EUROPEAN COMMISSION Luxembourg, 13.7.2022 SWD(2022) 523 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report















Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report

















The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 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 justice system is undergoing structural reforms aimed at addressing a number of long-standing issues. The Government adopted a new judicial strategy and related action plan for 2022-2025 and is implementing projects to improve the digitalisation of the justice system, as planned in Romania’s Recovery and Resilience Plan. While the Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary (SIIJ) was dismantled, some concerns related to the new system for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the judiciary remain. The rules on disciplinary sanctions as well as the extensive powers and lack of accountability of the Chief Judicial Inspector continue generating concerns for judicial independence, which are expected to be addressed by the new draft justice laws under preparation. There has been no significant improvement as regards the shortage of magistrates. The efficiency in civil and commercial cases remains stable, while decreasing considerably for administrative courts. The Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 was adopted and its effective implementation relies on political support to implement important legislative reforms. The effectiveness of the investigation and sanctioning of corruption further improved, including by advancing on cases that had been pending for years. The National Anti-Corruption Directorate continued to improve its track record of results, but operational challenges, including the difficulty to recruit prosecutors, remain to be solved. As concerns the new system replacing the SIIJ, its impact on investigating and prosecuting corruption offences remains to be seen. Steps have been taken to finalise the revised Criminal Codes. The legal framework on integrity remains fragmented, and there are no uniform provisions on revolving doors for public servants or lobbying rules for Members of Parliament. The transparency of political party financing is limited. The appointment of the President of the National Integrity Agency and the new mandatory electronic asset declaration platform allowed the Agency to work more efficiently. Romania has not yet transposed the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, thus delaying necessary changes to improve the functioning and effectiveness of the media regulator. Reforms to the law on the public broadcasting and radio companies are under way aiming at a less politicised appointment process and more professionalised management. Transparency of media ownership could be strengthened. There is not enough transparency on the broadcasting of content paid for by political parties outside electoral campaigns, and access to information by journalists remains deficient. Instances of threats, harassment and physical violence against journalists are more concerning compared to last year. Frequent changes of legislation, regular use of emergency ordinances and the limited practice of public consultations continue to raise concerns. There are efforts to improve the use of impact assessments. The Government made a clear commitment to the principle of primacy of EU law, but concerns remain regarding the challenge to this principle by the Constitutional Court. The state of alert related to the COVID-19 pandemic was lifted and the emergency measures were scrutinised. The Institute for Human Rights is seeking accreditation as National Human Rights Institution. While the civil society is facing challenges stemming from the impact of COVID-19-related restrictions and limited access to funding, there are plans to simplify registration procedures for non-governmental organisations.

Recommendations In addition to recalling the commitments made under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan relating to certain aspects of the justice system, the anti-corruption framework and the legislative process and the recommendations under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, it is recommended to Romania to: ·Ensure that the revision of the Justice Laws reinforces safeguards for judicial independence, including to reform the disciplinary regime for magistrates, and take measures to address remaining concerns about the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the judiciary, taking into account European standards and relevant Venice Commission opinions. ·Introduce rules on lobbying for Members of Parliament. ·Address the operational challenges of the National Anti-Corruption Directorate, including as regards recruitment of prosecutors, and closely monitor the impact of the new system on investigating and prosecuting corruption offences in the judiciary. ·Strengthen the rules and mechanisms to enhance the independent governance and editorial independence of public service media taking into account the European standards on public service media. ·Ensure effective public consultation before the adoption of draft legislation. ·Continue efforts to establish a National Human Rights Institution taking into account the UN Paris Principles.



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 10 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. Since then, the Commission has continued to track progress, including through the 2021 CVM report, which noted that there is progress across all the remaining CVM recommendations and many are on the path to being fulfilled if progress remains steady. The analysis set out in this report will also inform the work to track the achievement of the benchmarks and the conclusion of the CVM. I.Justice System The Romanian justice 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. 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. 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 (EPPO). The Romanian National Union of Bar Associations is a legal entity of public interest, comprising all 41 bars in Romania. Independence The level of perceived judicial independence in Romania continues to be average among both the general public and companies. Overall, 48% of the general population and 49% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ in 2022. According to data in the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, no clear trend can be identified in the evolution of the perceived level of independence since 2016. The perceived judicial independence among the general public has decreased in comparison with 2021 (51%) and 2016 (51%). The perceived judicial independence among companies has increased in comparison with 2021 (45%), but it is lower than in 2016 (63%).

A new version of the draft justice laws is under preparation. In its Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), Romania committed to amend the justice laws by 30 June 2023, as part of the reform aimed at ensuring the independence of the judiciary, enhancing its quality and efficiency . The draft laws were initially put for public consultation in 2020 and again in 2021, and some of the proposals received in this context were included in the new draft laws. The Ministry of Justice published the amended drafts on its website on 22 June 2022. These are intended to address long-standing concerns for the independence, quality and efficiency of the justice system, in particular by amending the provisions related to the civil and disciplinary liability of magistrates, competitions for admission to the judiciary, and rules on the status, appointment and removal of specialised and high-ranking prosecutors. Having regard that this is the first in-depth reform of the laws governing the judiciary since 2004, a comprehensive and transparent revision process is expected to take place. The new draft laws are still to be tabled in Parliament. The Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary (SIIJ) was dismantled, but some concerns related to the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the judiciary remain. On 11 March 2022, the SIIJ was dismantled and the competence to investigate offences committed by magistrates was transferred to ‘designated prosecutors’ within the Prosecutor’s Offices attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) and the Courts of Appeal. It thus maintains the competence ratione personae in place under the previous system. While the new system is an improvement in terms of the number of prosecutors allocated to the new structure and its territorial distribution, concerns remain that it could undermine judicial independence and proper safeguards need to be put in place, in light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Such a system must be justified by objective and verifiable requirements relating to the sound administration of justice. Additionally, the appointment process for the ‘designated prosecutors’ does not provide for a competitive procedure based on meritocratic criteria and does not involve the section for prosecutors of the Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM). This is contrary to the recommendations of the Venice Commission. Furthermore, as concerns ‘vexatious complaints’, which could be used as a means of pressure against magistrates, the new system does not contain any specific safeguards to ensure that magistrates are not subject to undue prosecution. Finally, the new structure would need to deal swiftly with the significant backlog pending before the SIIJ before its dismantlement, notably cases stemming from ‘vexatious complaints’, in order to lift the pressure generated by protracted procedures on the magistrates involved. As regards the process, under the current Government, the Ministry of Justice published a new draft law on 21 January 2022 and, after a shortened ten-day public consultation and a positive opinion of the SCM, the Parliament adopted the law on 28 February 2022. The Venice Commission, which was consulted on the new draft law, expressed in its opinion its regret with its hasty adoption, which gave little opportunity to relevant stakeholders to assess the provisions and exchange constructively with the Romanian authorities on their content. The legal provisions on disciplinary sanctions and their implementation continue to raise concerns for the independence of the judiciary. Between 2021 and March 2022, the High Court of Cassation and Justice solved, in last instance, 22 cases on the disciplinary liability of judges and prosecutors, upholding the disciplinary sanctions decided by the SCM in 10 of these cases . In several cases, judges who had expressed critical opinions as regards the justice reforms of 2017-2019 were sanctioned, following disciplinary actions initiated by the Judicial Inspection. In one case, five judges received various disciplinary sanctions on referral by the Judicial Inspection, for the offence of ‘unjustified non-compliance with other administrative obligations provided by law or regulations’ . In a second case, the SCM imposed the disciplinary sanction of exclusion from magistracy on a judge for ‘manifestations detrimental to the honour or professional probity or to the prestige of the justice system’ , for posting videos related to his private life on social media. The same judge was excluded from the magistracy a second time, on the grounds that he engaged in political activities. As highlighted by the CJEU, in order to preserve the independence of the courts, it is necessary to prevent the disciplinary regime from being diverted from its legitimate purposes and being used to exert political control over judicial decisions or pressure on judges . In terms of predictability of disciplinary case-law, the SCM took a step to increase its transparency by publishing, in anonymised format, the disciplinary decisions that have become final and breaches of the code of ethics on a portal accessible to magistrates only . The extensive powers and lack of accountability of the Chief Judicial Inspector remain a cause for concern, which the new justice laws are expected to address. The Judicial Inspection conducts the preliminary investigation in disciplinary proceedings and decides whether there are grounds to initiate a disciplinary investigation before the competent section of the SCM. As referred to in the 2021 Rule of Law Report , following the ad interim appointment of the Chief Judicial Inspector , the CJEU laid out criteria to assess the legality of such ad interim appointment . Lower courts implemented this judgment differently . To remedy this diverging case-law, the High Court of Cassation and Justice was seized and upheld the legality of the interim appointment . The concentration of power in the hands of the Chief Inspector and his deputy, as well as the limits to the oversight by the SCM , remain an issue for the independence of justice . On 7 September 2021, a commission set up by the SCM rejected the request of the section for prosecutors to seize the plenary of the SCM in view of deciding on the revocation of the Chief Inspector. It is reported that magistrates expressing public views on rule of law issues are often targeted by disciplinary investigations opened by the Judicial Inspection, either ex officio or at the request of the SCM . The Judicial Inspection may also carry out thematic controls in all prosecution offices and request extensive information to this end . A request for a preliminary ruling is pending before the CJEU on the question whether the extensive powers vested in the Chief Inspector are in accordance with the principle of judicial independence . The draft justice laws are expected to amend the provisions of the law on the SCM, in particular by providing that the deputy chief inspector is to be appointed by the plenary of the SCM, and no longer by the Chief Inspector. The new Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary 2022-2025 and its related Action Plan set clear objectives and a monitoring mechanism. At the initiative of the Ministry of Justice, the Government approved the Strategy and its action plan on 30 March 2022 . The adoption and entry into force of the new Strategy is a milestone under Romania’s RRP . The Strategy identifies, as areas of action, the independence, quality and efficiency of justice, on the one hand, and access to justice, on the other hand. The Strategy includes the reform of the justice laws, the elimination of inequities in the magistrates’ salaries and the award of service pensions, the modernisation of the status of judicial staff and related legal professions. The Government expects that the implementation of the Strategy will result in an increase of the perceived independence of justice. Quality There has been no significant improvement as regards the shortage of magistrates. Some steps have been taken in order to improve the human resources situation in the judicial system. As mentioned in the 2021 Rule of Law Report , a law adopted in June 2021 allowed for the organisation of competitions for admission to the National Institute of Magistracy (INM). On 16 July 2021, the plenary of the SCM approved the Regulation for organising and carrying out the competition for admission in the magistracy . In addition, in December 2021, the SCM appointed 139 graduates of the INM as junior judges and 70 graduates as junior prosecutors. However, due to the absence of competitions for admission in the magistracy during two years, and a number of retirements that still exceeds the newly recruited magistrates , the lack of judicial staff continues posing a risk for the quality and efficiency of justice. As of 31 December 2021, 669 out of 5072 judge positions were vacant, while the overall occupancy rate for prosecutors remained low, at 79.51% . The new judicial strategy 2022-2025 envisages a number of measures to remedy this issue, including the modernisation of the status of judicial and auxiliary staff in courts and prosecutors’ offices to allow judges and prosecutors to concentrate on judicial work . It also sets the quantitative objective to ensure an occupancy rate of 95% of the judge positions and 80-85% of the prosecutor positions by 2025. Several projects are being implemented to improve the digitalisation of the justice system, in particular with a new centralised case management system. At the heart of the digital transformation of the justice system is the implementation of ECRIS V, a new case management system with a centralised architecture, which will facilitate the digital interaction between litigants and judicial entities, as well as between the judicial institutions and other relevant institutions. This tool is expected to provide key functionalities supporting the digital processing of cases in courts and prosecution offices, the collection of statistical data and the generation of certain pre-defined statistical reports, as well as the electronic transfer of data between different actors, including courts and prosecution offices. Investments under Romania’s RRP aim to ensure the full operationalisation of ECRIS V, as well as the implementation of the digital goals set out in the strategy for the development of the judiciary 2022-2025, whose second strategic objective is to increase the quality and efficiency of justice through the digital transformation of the justice system. New online portals were made operational for the submission of court documents before the High Court of Cassation and Justice and for the publication of case-law. Since 19 November 2021, an online portal allowing the submission of applications and other documents is available for all sections and the five-judge panels of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. Users of the portal may opt for the electronic service of procedural documents, including summons, the submissions of the parties and the court decisions in full. As regards the online accessibility of court decisions, the ReJust portal – developed and managed by the SCM – was made available with the intention to replace the ROLII portal . The ReJust portal includes both final judgements and minutes of the proceedings of courts of first instance and appeal, as well as other court rulings in anonymized form . Although the new portal was created to increase managerial stability by entrusting its operation fully to the SCM and to ensure full respect of data protection rules , some shortcomings should be addressed for it to fulfil its function adequately . The territorial jurisdiction of the courts of first instance was redefined to even out their workload. Following an analysis of the caseload in courts of first instance, the SCM redefined their territorial jurisdiction in order to even out their workload and give prevalence to the principle of bringing justice closer to the citizens. The SCM will analyse the impact of this measure by the end of 2022 to assess the need to further readjust the territorial jurisdiction across counties. Efficiency The overall efficiency in civil and commercial cases remains stable, but decreased considerably for administrative cases. In 2020, the length of proceedings at first instance in civil and commercial cases increased slightly in comparison to 2019, and so did the estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at all court instances, while the clearance rate for resolving civil, commercial, administrative cases at first instance somewhat decreased to 97% . As regards the efficiency in administrative cases, all indicators worsened significantly from 2019 to 2020, as the disposition time in first instance increased from 138 days to 609 days, while the clearance rate dropped from 100.3% to 48.4% and the number of pending cases doubled, from 0.2 to 0.4 per 100 inhabitants. The Tax and Administrative Litigation Chamber of the High Court of Cassation and Justice is facing workload challenges. The current caseload of this Chamber, combined with the backlog already accumulated, is liable to jeopardise the observance of the reasonable length of proceedings requirement . To overcome this challenge, upon proposal of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ), the Ministry of Justice reduced the jurisdiction of the Tax and Administrative Litigation Chamber . However, as the workload of the latter and, more generally, of the HCCJ remains high, the Judicial Strategy for 2022-2025 envisages the reorganisation of its jurisdiction and the adaptation of its personnel scheme . Romania remains under enhanced supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings, and lack of effective remedy in this respect. While in 2016 the Committee of Ministers welcomed the wide-ranging general measures adopted to resolve the problem of excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings, it further invited the Romanian authorities to continue to closely monitor the impact of these measures and to provide complete statistical data enabling the Committee of Ministers to fully assess the situation. The impact of these measures on the issues reflected in the leading case Vlad v. Romania remains to be assessed. II. Anti-Corruption Framework The National Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 was adopted in 2021 and coordination of its implementation is ensured by the Ministry of Justice. The specialised anti-corruption prosecution, the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA), has the competence to investigate serious 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 financial and economic crime. A specialised anti-corruption directorate (DGA) exists in the Ministry of Interior, 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 of activities 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 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Romania scores 45/100 and ranks 25th in the European Union and 66th globally. This perception has been relatively stable over the past five years. The 2022 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 72% of respondents consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 68%) and 46% of respondents feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%). As regards businesses, 88% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 70% consider that that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%). Furthermore, 44% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average 34%), while 35% of companies believe that people and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 29%). The National Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 was adopted, and its effective implementation would require determined political support. In 2022, the OECD evaluated the 2016-2020 National Anti-Corruption Strategy and acknowledged the significant steps that Romania took towards strengthening its anti-corruption and integrity policies. However, it also noted that the lack of political support to implement important legislative reforms was an important challenge. The new National Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 was approved by the Government in December 2021 . The strategy has five general objectives: increasing the implementation of integrity measures at organisational level; reducing the impact of corruption on citizens; strengthening institutional management and administrative capacity to prevent and combat corruption; strengthening integrity in priority areas, such as health care, public procurement, and local administration; and increasing the performance of the fight against corruption by criminal law and administrative means. The effectiveness of the investigation and sanctioning of corruption continues to improve, including by taking forward cases that were discontinued for some years. The number of complaints from citizens and institutions on alleged corruption further increased. DNA continued the positive trend both as regards the number of indictments and the reduction of its backlog of cases , referred to in the 2021 Rule of Law Report. The General Prosecution Service also continued the effective prosecution of corruption and corruption-assimilated offences. Some decisions of the Constitutional Court effectively led to the termination of criminal procedures in corruption cases against national politicians, by rendering null and void court judgments based on the question of the composition of the court panels. On 21 December 2021, the CJEU ruled that EU law precludes the application of national rules or a national practice similar to the case-law of the Constitutional Court if it is capable of giving rise to a systemic risk of impunity for corruption offences or acts of fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union. Following the CJEU judgment, in April 2022, the HCCJ upheld prison sentences in a high-profile case from 2018, which had been suspended on the grounds of unlawful court composition. In May 2022, the HCCJ ruled in another high-profile case, implementing the CJEU ruling to disregard the case-law of the Constitutional Court on the legality of the composition of judges’ panels, and sentenced the main defendant to imprisonment for bribery. Amendments to the Codes of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure are being prepared. Concrete steps were taken to take forward the revision of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code and bring them in line with the number of far-reaching decisions of the Constitutional Court since 2014, including on the corruption related crime of abuse in office and on technical supervision methods (wiretapping). An interinstitutional working group has been in place since 2019 to examine legislative initiatives to amend the codes, with a first publication on the Ministry of Justice website in summer 2021 and the government tabled its proposals in June 2022. In particular, it is proposed to amend the offence of abuse of power in the Criminal Code to specify that a ‘violation of a duty’ should follow from a law, a Government Ordinance, a Government Emergency Ordinance, or another normative act which, at the date of its adoption, was assimilated into law. Lack of clarity on this offence had inhibited its prosecution and it is expected that the amendment will have a positive effect on the track record of convictions for this crime. It is also proposed, in line with a Constitutional Court judgment and a 2018 Opinion of the Venice Commission, to adopt strengthened safeguards for the use of evidence obtained from electronic recordings. In May 2022, the civil society and magistrates associations deplored the lack of transparency and consultation on the final versions of the laws and asked the minister to make public the texts, before submitting them to the Government for adoption. On 2 June 2022, the Ministry of Justice sent the draft laws to the Government for approval.

The competences of the DNA have been reduced, which could have a negative impact on its work and the investigation of some cases. As a result of law abolishing the SIIJ, the DNA lost the competence to investigate corruption cases involving judges of the Constitutional Court. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice proposed in June to remove the legal possibility for the DNA to prosecute serious criminal offences ancillary to corruption, such as fraud and money laundering, when the investigations into these offences are separated from the corruption case, thereby codifying a decision of the Constitutional Court. This decision has a retroactive effect and consequently has an impact on those ongoing DNA investigations that can be separated, as they will need to be restarted, with the risk that cases will fall due to the statute of limitation. Given the remaining concerns as regards the new system replacing the SIIJ, its impact on investigating and prosecuting corruption offences remains to be seen. The 2021 Rule of Law and CVM Reports listed a series of concerns as to the effective treatment of some high-level corruption cases by the SIIJ. In the SIIJ’s three years of existence, it only sent seven cases to court. As explained in Section I above, in March 2022 the legislator transferred SIIJ’ competences to the Prosecutor’s Offices attached to the HCCJ. The Venice Commission and the Prosecutor General consider it unlikely that the new structure will be better placed to conduct investigations into allegations of corruption by judges and prosecutors than the DNA as the specialised prosecution service. The lack of expertise to conduct investigations into complex corruption cases, as well as insufficient human resources and heavy workload could also prevent cases from being heard within a reasonable time. The strict criteria needed by prosecutors to be appointed in the new structure will also have resource consequences for the number of prosecutors authorised to take on corruption cases against magistrates. The new law dismantling the SIIJ also maintains the rule according to which, if other persons are investigated for corruption together with judges and prosecutors, the whole corruption file would be transferred from DNA to the designated prosecutors, a point identified by CVM reports and the Venice Commission as one of the major reasons why the SIIJ was seen to damage the effectiveness of anti-corruption work. However, the new law envisages that cases will now only be joined if ‘for reasons of good conduct of the prosecution, the case cannot be disjoined’. Monitoring the practical implementation of this rule will be important to ensure that it does not create practical obstacles to anti-corruption investigations. Challenges remain in recruiting prosecutors within the DNA, in particular due to dissuasive seniority requirements. In March 2021, the DNA had a 75% occupancy rate of prosecutors, and in March 2022, this rate remained the same. Under the RRP, Romania committed to increase it to 85% by 30 June 2023. In order to be appointed to the DNA, the law currently states that prosecutors must have at least 10 years seniority. The seniority requirement has been identified as a major reason for the limited number of applications to fill in the existing vacancies. Other factors include the high workload, relatively low salaries and the oral examination that is broadcast (contrary to examinations in other prosecution departments). A competition to recruit 29 prosecutors was organised in the first half of 2022, but only 11 people applied, of which two have withdrawn their candidacy. Given that on 14 July 2021, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional a law decreasing the seniority requirement to seven years, the government intends to maintain the ten-year seniority requirement for appointment in DNA. Finally, the possibility for magistrates to be delegated, seconded and transferred to the DNA are also limited. The DNA relies on a significant proportion of delegated prosecutors and has requested that the seventeen prosecutors that ceased working in the Directorate would be replaced by prosecutors by delegation, but only judicial police officers were seconded. Given the shortage of prosecutors in the DNA, delegation, secondment and transfer remain important tools. The filling of the post of President of the National Integrity Agency (ANI) and setting up of a mandatory electronic asset declaration platform facilitated the work of the Agency. The ANI continues to investigate incompatibilities, conflicts of interest and unjustified wealth . After more than one year and a half without a president, at the proposal of the National Integrity Council a new president for the ANI was appointed. A vice-president will be appointed. A system for electronic submissions of assets and interest disclosures became operational in May 2021. Since January 2022, it is mandatory for asset and interest declarations to be filled in electronically and the public can consult them online. This increases transparency towards the public and facilitates ANI’s work. The ANI is developing its own technological capacity to identify by itself suspicious declarations of assets and interests, on the basis of risk indicators, and intends to work more closely with the National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets (ANABI). Increased focus on integrity of law enforcement led to positive results. The highest proportion of petty corruption concerns road traffic offences, covering almost exclusively police officers. The Anti-Corruption Directorate (DGA) in the Ministry of Interior carried out 59 professional integrity tests on its employees (including police officers) in 2021. In one of these cases, the employee received sums of money or benefits not to perform the duties of the service, and in three cases there were indications of violations of professional ethics. In 2021, 50 integrity incidents were reported (compared to 47 in 2020), which concerned 111 of its employees (versus 185 in 2020). The DGA organised 883 education activities in 2021 to promote integrity, with 89 454 participants, including students of driving schools. The legal framework on integrity remains fragmented. As reported in the 2021 Rule of Law report, rulings of the High Court of Cassation and Justice undid some changes to the integrity laws that weakened the ability of the ANI to carry out its work. In this respect, the ANI and other stakeholders have highlighted the need to further improve the stability and clarity of the legal framework for integrity, and to modernise it. Currently, six legislative proposals to amend the integrity framework are pending before the Parliament, and ANI delivered a positive opinion on only one of them. In its national RRP, Romania committed to have a consolidated law on integrity in force by 2024. ANI has partnered with Transparency International and the Ministry of Justice to carry this work forward. The value of assets confiscated by the National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets (ANABI) has increased. ANABI seized almost EUR 57 million in 2021 compared to almost EUR 34 million in 2020. The national Asset Recovery Strategy 2021-2025 includes an action plan with legislative measures for expanding the Agency’s mandate. The entry into force of such legislation by 30 June 2022 is a milestone in Romania‘s RRP. ANABI stressed that the extension of its mandate should be backed-up with an investment plan. From the two parliamentary chambers, the Senate still has not defined objective criteria to decide on requests for lifting parliamentary immunities. The lack of reasoning of decisions taken by the Parliament in the past – as well as the number of occasions when Parliament did not allow investigation to proceed – led to concerns about the objectivity of these decisions. To remedy this, the Chamber of Deputies had amended its rules of procedure in 2019, in line with GRECO and the Venice Commission’s suggestions. However, the Senate has not yet adopted such rules. The Chamber of Deputies approved the request to authorise the investigation of a former Minister and Deputy, and the Senate approved the request to authorise the investigation of a former Minister and Senator, despite a first negative opinion from the Legal Committee. Limited provisions on revolving doors are available in various pieces of legislation, even if there is no uniform regulation in this respect, which remains a concern. As mentioned in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, the rules on revolving doors are limited and scattered over different laws. Apart from a rule for public servants who, in exercising their function, have carried out monitoring and control activities over state-owned enterprises, there are no regulations concerning cooling-off periods for key decision-makers. The National Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 sets out the establishment, by 2024, of a uniform regulatory framework governing post-employment bans for public officials moving to the private sector, procedures for monitoring compliance with those prohibitions and penalties for their infringement, and the establishment of a priori verification procedures by private sector employers of compliance with employment bans. The enforcement of the Code of Conduct and the absence of rules on lobbying for parliamentarians remain a concern. Since the adoption of the Code of Conduct for members of Parliament in 2017, concerns have been raised regarding various inconsistencies in the code as well as the lack of proper enforcement. The Parliament has not addressed these concerns so far. Despite being raised by GRECO on a number of occasions, the absence of rules on how members of Parliament engage with lobbyists and other third parties seeking to influence the legislative process remains a concern. It is a well established principle that countries should have in place lobbying regulations to ensure transparency and accountability of such activities in accordance with European standards. Furthermore, while members of Parliament have to declare gifts, there are no rules that require these declarations to be made public or controlled. There are also no clear restrictions on gifts, hospitality, favours and other benefits. A comprehensive protection of whistleblowers is still missing. The Ministry of Justice announced at the end of 2020 a draft law on the protection of whistleblowers, which would aim to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on whistleblowers’ protection. The draft law was adopted by the Senate in April 2022 and by the Chamber of Deputies with amendments in June 2022. Some amendments raised concerns, notably from the European Chief Prosecutor , and the government expressed its intention to adjust the draft law, as the legislative process is still ongoing. Romania’s RRP provided for the adoption and entry into force of the law transposing the directive on whistleblowers’ protection by 31 March 2022. The transparency of political party financing and the enforcement of related rules are limited. Political parties receive public funding on the basis of the number of seats in the Parliament and the State compensates all campaigning costs of any party receiving more than 3% of the votes. Since the law states that these public funds should consist of at least 0.01% of the gross domestic product, they have increased exponentially. The Permanent Electoral Authority (PEA) publishes on its website information related to electoral campaigns, party funding, monthly subsidy reports, and the results of oversight. However, the data collected is limited because, contrary to good practice, political parties only need to list categories of expenses. Moreover, the PEA can only publish information that was actually provided by the political parties and the rules are not systematically enforced. Although private donations only make up for a small part of the parties’ finances, a non-profit organisation identified people who earn ten times less each year than they donated to a party. The PEA’s review is limited to verifying whether the declared expenditures match the donations and no thorough auditing and investigation of expenditures is undertaken, as would be advisable. Furthermore, the PEA can impose monetary sanctions for non-compliance with the legal provisions, but these are disproportionally low. Corruption risks related to the pandemic received more attention. As referred in the 2021 Rule of Law report, the Ministry of Justice noted that progress achieved in the fight against corruption has been uneven, in particular in vulnerable areas. In response, the new Anti-Corruption Strategy 2021-2025 contains measures addressing high-risk areas, such as health and public procurement. These risk factors were evident during the pandemic. Since March 2020, the DNA registered 175 cases related to the pandemic and at the end of 2021, there were 89 criminal cases relating to that matter. Most cases involve protective medical equipment and irregularities with certificates. The number of integrity warnings issued by the electronic system to prevent conflicts of interests in public procurement has decreased since its launch. With the launch of the ‘PREVENT’ system in 2018, there were 69 integrity warnings, followed by 40 in 2019, 20 in 2020 and of the 26 integrity warnings in 2021, 16 concerned the same procurement procedure. 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 organisation and functioning of the Romanian Broadcasting Society and the Romanian Television Society are regulated by Law 41/1994. Concerns about the functioning and budget of the National Audiovisual Council (CNA) persist. Romania has not yet transposed the Audiovisual Media Services Directive as revised by Directive (EU) 2018/1808 (AVMSD), and this has delayed important changes necessary to improve the functioning and effectiveness of the media regulator. One year after the election of the members of the CNA, the regulatory authority does not have a President yet. In this context, the powers of the President were taken over by the Vice-President. The draft law transposing the AVMSD requires that the activity of the Council is financed from the state budget to perform its functions effectively. The new provisions would extend the scope of the law to providers of video sharing platforms under Romanian jurisdiction, jurisdiction of other EU Member States or of third States whose content can be accessed in Romania. The draft law was approved by the Senate on 7 June 2022. The absence of a President did not block the functioning of the CNA, but its budgetary restrictions remain a concern, notably in view of the funds required to improve its IT systems. Transparency of media ownership continues to be incomplete. In accordance with the law, the CNA must ensure the transparency of the organisation, functioning and financing of the mass media in the audiovisual sector. Information on audiovisual media ownership is available in the company registry and some of these data is also published on the annual activity report, although this information is not always complete. Media companies not operating in the audiovisual field are only subject to the (less extensive) requirements any other company in Romania must abide by. They have to communicate information on ownership structures, including shareholders, to the National Trade Register Office. However, it is still possible for a media company to be owned by another company, owned in turn by an entity registered abroad. Moreover, information about the ownership structure of media companies is not publicly accessible without prior registration process (with the National Trade Register Office or a private company) and the payment of a fee.

There is not enough transparency with regard to audiovisual media and elections. Although political competitors have guaranteed and equitable access to airtime on audiovisual media during electoral campaigns, television channels are not compelled to clearly explain the distinction between different types of content produced during campaigns - especially between their own editorial content and airtime bought by the parties - and to signal who is paying for the content. Furthermore, there is not enough transparency about how much various parties paid to which channels and for what content. Attempts by journalists to investigate how these funds were used by the media to broadcast political content faced resistance by some political parties. The CNA is competent to monitor the content that is broadcasted. A bill to reform the law on the public broadcasting and radio companies is being discussed by the legislator with a view to have a more independent and professionalised management. The mechanism for appointing and especially for dismissing the Board of Directors of the public service broadcaster is considered politicised, since the Parliament only needs to reject its activity report for the previous year to dismiss the Board and the Chairs with no discussion on performance targets. The Annual Reports for 2017 through 2019 were rejected in May 2021, triggering the dismissals of the boards of the radio and broadcaster company. In 2021, the position of Chair of the Board of Directors was split into two, one for the radio (SRR) and another one for the television companies (SRTv), although arguably this solution does not address the actual problem, which is that the institutional design of public service media does not incentivize independence and does not consider performance targets. The Board of Directors of SRR and SRTv, tasked with the administration of the companies, were appointed on 15 November 2021 by the Parliament for a period of four years, following a number of interim appointments that the Constitutional Court considered unconstitutional. The Steering Committees of SRR and SRTv, tasked with the content and editorial policy and the management of operations, are also chaired by the respective Presidents of the Board of Directors. Concerns remain regarding the implementation of the legal framework for access to information. A bill intended to update the freedom of information act (Law 544/2001) failed to be approved in 2021 and remains pending in the Chamber of Deputies. If approved, the law would, among other things, oblige public institutions to provide public interest information in an open (machine readable) format, create a publicly accessible register of the requests for information received and clarify what institutions and organisations are obliged to answer requests. Insufficient and inconsistent responsiveness of authorities to freedom of information requests represent an ongoing problem, including on urgent decisions taken on e.g. the COVID-19 pandemic or the Ukrainian refugees crisis. Data protection laws or the transfer of information requests to different institutions are often invoked to refuse to release public interest information. The situation regarding threats, instances of harassment and violence against journalists is more concerning compared to last year. In September 2021, two journalists and an environmental activist were attacked while filming a documentary about illegal deforestation. All their footage was deleted and the equipment was destroyed by the attackers. While the then Prime Minister condemned this attack and an investigation was launched, a public petition requesting the General Prosecutor to take over the investigation was not accepted. In September 2021, two women journalists were attacked at a congress of the National Liberal Party by party members. The Council of Europe has two active alerts concerning intimidation of journalists in Romania. One of these cases led ten European and international press freedom and freedom of expression organisations to send an open letter to the Romanian authorities calling for swift and independent investigations, recalling a background of undue pressure against journalists and media workers in Romania coming from politicians, prosecutors, police, and military officers. No specific safeguards or cooperation mechanisms between different stakeholders exist to protect journalists from this type of attacks. On 15 June 2021, the Bucharest Court rejected the strategic lawsuit against public participation referred to in the last Report. 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 competent to review the constitutionality of laws and to settle conflicts of constitutional nature between public authorities. Frequent changes of legislation and the regular use of emergency ordinances continue to raise concerns regarding the stability and predictability of legislation. As referred in the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports, whereas the ordinary process for preparing and enacting laws is well regulated, there are concerns regarding the frequent amendments to legislation, and the extensive use of fast-track procedures and government emergency ordinances (GEOs). Data show that in 2021 the number of new GEOs decreased in terms of the percentage of the total legislation adopted. However, the Legislative Council continues to highlight that not all draft emergency ordinances presented substantiated reasons to justify an extraordinary situation, the regulation of which could not be postponed. Moreover, there is no strict deadline for completing the adoption procedure of emergency ordinances by the Parliament. This procedure also does not envisage the obligation to submit the draft to the Legislative Council for its opinion. In addition, such ordinances may not be submitted to a preliminary control of constitutionality nor challenged before the Constitutional Court except by a limited number of institutional actors. According to an independent study, of 474 legislative initiatives analysed, 140 (30%) were aimed at approving such ordinances, and 174 of the 474 legislative acts (37%) went through a fast-track procedure. Situations of frequent successive changes of normative acts also continue to occur. These issues are addressed in Romania’s RRP, which provides for the establishment of a specialised structure with the role of overseeing the quality of legislation and the compulsory republication of consolidated versions of laws whenever they are amended. The RRP moreover envisages the adoption of a methodology for the use of GEOs. Efforts are under way to improve the use of impact assessments but concerns regarding the effectiveness of public consultations remain. The Secretariat General of the Government conducted an analysis of the quality of the rationale for legislation adopted by the Government in 2020, which shows an increase of 14-percentage point of satisfactory impact assessments and a 21-percentage point decrease of the unsatisfactory impact assessment compared to 2019. A new legislative proposal to ensure that the grounds for regulatory acts must be based on an assessment of the impact on public health is pending before the Senate. The Romanian RRP includes measures aimed at strengthening the capacity of ministries to develop impact assessments. To that end, on 30 March 2022, the Government adopted a decision defining the methodology for ex ante and ex post impact assessment of draft normative acts and setting up of the Advisory Board for the Impact Assessment of Regulatory Acts. Regarding public consultations, it is reported that, despite the legal obligation thereto, public authorities do not submit written reasoning for not considering the proposals submitted by the civil society during the legislative procedure. Moreover, a new GEO came into force in March 2022, which allows the derogation from the minimum 30-day public consultation period for normative acts in case of emergency. The Ombudsperson challenged this GEO before the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the emergency situations allowing derogation from the 30-day period should be more precisely defined. The Romanian Government has made a clear commitment to the principle of primacy of EU law, but concerns remain regarding the challenge to this principle by the Constitutional Court. As referred in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, in a judgment of 8 June 2021, the Constitutional Court rejected the findings of the European Court of Justice in its preliminary ruling of 18 May 2021 and questioned the principle of primacy of EU law. The Commission expressed serious concerns that this judgment of the Constitutional Court goes against the principle of primacy of EU law. The Romanian government highlighted its commitment of ensuring, in line with its constitutional powers, respect for the primacy of EU law. Following this judgment, in the context of new requests for a preliminary ruling submitted by Romanian courts, the Court of Justice declared that, by virtue of the primacy of EU law, national courts should not be prevented by a risk of disciplinary sanctions from disapplying decisions of the Constitutional Court, which are contrary to EU law. Subsequently, on 23 December 2021, the Constitutional Court issued a public statement recalling the binding nature of its decisions and declared that the Court of Justice’s judgment could not be implemented without amending the Romanian Constitution. In light of the case-law of the Constitutional Court, and in particular due to the fact that non-compliance with the decisions of the Constitutional Court constitutes a disciplinary offence under national law, a Romanian court submitted a preliminary reference to the CJEU, in which context the Court of Justice ruled that the national courts must be able to examine the conformity of national provisions with EU law, regardless of whether they have been held constitutional by a decision of the national Constitutional Court. The Court also made clear that EU law precludes any national rule or practice that would give rise to disciplinary liability for national judges’ failure to comply with decisions of the Constitutional Court that are contrary to EU law. Steps were taken to address these concerns by proposing, in the context of the legislative procedure for the preparation of the new justice laws, that the disciplinary offence of disregarding a judgment of the Constitutional Court is suppressed . Moreover, the HCCJ gave several judgments setting aside the case-law of the Constitutional Court on the composition of judges’ panels to give effect to the judgment of the CJEU of 21 December 2021, thus giving precedence to the principle of primacy of EU law. The state of alert declared in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was lifted, while the emergency measures adopted have been subject to scrutiny. The state of alert was extended, each time for 30 days, by successive Government decisions and was lifted on 9 March 2022. Some of the emergency measures adopted in this context have been subject to judicial review. In particular, in line with the legal provisions on the judicial review of the administrative acts issued based on the law establishing public health measures in situations of epidemiological and biological risk, the Administrative and Fiscal Contentious Chamber of the High Court of Cassation and Justice solved, as last instance, 21 cases concerning such administrative acts. By decision of 20 October 2021, the Constitutional Court upheld a referral of unconstitutionality brought by 50 parliamentarians and declared that the Parliament’s decision approving the state of alert and the related measures introduced by the Government to prevent and combat the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were unconstitutional. Moreover, the Constitutional Court found that the state of alert can be declared for a limited period of time, which may not exceed 30 days, and may be extended for a maximum of 30 days, based on an analysis of the risk factors. On 1 January 2022, Romania had 106 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights pending implementation. At that time, Romania’s rate of leading judgments from the past ten years that remained pending was at 57% and the average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was over four years and two months. The oldest leading judgment, pending implementation for 17 years, concerns the right to protection of property due expropriations and nationalisations. On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments pending implementation has increased to 109. The Romanian Institute for Human Rights is taking steps to obtain accreditation as National Human Rights Institution. While both the Institute for Human Rights (RIHR) and the Ombudsperson applied for accreditation before the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) Sub-Committee on Accreditation in 2020, Romania currently does not have an institution accredited as a National Human Rights Institution. In 2021, the Senate rejected a legislative proposal on the merger of the RIHR into the National Council for Combating Discrimination. Following this rejection, the procedure for appointing the members of RIHR’s General Council was resumed. RIHR has also carried discussions with representatives of Senate committees regarding the amendment of its legislative framework and the need to strengthen its body of experts and ensure the necessary resources to carry out its tasks. RIHR received the support of the Senate’s Committee on Human Rights to draft a new legislative proposal to reform RIHR, strengthening its institutional capacity in accordance with the recommendations made by the Sub-Committee of Accreditation (GANHRI) to comply with the Paris Principles. Civil society is facing both legal and practical challenges. The civil society space continued to be assessed as narrowed. Whereas, following a campaign led by a group of human rights and civil society organisations (CSOs), steps were taken to modernise and improve the legislative framework regulating the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, the Parliament did not complete the procedures to adopt the new legislation. The bill remains pending in Parliament. There are concerns as regards the impact that the measures adopted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic had on the freedom of assembly. In particular, during 2021, marches, protests and political gatherings were limited to 50 persons indoors and 100 persons outdoors, under the condition that all participants wear face masks and observe social distancing measures , while the restrictions for other types of public gatherings were gradually relaxed. CSOs criticised these measures, considering them disproportionate. Instances of smear attacks against civil society have also been reported. CSOs also experienced difficulties in participating in the consultation process during the legislative procedure. In addition, CSOs expressed concerns regarding difficulties in access to funding, which constraints their activity. No additional support has been provided to CSOs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are plans to simplify registration procedures for non-governmental organisations. There have been improvements regarding the strict procedural requirements imposed on non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The General Secretariat of the Government publishes and permanently updates the register of associations and foundations, and manages the catalogue of NGOs. The Government has also initiated a reform of the legal framework for NGOs, with the purpose of simplifying registration procedures. However, concerns have been raised that while the envisaged transfer of the NGO Registry from courts to the Commercial Registry would simplify procedures for registration and amendments, it may lower the guarantees of independence that are ensured by courts. Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation_en . ActiveWatch, Centrul pentru Inovare Publică, CeRe: Centrul de Resurse pentru participare publică, Átlátszó Erdély / Transilvania Transparentă, Miliția Spirituală and, PATRIR – Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania (2021), Joint statement - ‘We ask the PNL leadership to take measures to protect the integrity of the press’ (‘Solicităm conducerii PNL să ia măsuri pentru protejarea integrității presei’) https://www.stareademocratiei.ro/2021/09/28/solicitam-conducerii-pnl-sa-ia-masuri-pentru-protejarea-integritatii-presei/ . Active Watch (2022), Contribution from Active Watch for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Adevărul (2021), ‘Prosecutors jump in defence of judges sanctioned by the SCM: “The final conviction of notorious criminals is linked to the names of those mentioned”’ (‘Procurorii sar în apărarea judecătorilor sancţionaţi de CSM: „De numele celor menţionaţi se leagă condamnarea definitivă a unor infractori notorii“’) https://adevarul.ro/locale/constanta/procurorii-sar-apararea-judecatorilor-sanctionati-csm-de-numele-celor-mentionati-leaga-condamnarea-definitiva-infractori-notorii-1_61b85ae85163ec42719149a9/index.html . Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor 2022 – country report on Romania.

Civicus (2022), Monitor tracking civic space – Romania https://monitor.civicus.org/country/romania/ . Civil Liberties Union for Europe – Romania (2022), Contribution from Civil Liberties Union for Europe – Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Civil Society Europe (2022), Contribution from Civil Society Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Chamber of Deputies (2022), Draft Law 219/2022 on the protection of whistleblowers in the public interest http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck2015.proiect?nr=219&an=2022 Coalition NGOs for Citizens (2021), ‘Relaxation measures continue to ignore the conditions for organizing and conducting public gatherings’ (‘Măsurile de relaxare ignoră în continuare condițiile de organizare și desfășurare a adunărilor publice’) https://www.stareademocratiei.ro/2021/06/22/masurile-de-relaxare-ignora-in-continuare-conditiile-de-organizare-si-desfasurare-a-adunarilor-publice/ . Constitutional Court, judgment of 16 January 2019, No. 26/2019. Constitutional Court, judgment of 8 June 2021, No. 390/2021. Constitutional Court, judgment of 15 February 2022, No. 133/2022, Case No. 180/2022. Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (2022), Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2017), Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)2 and explanatory memorandum of the Committee of Ministers on legal regulation of lobbying activities in the context of public decision making. Council of Europe: Expert Council on NGO Law (2021), The legal space for non-governmental organisations in Europe – Civil society’s perception of the implementation of Council of Europe CM Recommendation (2007)14 to Member States on the Legal Status of Non-Governmental Organisations in Europe. Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Romania https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte?years=2022&typeData=1&time=1653914309287 . Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2018), Romania – Opinion of the Venice Commission on amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code (CDL-AD(2018)021). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2019), Principles on the Protection and Promotion of the Ombudsman Institution (‘The Venice Principles’) (CDL-AD(2019)005). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2019), Romania – Opinion of the Venice Commission on emergency ordinances Geo no. 7 and Geo no. 12 amending the Laws of justice (CDL-AD(2019)014). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2021), Romania - Opinion on the draft Law for dismantling the Section for the Investigation of Offences committed within the Judiciary (CDL-AD(2021)019-e). Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2022), Romania - Opinion on the draft law on the dismantling of the section for investigating criminal offences within the judiciary (CDL-AD(2022)003-e). Council of Ministers, Resolution No. 143/2021. Council of the European Union, Annex to the Proposal for a Council Implementing Decision of 27 September 2021 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Romania (SWD(2021) 276 final).

Council of the European Union, Council Implementing Decision of 27 September 2021 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Romania (SWD(2021) 276 final). Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 18 May 2021, Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor Din România’ and Others, joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-294/19, C-355/19 and C-379/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:44. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion e.a., joined cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C0840/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1034. Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 22 February 2022, RS, C-430/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:99. Declic (2022), Contribution from Declic for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Department for the Control of the Financing of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns (2022), 2021 Annual Report https://finantarepartide.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Raport_DCFPPCE_2021.pdf . Directive (EU) 2018/1808 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities. Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Flash Eurobarometer 507: businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU. Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. European Association of Judges (2022), Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania. European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania. European Commission (2021), Report to the European Parliament and the Council on progress in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (COM(2021) 370 final). European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission (2022), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 21 July 2005, Strain and Others v. Romania, 57001/00. European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 28 October 2020, Camelia Bogdan v. Romania, 36889/18.

European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2022), Contribution from the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) (2022), Contribution from the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. European Public Prosecutor’s Office (2022), Statement from European Chief Prosecutor Laura Kövesi regarding the protection of whistleblowers in Romania, published on 30 June 2022 https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/news/statement-european-chief-prosecutor-laura-kovesi-regarding-protection-whistleblowers-romania . Franet, Human European Consultancy (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Romania, Vienna, EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-related. Funky Citizens (2022), Contribution from Funky Citizens for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Expert Forum (2021), Policy brief - Political financing in 2020: transparency and irregularities (Raport de monitorizare - Finanțarea partidelor politice în 2020: transparență și nereguli) https://expertforum.ro/en/political-financing-in-2020-transparency-and-irregularities/ . Expert Forum (2022), Contribution from Expert Forum for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. GRECO (2016), Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Romania on corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. GRECO (2018), Fourth Evaluation Round – Compliance Report on Romania on corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. GRECO (2019), Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report on Romania on corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. GRECO (2021), Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Interim Compliance Report on Romania on corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. Legislative Council (2022), Contribution from the Legislative Council for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) (2022), Open letter calling for swift and independent investigation concerning publication of stolen pictures of Emilia Șercan and leak from criminal investigation https://www.mfrr.eu/romania-open-letter-calling-for-swift-and-independent-investigation-concerning-publication-of-stolen-pictures-of-emilia-sercan-and-leak-from-criminal-investigation/ . Ministry of Interior, Anti-Corruption Directorate (2022), 2021 Annual report. Ministry of Justice (2022), Contribution from the Ministry of Justice for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets (2022), 2021 Annual report. Ombudsperson, Exception of unconstitutionality against Government emergency ordinance No. 16/2022, lodged on 24 March 2022 and registered under case No. 2688 https://avp.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Ecx-OUG-16-2022.pdf . Permanent Electoral Authority (2020), Press release regarding the development and implementation, by the Permanent Electoral Authority, of the IT application for the management of the Fiscal Register of political parties https://www.roaep.ro/prezentare/comunicat-de-presa/comunicat-de-presa-privind-dezvoltarea-si-implementarea-de-catre-autoritatea-electorala-permanenta-a-aplicatiei-informatice-pentru-gestionarea-registrului-fiscal-al-partidelor-politice/ . Prosecutor General (2022), Contribution from the Prosecutor General for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.

OECD (2022), Evaluation of the Romanian National Anti-corruption Strategy 2016-2020 https://search.oecd.org/gov/ethics/evaluation-romanian-national-anti-corruption-strategy-2016-2020.pdf . OSCE (2019), ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report on Romania – Presidential Election 10 and 24 November 2019. Reporters without Borders – Romania https://rsf.org/en/country/romania . Romanian Government (2021), Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary 2022-2025 and its related Action Plan https://sgg.gov.ro/1/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ANEXA-50.pdf . Romanian Government, National Recovery and Resilience Plan. Romanian Government (2022), Input from Romania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Romanian Judges Forum Association (2022), Movement for the Defence of the Statute of Prosecutors and ‘Initiative for Justice’ Association - Joint statement http://www.forumuljudecatorilor.ro/index.php/archives/6499 . Romanian Judges Forum Association (2022), Press release of 4 May 2022, ‘Magistrates’ Associations and Civil Society: We urge the Minister of Justice to urgently publish the draft justice laws and criminal codes and to submit them to the Venice Commission’ (‘Asociațiile de magistrați și societatea civilă: Solicităm Ministrului Justiției să publice urgent proiectele legilor justiției și ale codurilor penale și să le înainteze Comisiei de la Veneția’) http://www.forumuljudecatorilor.ro/index.php/archives/6554 . Stiripesurse.ro (2021), ‘DNA and DIICOT make a common front and send a memorandum to the CCR: they support the reduction of seniority for prosecutors’ (‘DNA și DIICOT fac front comun și trimit un memoriu la CCR: susțin reducerea vechimii pentru procurori’) https://www.stiripesurse.ro/dna-si-diicot-fac-front-comun-si-trimit-un-memoriu-la-ccr-sustin-reducerea-vechimii-pentru-procurori_1887124.html . Superior Council of the Magistracy, Section for prosecutors, Decision No. 230 of 23 March 2021, http://old.csm1909.ro/csm/linkuri/20_05_2021__101956_ro.pdf . Superior Council of the Magistracy (2022), Contribution from the Superior Council of the Magistracy for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. Annex II: Country visit to Romania The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2022 with: ·Active Watch ·Association of Romanian Judges ·Association “Mișcarea pentru apărarea statutului procurorilor” ·Bar Association ·Center for independent journalism

·Constitutional Court ·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 ·Ministry of Culture ·National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets ·National Anti-corruption Directorate ·National Anti-corruption Strategy ·National Audiovisual Council ·National Integrity Agency ·National Integrity Council ·National Union of the Romanian Judges ·Ombudsperson ·Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice

·Radio Romania ·Romanian Judges’ Forum ·Romanian Television Society ·Secretariat General of the Government ·Superior Council for the Magistracy * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: ·Amnesty International ·Article 19 ·Civil Liberties Union for Europe ·Civil Society Europe ·European Centre for Press and Media Freedom ·European Civic Forum ·European Federation of Journalists ·European Partnership for Democracy ·European Youth Forum ·Free Press Unlimited ·Human Rights Watch ·ILGA Europe ·International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)