transparency and an improved service to citizens, including through digitalisation. Key features of this strategy are considered best practice among participating institutions and will be carried forward into the next strategy, notably the peer-review monitoring mechanism and the participatory decision-making process through five anti-corruption platforms (regrouping stakeholders). The Ministry of Justice has nevertheless pointed out that next to the dedicated implementation, the effectiveness of the strategy relies in particular on the political will to give impetus for the implementation of the measures in all participating administrations and public institutions, including at local level. The evaluations are being finalised, and the Ministry of Justice organised a public consultation with the five anti-corruption platforms regrouping stakeholders on the new Strategy, and expects to propose the adoption of the new national Anti-corruption Strategy by the end of 2021. The effectiveness of the investigation and sanctioning of medium and high-level corruption has improved. The appointment of a new Chief Prosecutor of the National Anti-corruption Directorate and of further staff in management positions in 2020 has brought new impetus and institutional stability. This has led to increasing the quality of the investigations and the files brought to court. In 2020, DNA achieved better results than in 2019, with an increase in the number of high-level indictments and a reduction in the backlog of cases . There was also progress at the level of the courts with an increase in court decisions . In 2020, the number of complaints from citizens and ex-officio complaints on alleged corruption deeds have increased marking a change of the decreasing trend since 2015. The DNA sees it as a sign of renewed confidence from the public in this institution and role, which had been seriously affected by the attacks it suffered in the 2017-2019 period. The communication policy of the DNA was also changed in 2020, so that names of the suspects are no longer mentioned in press releases when investigations are opened, limiting public exposure for suspects. The 2017-2019 amendments to the justice laws represented a major impediment for the good functioning of the DNA, which will continue for as long as they are in force. The general problems faced by the judicial system have been particularly difficult for DNA . DNA has faced a human resources deficit , adding more pressure on prosecutors at a time when DNA faced the extra challenge of developing its own technical capacity to implement court orders using special investigation techniques . In addition, the effective treatment of some high-level corruption cases continues to be adversely affected by the Section to Investigate Offences within the Judiciary (SIIJ), which continues to intervene in ongoing high-level corruption files investigated by the DNA. The problematic practice of withdrawal of appeals in high-level corruption cases was stopped after the Constitutional Court ruled in July 2020 that the transfer of appeals to the SIIJ was unconstitutional . There is also an increased risk of impunity in high-level corruption files that the SIIJ deals with, notably because of its slow handling of cases. The SIIJ handling of complaints against prosecutors from persons convicted for corruption has also been seen as putting pressure on DNA prosecutors. The ongoing amendments of the justice laws, including to abolish the SIIJ, will be important steps to ensure that the good functioning of the DNA be sustainable. Continued uncertainty as regards amendments to the criminal code and criminal procedure code remains an important challenge in the fight against corruption. As highlighted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report and in the 2021 CVM report, another important challenge in the fight against corruption is the absence of policy and legislative solutions to the rapid succession of far reaching Constitutional Court decisions annulling or interpreting provisions of the criminal code and criminal procedure code since 2014 . Amendments to the criminal code and criminal procedure code remain necessary. This situation has led to increased obstacles and legal uncertainty regarding the investigation, prosecution and sanctioning of high-level corruption cases. This has led to cases failing in court, legal uncertainty on the admissibility of evidence, as well as to the restart of investigations or trials . The impact on ongoing high-level corruption cases of the Constitutional Court rulings regarding the compositions of the three-judges panels for high-level corruption cases and five-judges final appeal panels at the High Court of Cassation and Justice has yet to unfold . In its recent judgment, the Court of Justice of the EU held that the principle of primacy of EU law precludes national legislation with constitutional status, which deprives a lower court of the right to disapply of its own motion a national provision falling within the scope of the CVM framework and which is contrary to EU law. Where it is proved that the EU Treaty or the CVM Decision has been infringed, the principle of the primacy of EU law will require the referring court to disapply the provisions at issue, whether they are of a legislative or constitutional origin. An important policy step was taken in February 2021 when the Parliament definitely rejected problematic amendments to the codes put forward during 2018-2019 which were found unconstitutional in their entirety by the Constitutional Court. The Chamber of Deputies has set criteria to decide on requests for lifting parliamentary immunities but the Senate has not yet followed through. In June 2019, the Chamber of Deputies amended its rules of procedure and made specific reference to the criteria set out in the Venice Commission’s report on the purpose and waiver of parliamentary immunity. The Senate has not adopted such rules yet. The National Integrity Agency (ANI) continues to investigate incompatibilities, conflicts of interest and unjustified wealth . ANI’s work should also be facilitated by a July 2020 amendment allowing for electronic submissions of assets and interest disclosures , which became operational in May 2021. ANI reports that its 2020 budget was sufficient to carry out its tasks, as the initially reduced budget was supplemented later in the year . ANI faces some uncertainty over its leadership positions. The position of President has been vacant since December 2019 and the mandate of the Vice-President expires later this year. Selection procedures were eventually initiated in April 2021. The legal framework on integrity remains fragmented. The 2020 Rule of Law report highlighted continued challenges to the legal framework for integrity and the need for stability, clarity and a robust framework. A series of amendments modifying the integrity laws, notably in 2017-2019, had the effect of weakening the ability of the ANI to carry out its work, as well as exacerbating an already fragmented legal landscape. In particular, two proposals that entered into force in 2019 further increased legal uncertainty as regards the applicable integrity regime and the application of sanctions. In 2020 and 2021, the High Court of Cassation and Justice clarified the interpretation of the law. The Court ruled that the sanction applies, even if the incompatibility concerns a previous mandate, and that a limitation period of three years should refer to the need for ANI to finalise an investigation within three years of the facts that determine the existence of a state of conflict of interest or incompatibility (rather than that the sanction does not apply after three years) . ANI has welcomed these decisions, which restore clarity and certainty in the possibility to impose sanctions after a final court decision. A consolidation of the laws on integrity, incompatibilities and conflicts of interest would allow case-law and corruption prevention policies to be taken into account and provide a stable basis for the future. During local and national elections in 2020, ANI increased its awareness-raising on integrity rules for candidates and has shared information with the relevant authorities on candidates who are under interdiction to hold a public office. Before the local elections of 20 September 2020, ANI reached out to central and local electoral authorities to inform on candidates who could be under a ban to hold a public office following a sanction for incompatibility or conflict of interests in the previous mandate . Furthermore, after the elections, ANI sent to the Courts, who have the competence to validate the mandates of the newly elected officials, a nominal list of candidates under the interdiction to occupy a public office for three years. While a number of candidates were prevented from running for office, and others have been denied office, the courts ruled in about half of the candidates who were under interdiction that they are allowed to hold the elected office . As regards the national elections, as part of the validation process following the elections, the Validation Committee of the Romanian Senate asked ANI to communicate definitive and irrevocable decisions issued by Courts regarding incompatibilities or conflict of interests of the elected Senators. ANI found that none of the elected Senators were under the interdiction to occupy an office. The Chamber of Deputies has requested ANI’s point of view regarding the disclosure made by a series of deputies, with respect to their potential incompatibilities . The PREVENT electronic system to prevent conflicts of interests in public procurement is effective, as the number of detected conflicts of interest has significantly reduced. In 2020, the PREVENT system analysed 19 140 procurement procedures, in order to identify possible conflicts of interest. In 2020, the integrity inspectors issued ten integrity warnings, amounting to approximately EUR 11.1 million. During the State of Emergency in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, public authorities and legal entities, in which the state is the major shareholder, were allowed to make direct purchases of materials and equipment to combat the pandemic, without publishing into the Public Procurement Electronic System) and exceeding the value threshold (which is around EUR 27,000) for publication in the electronic system. This meant that these direct purchases were not run through the electronic system, and thus have not been scrutinized by the PREVENT System. To address the issue of scrutinizing the procedures carried out through direct procurement, ANI has developed a mechanism meant to analyse, based on information available from public sources, data sets on these procedures. The goal of this mechanism is to identify consumed conflicts of interest in these procurement procedures that bypassed PREVENT scrutiny. By the end of January 2021, with the help of a risk matrix, ANI has verified 580 direct procurement procedures carried out in the first semester of 2020 and has identified 64 potential integrity incidents (11% of the procedures), which will be further analysed and the ex-officio procedure of evaluating these cases could be triggered. The National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets (ANABI) remains fully operational. The mission of ANABI is to ensure an effective execution rate of the confiscation orders issued in criminal matters through an efficient management of seized assets that are distributed to the Agency by prosecutors and judges. In 2021, ANABI entered into its fifth year of activity and is further developing its activity. Based on the lessons learned, the Agency with support from the Ministry of Justice opened a public debate to promote a National Strategy for Strengthening the Asset Recovery System. This strategy and action plan covers 2021-2025 and includes objectives regarding increased capacities for tracing assets both nationally and internationally, enhanced cooperation mechanisms among all stakeholders involved, as well as provisions regarding setting up a National Fund for Crime Prevention. This fund shall support measures for victim protection, crime prevention and education. Limited provisions on revolving doors exist for public servants in Law 161/200360 and in the successive National Anticorruption Strategies. The public servants who, in exercising their function, have carried out monitoring and control activities over State Owned Enterprises (SOE), cannot be employed or provide specialised consultancy to these companies for three years after leaving the public service. However, there are no regulations concerning cooling-off periods for key decision-makers.

The enforcement of Code of conduct and the absence of rules on lobbying for parliamentarians remain a challenge. As regards codes of conduct for members of the Parliament, the lack of enforcement of the rules has been recently highlighted by GRECO, as well as the lack of rules on how members of Parliament engage with lobbyists, along with clearly defined restrictions concerning gifts, hospitality, favours and other benefits. In order to compensate for the disparate legal regime concerning revolving doors, a model procedure, which can be applied by all relevant public institutions, was developed in the framework of an EU-funded project. In Romania, there has been a law on whistleblower protection since 2004, however its implementation in practice is relatively limited. The Ministry of Justice announced at the end of 2020 that a draft of the law transposing the directive on whistleblowers’ protection is being prepared. On 5 March, 2021, the draft law and its explanatory memorandum have been submitted to public debate on the Ministry of Justice website. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, prosecution of corruption remained effective. The general prosecution services and the DNA were particularly attentive to possible corruption related problems with regard to public procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic The patterns identified in DNA concern cases on the breach of public tendering rules, bribery offered to public officials involved in tendering procedures, as well as purchase of counterfeited products. III.Media Pluralism and Media freedom The right to freedom of expression as well as the right of access to any information of public interest is enshrined in the Constitution. The mission and composition of the media regulator are set out in the Audiovisual Law. The authorities are considering changes to this law in the context of the transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Concerns about the functioning and budget for the National Audiovisual Council persist. The National Audiovisual Council (CNA) is the authority tasked to safeguard public interest in the field of audiovisual programmes, and is established by law as autonomous public authority under parliamentary control. The activity of the CNA has been interrupted from February 2021, when the mandates of four out of eleven members expired, until the 11th of May, when the new members were voted by the Parliament. It appears that the budgetary issues, referred to in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, persist. A draft law transposing the Directive (EU) 2018/1808 on Audiovisual Media Services, which requires adequate financial and budgetary resources, was published for public consultation in March 2021. The draft law foresees that the authority should have the necessary budget. The lack of specific safeguards for editorial independence and editorial norms continue to raise concerns. In terms of self-regulation in the press sector, no changes occurred since the 2020 Rule of Law Report, where concerns were raised about the lack of specific safeguards for editorial independence and professional norms, either through legislation or self-regulation. The COVID-19 pandemic worsened the economic situation of already struggling print and local press, and made the enforcing of standards of quality a low priority. The MPM 2021 indicates as a major ongoing problem “the precarity and poor working conditions of journalists” and assesses commercial and owner influence over editorial content as a very high risk area. Transparency of media ownership continues to be incomplete. As mentioned in the 2020 Rule of Law report, the Audiovisual Law provides that the Council shall be required to ensure the transparency of the organisation, functioning and financing of the mass media in audiovisual sector. No media specific rules apply to print and digital, which are subject to general rules governing transparency of ownership included in the company law. The MPM furthermore reports the existence of loopholes. In addition, data protection rules are invoked to avoid making public certain media ownershipinformation that has previously been disclosed by CNA. The news media concentration is reported in the MPM 2021 as being high, especially in the print news market sector, which is very small in terms of both demand and number of titles. State advertising continues to be an important source of financing for the media sector. The decrease in commercial advertising has resulted in revenue losses for media houses, while contracts for state advertising appear to raise concerns as regards editorial autonomy. Stakeholders report further concerns about the allocation of funds, and mention for instance advertising contracts for events during the COVID-19 pandemic, when presumably such events could not take place. State information campaign funds have been an important means of support to the media during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Emergency Ordinance No. 63 of 7 May 2020 allocated approximately EUR 50 million for governmental media campaigns aimed at the prevention of the spread of COVID-19. The majority of the budget (53%) was reserved by law for TV campaigns. In total 364 applicants benefitted from the scheme. The scheme received criticism from some media outlets and other stakeholders that considered the application criteria to favour large media and be conducive to clickbait. They also pointed to the risk of citizens’ decreasing trust in media as well as risks of political pressure and self-censorship. Concerns remain regarding the implementation of the legal framework for access to information. The law guarantees the access of mass media to public interest information, including through press conferences that have to be regularly organised by public authorities. However, lack of access to information continues to be indicated as an important challenge for journalists. The issues that continue to be reported, also in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, include delays or refusals to provide information, lack of press conferences and use of data protection rules to limit access to information. Furthermore, where the decisions of authorities refusing to provide information are challenged in court, divergent interpretations are applied to similar situations. In addition to general statistics, from March 2021, raw data concerning the COVID-19 pandemic was made available and updated by the authorities on a daily basis. Despite this effort, access to information still seems to have been rendered more difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting appeals by the civil society and journalists for greater transparency. Regular monitoring by the Romanian authorities reveals divergent application of the legal framework by the administration, as well as an insufficient prioritisation of the transparency measures by public bodies, with compliance levels lowest for local authorities. The MPM 2021 indicates as risk factors the level of responsiveness of authorities, which remains inconsistent, and the fact that access to court for redress is onerous. Amendments to the implementing rules of the legal framework were proposed in August 2020 to address some of the challenges. However, some of the proposed provisions have been criticized as possibly rendering the access to certain information more difficult. A project for a Strategy for the management of the governmental communications was launched in March 2021. Lawsuits for defamation against investigative journalists continue to be reported. Two recent alerts on the Council of Europe Platform for the protection of journalism and safety of journalists concern harassment and intimidation of journalists. Another lawsuit for defamation against investigative journalists, concerning articles on the global football industry, has been dismissed by the relevant Romanian court in early 2021. In a recent judgment, following a lawsuit for defamation filed by the mayor of a Bucharest district against a major newspaper, the court of first instance decided the removal of several articles published by that newspaper. It is reported that the mayor has also filed a criminal complaint, investigated by the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism, against journalists from several publications for constituting an organised criminal group as well as for extortion. Civil society further reported cases of SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) against journalists, media or civil society by public institutions or businesspersons . IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances Romania is a semi-presidential representative democratic republic. The Romanian Parliament is bicameral, comprising the Senate (the upper house), and the Chamber of Deputies (the lower house). The Government, Deputies, Senators, or a group of no less than 100.000 citizens have the right of legislative initiative. The Constitutional Court is the guarantor for the supremacy of the Constitution and is responsible for the review of laws. Concerns remain on the stability and predictability of legislation. The ordinary process for preparing and enacting laws is well regulated, including an extended institutional set-up of checks and balances. However, as set out in the 2020 Rule of Law Report legislation is changed too often, while the objective of the amendments is often unclear and the resulting laws can be contradictory. In various policy fields, numerous legislative amendments of the same laws, including contradictory changes, have been initiated and adopted by Parliament. The Legislative Council reports that repeated amendments lacking coherence, combined with the lack of codification of laws amended numerous times, made it difficult to know the state of positive law even for legal practitioners. Companies refer that the lack of stable and predictable legislation constitutes a challenge. Therefore, the Legislative Council now insists on introducing the obligation to publish a consolidated version of a law each time it is amended. Law no. 24 on legislative technique allows the initiator of a law to decide on its republication in a consolidated form, but this possibility is seldom used. The Legislative Council has also initiated a project on codification of legislation. However, the parliamentary procedure whereby amendments remain tabled until specifically removed means that several long-standing amendments and procedures remain open before Parliament. The definitive rejection by Parliament, in the first months of the new legislature, of problematic amendments in key areas that remained pending from the previous legislature was seen as a positive step. No significant Government Emergency Ordinances were adopted since the last report in the field of justice. In a consultative referendum held in May 2019, a majority of citizens voted in support of banning the use of Government Emergency Ordinances (GEO) in the area of justice. This illustrated the concern about the excessive use of GEOs in this area, of which there have been few cases since November 2019 . Beyond the justice area, in 2020, the large majority of the GEOs were issued in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. As regards procedures in Parliament, the number of emergency procedures concerning key justice and anti-corruption matters has significantly decreased in 2020. In February 2021, Parliament rejected a proposal to examine the draft law to abolish the SIIJ through an emergency parliamentary procedure. The number of impact assessments and public consultations prior to the adoption of legislation remains limited. Despite the efforts made by the General Secretariat of the Government to strengthen the capacity of central and local authorities to substantiate the public decisions, the use of evidence-based instruments in the policy-making remains uneven and many regulatory impact assessments are superficial. The civil society reported that many bills subject to public consultation do not have a budgetary impact. In 2020, 65 normative acts were adopted at the level of the General Secretariat of the Government, out of which only 12 were publicly announced. Out of 47 recommendations received, only one was accepted. Eleven out of 12 published normative acts remained unchanged. The participation of the non-governmental sector and media representatives in the policy-making process is sporadic , although the online infrastructure is in place. The number of users of the online consultation platform remains limited. The General Secretariat of the Government is working on a catalogue of NGOs interested in participating in the decision-making process. A state of alert succeeded to the state of emergency declared in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and emergency measures were subject to judicial review. The state of emergency declared in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was lifted on 14 May 2020. Following the end of the state of emergency, a state of alert was declared on 15 May and confirmed by Government on 18 May, initially for 30 days. It was then extended by successive Government decisions, each time for a duration of 30 days. The state of alert remains in place. Following rulings from the Constitutional Court questioning the legal basis of the state of emergency, Parliament approved the state of alert declared by Government. In 2020 and 2021, the Administrative and Fiscal Contentious Chamber of the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided in last instance, by final decision, on 12 cases concerning administrative acts issued based on Article 15 from the Law no. 136/2020 establishing public health measures in situations of epidemiological and biological risk, applicable in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In two cases, the court ordered the annulment of administrative acts. The measures intended to address the issue of implementation of court decisions and application of jurisprudence of the courts by public administration remain unimplemented. After being found in violation of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights for the failure or significant delay by the State or by legal entities under the responsibility of the state to abide by final domestic court decisions, Romania remains under enhanced supervision from the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers for the execution of this judgment. In this context, in 2019, Romania proposed an action plan to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers and approved the list of measures to fulfil the action plan. However, these measures have not been implemented. In a Memorandum of 27 November 2020, the Government decided to task a working group to propose new legal solutions to fulfil all the requirements of the action plan, including with regard to the implementation of judgments imposing an obligation to perform a specific act (non-pecuniary obligation) on the State or on legal entities under the responsibility of the State. A judgment of the Constitutional Court of 8 June 2021 raises serious concerns, as it questions the principle of primacy of EU law. In this judgment , the Constitutional Court did not accept the findings of the Court of Justice of the EU in its preliminary ruling of 18 May 2021 and questioned, more generally, the principle of primacy of EU law . It found that national courts are not empowered to examine the conformity with EU law of national provisions declared constitutional by the Constitutional Court and that the obligations deriving from the CVM decision are not incumbent upon national courts . This may constitute a significant obstacle for courts called upon to apply the EU law requirements set out in the abovementioned preliminary ruling when adjudicating on cases, in particular concerning the SIIJ.

Independent authorities continued being active throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the Ombudsperson raised a total of 18 referrals of unconstitutionality (objections and exceptions), eleven of which were admitted in total or in part, while two were rejected and four are still pending. Six exceptions of unconstitutionality referred to the Constitutional Court concerned measures taken in the context of the state of emergency and the state of alert. The Ombudsperson also addressed a total of 65 letters and recommendations to various ministers regarding their decisions on the state of emergency and the state of alert. On 16 June 2021, after rejecting the activity reports of the Ombudsperson for the last three years, the Parliament dismissed the Ombudsperson from her functions. On 29 June 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that the dismissal of the Ombudsperson by the Parliament was unconstitutional, as the law governing the dismissal did not provide with certainty the cases for this sanction nor a right of appeal before an independent and impartial court. The dismissal decision was therefore struck down and the Ombudsperson was reinstated in her functions. A proposal to merge the Romanian Institute for Human Rights and the National Council for Combating Discrimination is under discussion in Parliament. Following the adoption of the law amending the mandate and attributions of the Romanian Institute for Human Rights (RIHR), the Romanian President raised an unconstitutionality objection. In this context, the Constitutional Court declared the law was unconstitutional as a whole. A legislative proposal on the merger of the RIHR into the National Council for Combating Discrimination (NCCD) is under debate in the Senate. However, major differences in the legal status, mission, and mandate of these two institutionsgenerate uncertainty as to the proposed merger. New amendments to ease the establishment of associations and foundations came into force in 2020. The amendments to Government Ordinance 26/2000 aim at facilitating the right of association and lowering the bureaucratic burden on NGOs . In particular, the new provisions privilege the use of electronic documents and streamlining of procedures and registration rules. While these changes were considered a progress by several civil society organisations, there are also instances of criticism, in particular related to the lack of coherence of the amendments. Stakeholders report that civil society organisations were negatively affected by the limitations to the right to freedom of assembly and association imposed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The civil society space continues to be considered as narrowed.

Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation . Agerpres, ‘Journalist Cătălin Tolontan, heard by DIICOT following a complaint filed by the mayor of Sector 4’ (Jurnalistul Cătălin Tolontan, audiat la DIICOT în urma unei plângeri depuse de primarul Sectorului 4) of 20 May 2021, ( https://www.agerpres.ro/justitie/2021/05/20/jurnalistul-catalin-tolontan-audiat-la-diicot-in-urma-unei-plangeri-depuse-de-primarul-sectorului-4--716788 ). Center for Independent Journalism (2020), Fundamental Rights under Siege 2020. Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021 – Country Report for Romania. Bertelsmann Foundation, Sustainable Governance Indicators 2020, Romania Report ( https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2020/country/SGI2020_Romania.pdf ). Constitutional Court of Romania, Press release of 7 April 2021 ( https://www.ccr.ro/comunicat-de-presa-7-aprilie-2021/ ). Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Romania ( https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/romania ). Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. Dumitrita Holdis (2020), ReportIt: When state funding discredits the press – The Romanian media is facing a financial and moral dilemma ( https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/2020/10/30/reportit-when-state-funding-discredits-the-press-the-romanian-media-is-facing-a-financial-and-moral-dilemma/ ). European Commission (2018), Public administration characteristics and performance in EU28 ( https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8123&furtherPubs=yes ). European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report - The rule of law situation in the European Union. European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. Expert Forum (2021), Contribution from Expert Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Funky Citizens (2021), Contribution from Funky Citizens for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. General Secretariat of the Government (2020), Annual report on decisional transparency (1 January 2020 – 31 December 2020), Annex no. 20 – PS 14/2019 at the level of the General Secretariat of the Government ( http://sgg.gov.ro/1/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/19022021-SGG-Raportul-de-evaluare-a-implementarii-Legii-nr.-52_2003-in-anul-2020-.pdf ).

General Secretariat of the Government (2021), Opening conference of the project ‘Strategy for the management of the governmental communication of Romania’ ( http://sgg.gov.ro/1/conferinta-de-deschidere-a-proiectului-strategia-pentru-managementul-comunicarii-guvernamentale-a-romaniei-cod-sipoca-754/ ). Holdis, Dumitrita (2020), ReportIt: When state funding discredits the press – The Romanian media is facing a financial and moral dilemma ( https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/2020/10/30/reportit-when-state-funding-discredits-the-press-the-romanian-media-is-facing-a-financial-and-moral-dilemma/ ). Libertatea, ‘In the civil trial, the District Court 2 ruled in favour of Mayor Baluta and also decided to delete the articles about Goleac! The decision is not final’ of 24 May 2021,

( https://www.libertatea.ro/stiri/in-procesul-civil-judecatoria-sectorului-2-a-dat-dreptate-primarului-baluta-si-a-decis-si-stergerea-articolelor-despre-goleac-3566580 ). Liberties (2021), EU 2020: Demanding on Democracy ( https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/rule-of-law-report-2021-democracy-demanding-on-democracy/43362 ) National Anti-corruption Directorate (DNA), 2020 Activity Report ( http://www.pna.ro/obiect2.jsp?id=489 ) National Audiovisual Council (CNA), Press briefing on CNA public meetings, 10 February 2021 (https://www.cna.ro/article11090,11090.html) National Integrity Agency (ANI), Communicate on prevention and consignation measures adopted by the National Integrity Agency in the context of the organisation of local elections 2020 ( https://www.integritate.eu/Comunicate.aspx?Action=1&NewsId=3005¤tPage=4&M=NewsV2&PID=20 ). Reporters without Borders and Active Watch (2021), Open letter to the Romanian authorities asking for an investigation on how the criminal claim was handled ( https://rsf.org/en/news/romania-open-letter-rsf-and-activewatch-denounce-judicial-pressures-investigative-journalists ). Reporters without Borders – Romania ( https://rsf.org/en/romania ). Romanian Government (2021), Input from Romania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. The Center for Independent Journalism (2020), Fundamental Rights under Siege 2020, p. 18, ( https://cji.ro/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Freedom-of-expression-report_final.pdf ). Annex II: Country visit to Romania The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2021 with: ·Association of Romanian Judges ·Association “Mișcarea pentru apărarea statutului procurorilor” ·Center for independent journalism ·Expertforum ·Freedom House ·Funky citizens ·High Court of Cassation and Justice

·Initiative for Justice Association ·Legal Commission of the Chamber of Deputies ·Legislative Council ·Media Association – Cluj ·Ministry of Justice ·National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets ·National Anti-corruption Directorate ·National Anti-corruption Strategy ·National Audiovisual Council ·National Integrity Agency ·National Union of the Romanian Judges ·Ombudsperson ·Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice ·Romanian Judges’ Forum ·Secretariat General of the Government ·Superior Council for Magistracy * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: ·Amnesty International ·Center for Reproductive Rights

·CIVICUS ·Civil Liberties Union for Europe ·Civil Society Europe ·Conference of European Churches ·EuroCommerce ·European Center for Not-for-Profit Law ·European Centre for Press and Media Freedom ·European Civic Forum ·European Federation of Journalists ·European Partnership for Democracy ·European Youth Forum ·Front Line Defenders ·Human Rights House Foundation ·Human Rights Watch ·ILGA-Europe ·International Commission of Jurists ·International Federation for Human Rights ·International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) ·International Press Institute ·Netherlands Helsinki Committee