Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Romania's progress on accompanying measures following Accession
Date: 2007-06-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, EU policy, Romania, agreement (EU), cooperation policy, corruption, judicial reform

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 27.6.2007 
COM(2007) 378 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on Romania's progress on accompanying measures following Accession 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on Romania's progress on accompanying measures following Accession 

1. 

INTRODUCTION  

1.1. 

Context 

When Romania entered the EU on 1 January 2007, special provisions were made to 
facilitate and support its smooth accession while, at the same time, safeguarding the 
proper functioning of EU policies and institutions. 

As required of all Member States, on joining the EU, Romania took on the rights and 
obligations  of  membership.  As  is  normal  practice,  the  Commission  monitors  the 
application  of  law  (the  acquis  communautaire)  to  ensure  that  these  obligations  are 
being met.  

In addition, in line with the arrangements made for those countries which joined the 
EU  in  2004,  provisions  were  made  in  the  Accession  Treaty  for  safeguards  and 
transitional arrangements (for example, restrictions on free movement of workers, on 
access to road transport networks; provisions on veterinary, phytosanitary and food 
safety rules). The Accession Treaty made clear that if there are serious shortcomings 
in  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  the  acquis  in  the  economic,  internal 
market and justice and home affairs areas, safeguard measures can be taken1 for up to 
three  years  after  accession  Romania's  accession  was  also  accompanied  by  a  set  of 
specific accompanying measures, put in place to prevent or remedy shortcomings in 
the areas of food safety, agricultural funds, the judicial reform and the fight against 
corruption.  For  the  last  two  a  cooperation  and  verification  mechanism  was 
established,  setting  out  benchmarks  to  provide  the  framework  for  monitoring 
progress in this area2.  

This  mechanism  was  put  in  place  to  improve  the  functioning  of  the  legislative, 
administrative  and  judicial  system  and  to  address  serious  deficiencies  in  fighting 
corruption. The purpose of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism is to ensure 
that measures are taken to provide assurance to Romanians and to the other Member 
States that administrative and judicial decisions, legislation and practices in Romania 
are in line with the rest of the EU. Progress on judicial reform and the fight against 
corruption will allow Romanian citizens and business to enjoy the rights they are due 
as  EU  citizens.  Without  irreversible  progress  in  these  areas,  Romania  risks  being 
unable to correctly apply EU law. 

1 
2 

Articles 36, 37 and 38 of the Act of Accession. 
Commission  Decision  2006/928/EC  of  13  December  2006  establishing  a  mechanism  for  cooperation 
and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform 
and the fight against corruption (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 56). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission was asked to report on these accompanying measures on a regular 
basis.  In  the  case  of  the  Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism,  reports  were 
requested  on  a  six  monthly  basis,  starting  in  June  2007.  This  report  presents  a 
comprehensive overview of the state of play on the accompanying measures and is 
the first report on the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. It looks at all areas 
in which accompanying measures were put in place, focusing on judicial reform and 
the fight against corruption. 

1.2.  Methodology 

This report has been drawn up from an array of information sources. The Romanian 
Government  has  been  a  primary  source  of  information.  Information  and  analyses 
were also received from the EC Representation Office and Member State diplomatic 
missions in Romania, civil society organisations, associations and expert reports. The 
Commission  organised  missions  to  Romania  during  April  2007,  under  the 
Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism.  They  were  supported  by  individual 
experts  from  Member  States  and  Commission  services.  The  purpose  was  to  seek 
independent assessment of progress. The experts drew up reports which subsequently 
were transmitted to Romania for correction of any factual inaccuracies. 

Romania  submitted  a  first  report  on  progress  achieved  under  the  Cooperation  and 
Verification  Mechanism  by  31  March  2007  and  has  continued  to  update  the 
Commission on pertinent developments since then. 

2. 

ACCOMPANYING MEASURES: STATE OF PLAY 

Accompanying  measures  for  Romania  cover  agricultural  funding,  food  safety, 
judicial  reform  and  the  fight  against  corruption.  This  chapter  briefly  examines 
developments  in  the  first  two  of  these  areas,  elements  of  which  are  also  subject  to 
separate reporting requirements. Progress in the areas of judicial reform and the fight 
against corruption is assessed in Chapter 3. 

Further information is provided in annex on the state of play of safeguard clauses and 
other provisions in these areas. Given the established implementation structures and 
reporting  mechanisms  in  the  agriculture,  animal  health  and  food  safety  areas,  these 
subjects will not be covered in the future in this horizontal report. If further decisions 
are needed in these areas they will be taken on an individual basis in accordance with 
the rules governing these sectors. 

2.1. 

Agricultural funds 

For  agricultural  funds,  Member  States  are  obliged  to  have  accredited  and  efficient 
paying  agencies  to  ensure  the  sound  management  and  control  of  agricultural 
expenditure. Member States are also required to operate an integrated administration 
and  control  system  (IACS)  for  direct  payments  to  farmers  and  for  parts  of  rural 
development  expenditures  (in  order  i.a.  to  avoid  fraudulent  practices  and  irregular 
payments).  If  Member  States  fail  to  operate  such  control  systems  properly,  the 
Commission decides ex-post on financial corrections on an annual basis. Given the 
risk  that  IACS  would  not  function  properly  from  the  point  of  Romanian  accession 
was  too  high,  the  Commission  established  a  safeguard  mechanism  that  could  be 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
applied  to  Romania  if  the  elements  of  IACS  (integrated  administration  and  control 
system) or the other elements necessary to ensure the correct payment are not set-up 
or  are  seriously  deficient.  The  safeguard  mechanism  foresees  that  IACS  related 
expenditure  could  be  provisionally  reduced  by  25%.  The  main  concerns  related  to 
IACS  were  the  connection  between  farm  register  and  the  LPIS  (land  parcel 
identification  system),  administrative  capacity  and  logistics,  IT  system  and  the 
quality  of  data  recorded.  From  the  report  received  by  the  Romanian  authorities  in 
March  2007  it  seems  that  the  system  is  not  yet  fully  in  place:  two  out  of  the  four 
IACS  modules  are  only  available  as  prototypes.  Furthermore  the  administrative 
checks  module  does  not  appear  to  have  all  the  needed  functionalities.  The  report 
reveals  considerable  problems  in  the  functioning  of  the  IT-systems.  Decisions  on 
whether it is necessary to apply safeguard measures (which could potentially entail a 
reduction  in  IACS  related  expenditure)  will  be  taken  based  on  the  results  of  audits 
the Commission will perform in June-July 2007 and an assessment of the report the 
Romanian Authorities submitted in March 2007. 

2.2. 

Animal Health and Food Safety 

In the area of animal health, transitional measures concerning classical swine fever 
have been taken and eradication plans have been approved. A review of these efforts 
is  planned  for  September  2007.  The  Commission  has  also  invoked  an  additional 
safeguard  to  limit  intra-community  trade  in  horses  from  Romania.  Romania  is 
upgrading its rendering plants and a progress report has been requested. In the meat, 
fish and milk sectors, transitional measures have been granted to a large number of 
establishments  and  they  are  allowed  to  market  only  on  the  national  market  in 
Romania. Specific measures have been adopted for raw milk. 

3. 

JUDICIAL REFORM AND THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION 

3.1. 

Summary overview 

Reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption has been closely monitored 
under  the  Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism.  The  follow  up  provides  a 
summary  analysis  and  a  detailed  explanation  of  progress  in  relation  to  the 
benchmarks  under  the  Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism.  The  detailed 
explanation  is  structured  on  actions  which  were  used  as  indicators  of  progress 
towards meeting benchmarks. 

Romania has made progress in varying degrees in meeting the benchmarks set out in 
the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. It is important to see these benchmarks 
as representing more than a checklist of individual actions that can be ticked off one 
by  one.  They  are  all  interlinked.  Progress  on  one  has  an  impact  on  others.  Each 
benchmark  is  a  building  block  in  the  construction  of  an  independent,  impartial 
judicial and administrative system. Creating and sustaining such a system is a long 
term  process.  It  involves  fundamental  changes  of  a  systemic  dimension.  The 
benchmarks cannot therefore be taken in isolation. They need to be seen together as 
part of a broad reform of the judicial system and fight against corruption for which a 
long  term  political  commitment  is  needed.  Greater  evidence  of  implementation  on 
the ground is needed in order to demonstrate that change is irreversible. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
The Romanian Government is committed to judicial reform and cleansing the system 
of  corruption.  In  all  areas,  the  Romanian  authorities  demonstrate  good  will  and 
determination.  They  have  prepared  the  necessary  draft  laws,  action  plans  and 
programmes.  However,  the  real  test  can  only  be  met  through  determined 
implementation  of  these  actions  on  the  ground  every  day.  There  is  still  a  clear 
weakness in translating these intentions into results. Romania has stepped up efforts 
at the highest levels in the fight against corruption. While recognizing these efforts 
much  remains  to  be  done.  Progress  in  the  short  time  since  the  Cooperation  and 
Verification Mechanism was set up is still insufficient. 

Deeply  rooted  problems,  notably  corruption  require  the  irreversible  establishment 
and  effective  functioning  of  sustainable  structures  at  investigative  and  enforcement 
level capable of sending strong dissuasive signals. In addition, the structural changes 
which are needed impact on the society at large and require a step change which goes 
much  beyond  the  mere  fulfilment  of  the  benchmarks.  This  requires  a  strong  long 
term commitment by Romania and can only be successful if the strict separation of 
the  executive,  legislative  and  judicial  power  is  respected  and  if  stable  political 
conditions and commitment are in place.  

3.2. 

Assessment 

3.2.1.  Benchmark 1: Ensure a more transparent, and efficient judicial process notably by 
enhancing  the  capacity  and  accountability  of  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy. 
Report and monitor the impact of the new civil and penal procedures codes 

All  measures  of  the  action  plan  of  the  Superior  Council  of  the  Magistracy  (SCM) 
have been implemented and show first results notably regarding the establishment of 
a  coherent  jurisprudence.  The  absence  of  a  unified  practice  for  property  restitution 
cases however remains a concern. 

Evidence of the monitoring practice to date regarding the impact of amendments to 
the  civil  and  criminal  procedural  codes  provides  assurance  for  a  credible 
commitment  of  the  authorities  to  an  integration  of  practitioners'  comments  into  the 
new draft procedural codes. There is good progress in work on the Civil Procedure 
Code and little progress on the new Criminal Procedure Code. 

Further efforts are needed to complete the staffing and organisational reforms of the 
judicial system and to assure their sustainability. Reforms in this area have only been 
implemented partially. A needs-based staffing policy is complicated by existing legal 
guarantees  of  tenure  of  judges  and  prosecutors.  The  option  currently  envisaged  of 
filling  vacancies  through  "fast  track"  admission  procedures  alongside  the  annual 
competitions  raises  concerns  as  to  the  quality  of  all  new  recruits  to  the  Romanian 
judiciary. 

Overall,  Romania  has  achieved  some  progress  in  the  reform  of  its  judicial 
system. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Detailed Assessment 

•  Implement  any  necessary  measures,  including  those  provided  for  in  the  relevant 
Action Plan of the Superior Council of the Magistracy adopted in June 2006, that 
ensure a consistent interpretation and application of the law at all levels of court 
throughout  the  country  following  adequate  consultation  with  practising  judges, 
prosecutors and lawyers; monitor the impact of recently-adopted legislative and 
administrative measures 

Actions  and  measures  included  in  the  Action  Plan  adopted  in  June  2006  by  the 
Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  (SCM)  have  been  adopted  and  implemented  to 
ensure the necessary conditions - legislative, administrative or otherwise – are in 
place  for  courts  to  become  more  aware  and  more  engaged  in  ensuring  that  their 
jurisprudence is consistent with that of other courts at the same level of jurisdiction 
as well as with that of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ). 

The  Appeal  in  the  interest  of  law  is  the  central  instrument  in  that  respect3.  Re-
modelled in 2005, it is now accessible to Courts of Appeal (which have been the 
greatest source of contradictory jurisprudence), and a binding effect is given to the 
rulings  issued  by  the  HCCJ  in  the  adjudication  of  these  appeals.  Judging  by  the 
pace of filing and ruling on the appeals in the interest of law in the second half of 
2006  and  the  first  months  of  2007,  this  procedure  has  become  a  meaningful 
instrument towards unification of jurisprudence. As such, this instrument may well 
prove  sufficient  and  further  legislative  initiatives  with  the  aim  of  creating  new 
mechanisms  for  unification  of  jurisprudence  should  be  carefully  weighed  against 
the positive results attained by the appeals in the interest of law4. 

Access  of  magistrates  to  jurisprudence  has  been  improved:  availability  of  the 
HCCJ's Digests is ensured to all courts and full texts of HCCJ decisions are now 
accessible on the Court’s website. The intensive process of court automation in the 
past  years  has  increased  access  to  legal  materials  and  jurisprudence  for 
magistrates.  At  horizontal  level,  Courts  of  Appeal  publish  and  distribute  among 
themselves  the  so-called  Quarterly  Leaflets  comprising  relevant  case  law  from 
their respective jurisdiction. 

National  Institute  of  Magistracy  (NIM)  continuous  training  curriculum  and  a 
decentralised training programme are in place. The 2007 NIM continuous training 
curriculum  comprises  19  such  seminars  for  120  magistrates  (as  compared  to  9 
seminars  in  2006)  and  the  2007  decentralised  continuous  training  programme 
provides for a minimum of 3 seminars/year to be organised for court/prosecutors’ 

3 

4 

This is a special appeal aimed exclusively at unifying the jurisprudence since it does not stem from a 
specific  proceeding.  The  power  to  file  such  an  appeal  is  entrusted  to  the  General  Prosecutor’s  Office 
attached to the HCCJ and to the leading boards of the Courts of Appeal. 
The decisions made by the HCCJ in an appeal in the interest of the law are binding for all courts and the 
established jurisprudence can only be changed by the law. 
The  SCM,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  the  HCCJ  continue  to  work  on  a  draft  legislation  that  would 
introduce  a  new  procedure  before  the  HCCJ,  giving  lower  courts  the  possibility  to  seek  a  guiding 
interpretation of the law via a preliminary ruling of the High Court. The new mechanism is, however, 
still controversial among practitioners and its opportunity remains questionable. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
office  (as  compared  to  a  minimum  of  1  seminar/year  in  2006,  when  135  such 
seminars were organised). 

The  SCM  established  a  mechanism  for  monitoring  the  effects  that  the  measures 
have on the jurisprudence country-wide. A regular consultation mechanism among 
courts  has  been  established  on  matters  related  to  uniformity  of  court  practice. 
Since January 2007, carrying on the implementation of the 2006 Action Plan of the 
SCM,  regular  meetings  of  the  presidents  of  the  sections  of  the  HCCJ  with  their 
counterparts from the appellate courts are held in order to harmonise the practise 
and discuss possible proposals for appeals in the interest of the law. In February 
2007, the SCM stipulated an obligation for each court to hold monthly meetings of 
the  judges  at  each  level  of  jurisdiction,  to  ensure  appropriate  communication 
among  practitioners  at  local  level.  The  Council  has  also  conceived  a  central 
mechanism  whereby  it  holds  regular  meetings  with  presidents  of  sections  from 
each  Courts  of  Appeal  as  well  as  the  HCCJ.  The  purpose  of  the  meetings  is  to 
create  a  forum  where  all  courts  ruling  on  final  appeals  (HCCJ  and  Courts  of 
Appeal),  and  thus  setting  cassation  practice,  discuss  those  legal  matters  that  are 
commonly identified as causing contradictory jurisprudence. 

Finally,  it  has  to  be  mentioned  that  achieving  a  unified  practice  is  sometimes 
hampered by the frequent changes in the legislation, some of which are linked to 
the consolidation of the justice reform. 

•  Design  and  implement  a  rational  and  realistic  staffing  model  for  the  justice 

system on the basis of the ongoing needs assessment 

The situation of human resources in the Romanian judicial system, as well as the 
management  capacity  at  central  level  and  at  court  or  prosecutor’s  office  level, 
continue  to  challenge  the  authorities.  The  SCM  and  the  General  Prosecutor’s 
Office  (GPO)  are  addressing  these  tasks5.  Staff  rationalisation  and  institutional 
restructuring are currently under way. 

Judicial  authorities  are  usually  to  decide,  at  conceptual  level,  what  matters  fall 
within the general term of “court management” and how various managerial tasks 
under  this  concept  will  be  distributed  between  the  court  presidents/chief 
prosecutors,  the  economic  directors,  the  clerks,  the  magistrates  themselves  and, 

5 

There are at present 428 vacant positions for judges (106 of which are leading positions) out of a total 
of 4 469 judicial posts and 604 vacancies for prosecutors (120 of which are leading positions) out of a 
total of 2 784 prosecution posts. 
A  UK  bilateral  technical  assistance  programme  on  court  management,  has  initiated  an  assessment  of 
possible avenues for improving court management. In addition, a study on the workload of courts and 
prosecutor’s office served as a basis for an initiative of the Ministry of Justice and SCM to rationalise 
the  staffing  structures  of  those  offices  with  workloads  well  below  average.  For  its  part,  the  General 
Prosecutor’s  Office,  attached  to  the  HCCJ,  concluded  a  restructuring  strategy,  endorsed  by  the  SCM 
and adopted by the Ministry of Justice in April 2007, which aims to reduce the number of GPO Sections 
from 9 to 4 and adopt a more flexible and modern prosecutorial service. 
In December 2006, the SCM approved a study on the workload of the courts compiled on the basis of 
statistical  data  collected  in  2005  and  2006.  The  report  shows  significant  growth  in  the  activity  of  the 
courts  in  2006,  at  the  level  of  first  instance  courts  and  tribunals,  as  well  as  of  the  workload  per 
individual judge, mainly at the level of tribunals. The same report indicates that at the level of the courts 
of  appeal  the  volume  of  activity  continued  to  decrease.  Romania  aims  to  take  into  consideration  the 
main findings when completing the study on the optimal volume of cases per judge. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
possibly,  a  court  administrator/manager.  Moreover,  an  overhaul  of  the  human 
resources strategy and the concrete operation of a reformed staffing table require a 
degree of flexibility in the management of magistrates’ careers that is greater than 
the current legislative framework allows for. 

The  phenomenon  of  the  secondment  of  magistrates  appears  to  be  problematic. 
About  200  judges  and  prosecutors  are  seconded  from  their  judicial  positions  to 
different institutions (SCM, Ministry of Justice, NIM, NSC etc.). In several cases 
the  original  positions  of  the  seconded  magistrates  are  not  considered  formally 
vacant and thus not filled because the concerned magistrates have a right to retain 
their positions within the judiciary. The only possible solution is to second a judge 
from  another  court  in  order  to  temporarily  cover  the  de  facto  vacant  position. 
Moreover, the legislation does not provide for any numerical limit on the number 
of  secondments,  and  they  are  very  attractive  due  to  the  higher  salaries  that 
seconded  magistrates  earn.  The  SCM  is  however  becoming  stricter  in  granting 
secondments  to  magistrates.  Another  related  topic  is  the  way  the  competent 
authorities6 may modify the personnel scheme of the judiciary. The elimination of 
a position from the personnel scheme is allowed only if the position concerned is 
vacant. As a result, the government could not reduce the number of positions in a 
court which had all its assignment positions occupied, even if the workload of the 
court showed that most of them were redundant. 

The draft conclusions of a study of small courts’ activity, which is under analysis 
by the SCM and Ministry of Justice confirm that many of the small courts require 
a rationalisation of their staffing structures (for some even the discontinuation of 
activity); hence, the re-arrangement of human resources to better reflect the actual 
workload of each court requires a careful balance of administrative and legislative 
initiatives,  which  have  not  yet  materialised  (a  recent  draft  piece  of  legislation 
prepared by the Ministry of Justice, in which it aimed to provide for an exceptional 
transfer procedure in cases of courts’ or prosecutor’s offices’ reorganisation, was 
opposed by the SCM). 

Another  remedy  considered  by  the  SCM  within  a  longer-term  human  resources 
strategy is to lower the admission standards for magistrates as a temporary solution 
until  vacancies  are  filled.  Following  the  2004  and  2005  legislative  reforms, 
magistracy in Romania comes with life-tenure and a considerable amount of career 
protection  rules.  Potentially  lower-standard  recruits  may  prove  difficult  to 
eliminate should they be later found incapable of meeting the expectations of the 
system. 

•  Develop and  implement a plan to restructure the  Public Ministry that addresses 

the existing managerial shortcomings and human resources issues 

A plan to restructure the Public Ministry was developed and its implementation is 
ongoing. The process is nevertheless hindered by the lack of an efficient staffing 
model for the justice system. 

6 

Articles 120 and 121 of Law n. 304/2004 on the Organisation of the Judiciary. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Plan  for  the  Reorganisation  of  the  Public  Ministry  was  drafted  based  on  the 
analysis of the 2005 and 2006 activity reports of the Public Ministry. 

On 2 October 2006 the new General Prosecutor of Romania was appointed by the 
President, proposed by the Minister of Justice, and endorsed by SCM. 

The  main  shortcomings  concern  managerial  deficiencies  and  an  uneven  and 
inefficient  distribution  of  prosecutors  within  the  offices  of  the  Public  Ministry, 
taking into account the workload per prosecutor. 

The  Plan  is  therefore  organised  into  the  following  5  steps:  (1)  Restructuring  the 
Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (POCCJ); 
(2) Drafting and approving the new Internal Regulation of the Public Ministry; (3) 
Redistribution  of  prosecutors’  positions;  (4)  Filling  the  vacant  leading  positions; 
(5) Filling the vacant non-leading positions. 

The first two steps have been accomplished already. 

The third step is ongoing and the deadline is the end of 2007: the majority of the 
cases  are  dealt  with  by  the  prosecutor’s  offices  attached  to  the  courts  of  first 
instance. Consequently, the personnel scheme has to be reorganised by transferring 
some positions from the higher prosecutor’s offices to the lower ones. As currently 
the  redundant  positions  may  not  be  redistributed  if  they  are  occupied,  the 
reorganisation requires some time. 

The  fourth  step  is  ongoing  and  is  a  “permanent  measure”.  In  autumn  2006  open 
competitions  for  leading  positions  were  held  and  17  leading  positions  at 
prosecutor’s  offices  were  filled.  Between  January  and  March  2007  five  more 
leading positions have been filled at the POCCJ. Further competitions for leading 
positions are scheduled for spring and autumn 2007. 

The fifth step is also ongoing and is also a “permanent measure”. The normal way 
of recruiting prosecutors does not permit the vacancies to be filled as the NIM only 
enables  180  candidates  per  year  to  graduate  and  only  40%  of  these  become  a 
prosecutor.  

•  Monitor the impact that the newly-adopted amendments to the Civil and Criminal 
Procedure  Codes  have  on  the  justice  system  so  that  any  necessary  corrective 
measures can be incorporated in the planned new Codes  

The  Law  n.  459/2006  amending  the  Civil  Procedure  Code  was  adopted  in 
December 2006 and entered into force in January 2007. The main changes concern 
(a) the transfer of competence for solving unfounded claims for challenging judges 
to  the  court  before  which  the  claims  are  submitted,  (b)  the  simplification  of  the 
coercive enforcement procedure. 

The Ministry of Justice monitored the impact of these amendments by requesting 
the  assessment  of  the  concerned  courts  and  gathering  spontaneous  suggestions 
submitted by judges. As only a short period has passed since its entry into force, 
the courts mostly referred to the law's potential impact.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The Law n. 356/2006 amending the Criminal Procedure Code was adopted in July 
2006 and entered into force on 9 September 2006. Further amendments had been 
made  by  the  Government  Emergency  Ordinance  (GEO)  no.  60/2006.  The  main 
amendments concern (a) the strengthening of alternative measures to detention on 
remand,  (b)  the  restriction  of  the  grounds  for  challenging  judges,  (c)  the 
elimination of the direct committal for trial in case of minor offences prosecutable 
upon victim’s request (at present a prosecutor has to investigate the case and often 
the victim’s request is withdrawn), (d) the restriction of the courts’ possibility to 
return the case to the prosecutor for further investigation. 

The Ministry of Justice monitored the impact of the amendments by collecting the 
opinions  of  the  concerned  judges,  who  made  a  list  of  suggestions  for  the  new 
the 
Criminal  Procedure  Code.  The  SCM  also  contributed.  Nevertheless, 
contributions  mentioned  have  not  been  taken  into  consideration  yet.  Some 
concerns include the possibilities for prosecutors to intercept correspondence and 
tap telephones for 48 hours without an order from a judge, or the encroachment on 
the lawyer-client relationship through the interception of telephone calls. 

The criminal legislation reform was jeopardised by the Senate’s Legal Committee 
decision in March 2007 to submit for the Plenum’s vote the Criminal Code which 
was  adopted  in  2004  and  suspended  in  2005,  due  to  its  incompatibility  with  the 
procedural norms and other substantial inconsistencies identified by practitioners. 
If  it  had  entered  into  force,  the  2004  Code  would  have  caused  significant 
difficulties for the criminal courts and the prosecution services and run a serious 
risk of rendering the entire criminal justice system non-operational. The Plenum of 
the  Senate  decided  in  late  March  to  remit  the  2004  Criminal  Code  back  to  the 
Legal Committee for further consideration. This will allow for a debate of the new 
proposal  for  the  Criminal  Code  as  well  as  for  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code. 
Romania expects this for public debate by autumn 2007. 

•  Report  and  monitor  on  the  progress  made,  as  regards  adopting  the  new  Codes 
including adequate consultations and the impact it will have on the justice system 

The  situation  is  very  different  for  the  two  new  procedure  codes.  The  process  is 
under  way  and  well  advanced  for  the  Civil  Procedure  Code  but  only  starting  for 
the  other  one  although  progress  has  been  made.  The  composition  of  the 
commission  for  drafting  the  new  Criminal  Procedure  Code  was  finalized  and 
approved by Order of the Minister of Justice no 1251/C of 17 May 2007. 

New Civil Procedure Code 

The  Commission  for  Drafting  the  New  Civil  Procedure  Code  was  established  in 
20067. The Commission has drafted about 250 articles (of 7-800 articles in total), 
which concern the trial at first instance. The structure of the code has been decided 
upon. 

7 

It is composed of 21 members. 11 of them are staff of the Department for Drafting Normative Texts, 
Studying  and  Documentation  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice;  one  is  a  State  Secretary  of  the  Ministry  of 
Justice and nine are professors, practising lawyers and judges. Many contributions have been received 
from judges all over the country. The Commission divided itself into subgroups working on a specific 
area of the new code. The subgroups meet at least once a week. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Romania expects the work to be finalised by the end of December 2007. After the 
governmental approval that should follow a public debate, the text will be sent to 
the Parliament. Adoption is foreseen by the summer of 2008 and a vacatio legis of 
at least 6 months will be provided. 

As for the new courts’ jurisdiction, the following is foreseen: (1) the courts of first 
instance  will  have  a  limited  jurisdiction;  (2)  the  tribunals  will  have  a  mixed 
jurisdiction,  acting  as  first  instance  courts  in  specified  matters  and  as  appellate 
courts  on  the  appeals  lodged  against  the  decisions  of  the  lower  courts;  (3)  the 
courts of appeal will decide the appeals against the judgments of the tribunals and 
will act as a first instance court in administrative claims; (4) the HCCJ will decide 
only the second appeals (recurs) against any decision made at the second instance 
level.  In  this  way  the  HCCJ  will  become  a  real  court  of  cassation,  dealing  only 
with  legal  issues.  A  strict  filter  of  admissibility  of  cases  is  foreseen  to  avoid 
overloading the HCCJ. Romania expects that the High Court, being the only court 
in the country competent to make a final decision on legal questions, will lead the 
jurisprudence and substantially contribute to unification of the practise. 

The  Commission  for  Drafting  the  New  Civil  Procedure  Code  is  considering  a 
solution to the problem of the exceptions of unconstitutionality as a way to delay 
the proceedings8. The chosen solution is that when the parties raise a question of 
constitutionality of a law, which is relevant in the case, the question is sent to the 
Constitutional Court but the trial proceeds. If the law is declared unconstitutional 
the concerned party will file an appeal or a motion for revision. 

New Criminal Procedure Code 

The Commission for Drafting the New Criminal Procedure Code started its work 
in January 2007. 

At  the  moment,  the  members  of  the  Commission9  are  working  on  outlining  the 
new  Code.  They  have  elaborated  some  rough  drafts  of  the  scheme  but  the  final 
version is not ready. 

The  new  criminal  procedure  will  be  mainly  adversarial.  For  serious  and  middle 
level  crimes  the  prosecutions  will  be  mandatory  whereas  for  petty  offences  the 
prosecutor will be given the discretionary power not to prosecute. 

8 

9 

When an exception of unconstitutionality is raised, the court is allowed only to check if the challenged 
law is relevant in the case. If it is so, the court shall hand the file to the Constitutional Court and the 
main  trial  shall  be  automatically  suspended.  Hence,  also  totally  unfounded  exceptions  can  cause  a 
substantial delay, given that the Constitutional Court is overloaded. 
Initially composed of five members, the Commission now comprises 17 members. Following the Order 
of the Ministry of Justice of May 2007, out of those 17 members, are one state secretary in the Ministry 
of  Justice,  three  law  professors,  four judges  (one  from  the  HCCJ,  two  from  courts  of  appeal  and one 
from a tribunal), two prosecutors (one from DNA and one from a prosecutors’ office attached to a court 
of appeal), one attorney, one expert from the Legislative Council, one academic assistant and four legal 
advisors  from  the  Legislative  Department  within  the  Ministry  of  Justice.  Initially  meeting  twice  a 
month, Romania reports that the Commission works now on a permanent basis and meets daily, as from 
23 May. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
So far, the Commission has had no contact with the other Drafting Commission in 
order  to  facilitate  timely  solution  of  potentially  divergent  positions  on  common 
principle such as exceptions of unconstitutionality. 

•  Enhance  the  capacity  of  the  Superior  Council  of  the  Magistracy  to  perform  its 
core  responsibilities  as  well  as  its  accountability.  In  particular,  address  the 
potential  conflicts  of  interest  and  unethical  actions  by  individual  Council 
members.  Recruit  judicial  inspectors,  according  to  the  newly-adopted  objective 
criteria, who should also have a greater regional representation 

The  administrative  capacity  of  the  SCM  to  discharge  its  competences  under  the 
law has now been fully achieved. The Council operates coherently in all its areas 
of responsibility and employs a system of Working Groups, under the coordination 
of one permanent member of the Council, for the monitoring and implementation 
of  activities  in  each  respective  area.  The  new  management  team  of  the  SCM, 
elected  in  January  2007,  committed  itself  to  a  functional  relationship  with  the 
Ministry of Justice and other state authorities as well as to greater involvement of 
the SCM in those legislative debates that concern the judicial system. 

The accountability and ethical standards of the Council and its individual members 
remain issues of concern. The same applies for the potential conflict of interests of 
the  SCM  members.  The  law  allows  the  present  Council  members  to  choose 
between being permanent and exercising the function of Council member and that 
of leadership in a court or prosecutor’s office concurrently10. Moreover, on matters 
such  as  ethical  standards  for  individual  members  or  the  potential  conflict  of 
interests, the Council has consistently adopted a formalistic position whereby there 
cannot be a presumption of lack of integrity for SCM members and that allegations 
of unethical behaviour would be treated on a case by case basis. 

With  regard  to  the  recruitment  of  judicial  inspectors,  the  Council  used  a  well-
defined and objective procedure in all of its recent recruitment rounds. The SCM 
was  also  mindful  of  the  geographical  representation  among  the  newly  recruited 
inspectors  and  broke 
the  monopoly  which  magistrates  from  Bucharest 
courts/prosecutor’s offices held until recently. 

3.2.2.  Benchmark  2:  Establish,  as  foreseen,  an  integrity  agency  with  responsibilities  for 
verifying assets, incompatibilities and potential conflicts of interest, and for issuing 
mandatory decisions on the basis of which dissuasive sanctions can be taken 

The  law  on  the  National  Integrity  Agency  amended  by  government  emergency 
ordinance entitles the agency to verify assets, incompatibilities and potential conflicts 
of interest of a large number of higher public- and elected officials. It also provides 
for  issuing  mandatory  decisions  on  the  basis  of  which  dissuasive  sanctions  may  be 
taken. The agency is expected to be operational by October 2007. 

Legal concerns in relation to the independence of the agency and to the effectiveness 
of  its  powers  to  investigate  and  impose  dissuasive  sanctions  are  only  partially 

10 

Seven SCM members have chosen permanent activity; the president of the SCM has de jure permanent 
activity during the one year leadership mandate. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
mediated by the amendments imposed by the government emergency ordinance. This 
ordinance only stays in force until confirmed or changed by Parliament.  

Romania  has  made  substantial  progress  in  reaching  this  benchmark.  It  is 
however  too  early  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  Agency  in  achieving  its 
objectives until it has been set up and has established a track record.  

Detailed Assessment 

•  Adopt legislation establishing an effective and independent integrity agency with 
responsibilities  for  verifying  assets,  potential  incompatibilities  and  conflicts  of 
interest, as well as issuing mandatory decisions on the basis of which dissuasive 
sanctions can be taken 

The Ministry of Justice drafted the law on setting up the National Integrity Agency 
(NIA)  with  jurisdiction  over  verifying  assets,  incompatibilities  and  potential 
conflicts of interest.  

The draft law was approved by Government, in July 2006, and finally adopted by 
the Romanian Senate in May 200711. 

Under the law, President and Vice-Presidents of the agency are to be appointed by 
the  Senate,  upon  proposal  of  the  National  Integrity  Council,  for  a  four-year 
mandate,  following  a  competition/an  exam12.  At  the  proposal  of  the  National 
Integrity Council the President and Vice-Presidents are also removed from office 
by the Senate. 

The  NIA  carries  out  verification  activities  in  wealth,  conflict  of  interests  and 
incompatibilities13. 

The law provides for an annual independent external audit, financed from its own 
budget. All dignitaries and public officers from national and central level are under 
the obligation to submit wealth and interests statements14. 

The  integrity  inspector  shall  proceed  to  the  control  of  wealth,  verification  of  the 
conflicts  of  interests  or  incompatibilities,  ex  officio  or  upon  request  from  an 
interested party, in compliance with the requirements provided by the law thereof. 
The  beginning  of  the  control  procedure  will  be  notified  to  the  person  subject  to 
verification who has the right to be assisted or represented by an attorney. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Law n. 144 of 25 May 2007 on the establishment, organisation and functioning of the National Integrity 
Agency, as published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no 359 of 25 May 2007. 
The  National  Integrity  Council  is  a  body  without  legal  personality  that  does  not  function  on  a 
permanent  basis,  staffed  by  Government  representatives,  senators  and  members  of  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies, representatives of the magistrates’ associations and of the elected leaders of the local public 
administration bodies, of the public officers and of civil society. The Council submits an annual report 
regarding the Agency’s activity to the Senate. 
During  their  investigation  activity,  the  integrity  inspectors  may  order  witness  hearings,  expertise,  and 
may request all documents and information necessary for the drafting of the ascertaining act from all the 
public institutions and bodies involved, as well as from other public and private law entities. 
Failure to publish the wealth or interest statement results in a fine provided by law as does failure to 
submit  the  statement  and  late  submission.  The  submission  of  false  wealth  or  interests  statements  is 
considered a crime and is punished with imprisonment. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In order to protect the dignitaries and the public  officers against abusive actions, 
the  law  provides  for  an  imprisonment  sanction  against  persons  who  make  false 
statements or declarations. 

The integrity inspector shall notify the court if, on the available evidence, there is a 
notable  difference  between  the  possessed  wealth  and  the  declared  one,  which 
cannot be reasonably justified15. In this case, the court may order the confiscation 
of a part of the wealth or of a certain asset. If the court, through a definitive and 
irrevocable decision, declares that the wealth was illegally acquired and orders the 
confiscation measure, the law provides the sanction of removing from office and 
prohibition from exercising a high-ranking or public office position, for a period of 
3 years after the removal from office, except for those occupying elected offices. 
The definitive and irrevocable decision declaring the conflict of interests shall be 
submitted  to  the  disciplinary  commissions  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  the 
authorities, for the disciplinary sanctioning of that person or for the removal from 
office. 

Several concerns have already been expressed regarding the final version of NIA, 
and in particular: 

– 

– 

Originally, the goal of the draft was to set up an Agency able to verify 
and  take  action  in  a  zone  not  covered  by  any  other  institution  in 
Romania – wealth that cannot be justified by the incomes of the verified 
person. However the adopted form retains the concept of "illicit" wealth 
instead  of  "unjustified"  wealth.  "Illicit"  wealth  can  be  confiscated  but 
needs  to  be  proven  before  hand  to  result  from  an  illegal/illicit  action. 
This  zone  nevertheless,  on  the  one  hand,  is  already  covered  by 
prosecutors/police  (for  criminal  acts)  and  fiscal  authorities,  police  etc. 
(misdemeanour,  civil)  and,  on  the  other  hand,  there  might  be  a 
considerable  number  of  cases  where,  although  the  assets  unjustifiably 
overpass the incomes, "illegal" acts cannot be proven. 

The percentage defining the "notable difference" between the possessed 
wealth  and  the  declared  one,  upon  which  the  integrity  inspector  shall 
notify the court (at least 10% but not less than the equivalent in lei of 
20.000  Euro16)  seems  particularly  high  compared  to  the  2%  originally 
proposed. 

On  some  aspects  of  those  two  points,  the  GEO  nr  49/01/06/2007,  entered  into 
force  in  June  2007,  does  make  some  positive  changes.  In  particular,  it  replaces 
"illicit  wealth"  with  "unjustified  wealth".  It  also  allows  investigations  to  begin 
when a 10 000 Euro discrepancy between wealth and income is found. 

15 

16 

The notable difference is defined under the law as the difference between the existing wealth and the 
acquired incomes which is higher than 10% but is not less than the equivalent in lei of 20 000 Euro. A 
Government  Emergency  Ordinance  amending  and  supplementing  Law  n.  144/2007  on 
the 
establishment, organisation and functioning of the National Integrity Agency (GEO no. 49/01/06/2007) 
changed the amount for which a wealth check can be triggered to the equivalent in lei of 10 000 Euro. 
Romania expects this GEO to be validated in Parliament. 
The equivalent in lei of 10 000 Euro under the GEO. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Nevertheless,  this  GEO  has  still  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Parliament  to  remain  in 
force in a durable way17.  

The actual functioning of the agency remains to be assessed. 

•  Establish  such  a  National  Integrity  Agency,  ensure  it  has  the  necessary  human 

and financial resources to fulfil its mandate 

This part of the Benchmark can not be assessed before effective implementation of 
the newly set up NIA. 

3.2.3.  Benchmark 3: Building on progress already made, continue to conduct professional, 

non-partisan investigations into allegations of high-level corruption 

There has been continued progress in the prosecution of high-level corruption cases. 
The  specialised  prosecution  services  for  corruption  (National  Anti-Corruption 
Department  -  DNA)  have  been  established  throughout  the  country  and  show  a 
positive  track  record  concerning  investigations  and  indictments  for  high-level 
corruption. This includes high-profile cases with the indictment  of well-known and 
influential public figures. However, rigour in prosecution is not reflected by judicial 
decisions.  Data  provided  on  sentences  show  that  penalties  on  average  are  not 
dissuasive and a very high-number of suspensions of these penalties in cases of high-
level  corruption.  The  rationale  for  these  suspensions,  including  awareness  and 
attitudes  among  the  judiciary  towards  dissuasive  sentences  of  cases  of  high  level 
corruption needs to be clarified. This undermines recent progress in investigation and 
affects negatively public perception of the political commitment to tackle corruption. 
In addition, a series of recent events could have negative impacts on the fight against 
corruption.  These  include  the  decriminalization  of  bank  fraud,  the  intention  of 
parliament to shorten the maximum duration for penal investigations and the request 
for dismissal of a senior member of the DNA. 

Overall,  progress  in  the  judicial  treatment  of  high-level  corruption  is  still 
insufficient.  

Detailed Assessment 

•  Continue 

to  provide  a 

track  record  of  professional  and  non-partisan 
investigations into high-level corruption cases. Ensure the legal and institutional 
stability  of  the  anti-corruption  framework,  in  particular  by  maintaining  the 
current  nomination  and  revocation  procedure  for  the  General  Prosecutor  of 
Romania,  the  Chief  Prosecutor  of  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  and 
other leading positions in the general prosecutor's office 

In  March  2006,  the  Romanian  Parliament  ratified  law  n.  54/06  that  restored  the 
competence of the "National Anti-corruption Department" to investigate all cases 
of  high-level  corruption.  The  office  is  now  named  the  National  Anti-corruption 
Directorate (DNA). It is established as a legal entity within the Prosecutor's Office 
at  the  HCCJ.  The  General  Prosecutor  of  the  Prosecutor's  Office  attached  to  the 

17 

The  legal  Committee  passed  on  13  June  the  GEO,  which  remains  to  be  finally  approved  by  the 
Parliament. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
HCCJ  directs  the  DNA  through  the  Chief  Prosecutor  of  the  matter.  DNA  has  a 
budget and a staff of its own. 

The  commitment  and  capacity  of  the  DNA  in  prosecuting  high  level  corruption 
cases continued. The number and profile of the new investigations initiated by the 
DNA  in  this  period  contributed  to  a  good  track  record  of  non-partisan 
investigations into high level corruption.  

The timeframes in which DNA conducts and concludes its investigations continues 
to illustrate a high level of professionalism in the Department’s multi-disciplinary 
investigating  teams.  84  new  indictments  have  been  filed  since  September  2006, 
concerning 195 defendants. During the same period, courts have rendered 47 non-
final convictions in corruption trials, as well as 33 final convictions. Three cases 
were finalised with acquittal.  

However,  the  efforts  and  results  of  the  DNA  in  the  prosecution  of  high  level 
corruption are not upheld by a similar output of the court system. There are several 
elements in the practice of the courts that indicate either insufficient awareness of 
the corruption phenomenon or lack of training/knowledge. 

First, the sentences applied by courts in corruption cases do not have a dissuasive 
effect  and  fail  to  fulfil  their  preventive  function.  With  an  average  length  of 
sentence for corruption offences at 1-2 years imprisonment and the vast majority 
of  the  convictions  having  the  execution  conditionally  suspended,  the  courts  fall 
short  in  demonstrating  that  they  understand  their  essential  role  in  the  efforts  to 
curb corruption in Romania.  

Second,  in  all  of  the  most  important  corruption  cases  investigated  by  DNA  and 
brought before the court in the past half-year, the courts suspended the proceedings 
and  referred  the  cases  to  the  Constitutional  Court  for  its  ruling  on  various 
unconstitutionality  claims  submitted  by  the  defence.  While  procedurally  correct, 
questions could be raised about the tendency of the courts to refer cases to a higher 
level of jurisdiction instead of  dealing  with  them at a  lower level. Consequently, 
trials of two high level former politicians, which had both been acknowledged at 
the  time  as  a  convincing  signal  of  commitment  towards  investigating  high  level 
corruption in Romania, are now left pending for the duration of a constitutionality 
verification procedure that may take well over a year. 

With regards to the nomination and revocation procedures, the early departure or 
replacement  of  officials  holding  key  positions  to  the  reform  process  can  be 
damaging  to  the  continuity  of  the  reform  process.  As  to  the  nomination  and 
revocation  procedure  of  the  General  Prosecutor  and  the  Chief  Prosecutor  of  the 
DNA, the decision of the Senate’s Legal Committee to activate an older proposal 
pending in the Senate since 2006 was reversed by the Plenum in late March 2007. 
It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  intent  to  modify  the  nomination  procedure  is 
abandoned irreversibly. The number of personnel changes in the past months is not 
reassuring in that respect. Examples are the departure of figures of the GAD and 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
the nomination for dismissal of leaders of DNA and of NIM18. In addition, several 
high officials of the Ministry of Justice have resigned.  

Moreover, another concern relating to the fight against corruption is the potential 
amendments  of  the  Procedural  Code,  currently  being  discussed  within  the 
Parliament.  This  might  have  a  substantial  negative  impact  on  the  fight  against 
corruption,  particularly  with  reference  to  the  following  three  issues:  (1) 
Notwithstanding concerns expressed, the abolition of the possibility for the Public 
Prosecutor to authorise suitably motivated provisional interception for urgent cases 
even though authorisation of the judge is required - in any case - within the next 
48  hours;  (2)  the  limitation  of  the  investigation  to  a  maximum  period  of  six 
months;  (3)  the  limitation  of  running  wire  tapping  to  a  maximum  of  120  days. 
These  amendments  would  seriously  limit  the  potential  of  the  investigators  in 
collecting evidence, particularly when tackling well established criminal groups or 
powerful governmental representatives deeply involved with corruption. 

Finally,  a  new  law  was  passed  in  late  March  200719,  decriminalising  certain 
aspects  of  bank  fraud  previously  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  DNA20  challenges 
the  legal  stability  of  the  anti-corruption  framework.  If  the  law  is  being  applied 
retroactively, which appears to be the case, decriminalisation would apply to bank 
officers that received kick-backs for granting questionable and illegitimate loans. 
This  would  have  as  a  result  the  dismissal  of  numerous  pending  cases  by  the 
DNA21. 

3.2.4.  Benchmark  4:  Take  further  measures  to  prevent  and  fight  against  corruption,  in 

particular within the local government 

Romania  has  made  progress  with  "flagship"  projects  to  raise  public  awareness  on 
corruption  such  as  the  successful  "green"  corruption-helpline  and  the  National 
Integrity  Centre,  an  independent  public  advisory  body  on  corruption  run  in 
cooperation  with  civil  society.  In  addition,  Romania  has  organised  a  number  of 
corruption  awareness  campaigns  for  the  general  public,  the  judiciary  and  public 
officials  in  different  sectors  of  activity.  The  General  Anti-corruption  Directorate  of 
the  Ministry  of  Administration  and  the  Interior  (GAD)  has  taken  a  number  of  pro 
active measures such as integrity tests and inspections. Training programs for public 
officials  were  organised  and  preventive  measures  were  established  in  areas  such  as 
health and education. However, a comprehensive local anti-corruption strategy based 
on  risk  assessments  targeting  most  vulnerable  sectors  and  local  administration  is 
missing.  The  dissemination  of  successful  pilot-activities  has  not  been  reported.  In 
addition, concerns remain as to the continuing political support for important high-
profile projects such as the National Integrity Centre.  

18 

19 

20 

21 

CSM however advised that none of the proposal for dismissal is sufficiently grounded; therefore both 
requests are pending until more evidence is gathered. 
Law  n.  69/2007  of  26  March  2007,  modifying  Law  n.  78/2000  (the  Law  for  Preventing  and 
Investigating Corruption). 
The  law  decriminalises  the  granting  of  loans  in  violation  of  bank  policies  and  the  use  of  loans  for 
purposes other than as declared in the loan application (other than loans involving public funds). These 
offences were originally placed under the DNA jurisdiction because of their relationship to corruption 
and because of the negative impact of bank fraud on Romanian banks. 
Currently 52 cases are potentially concerned and around an equal number of cases in the DNA that will 
be taken off criminal investigations. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Overall, some progress against this benchmark has been achieved. 

Detailed Assessment 

•  Assess the results of the recently-concluded awareness-raising campaigns and, if 
necessary, propose follow-up activities that focus on the sectors with a high risk 
of corruption 

There  were  several  anticorruption  campaigns  initiated  in  2006  and  continued  in 
2007.  The  awareness  and  information  campaigns  run  by  GAD  have  produced 
tangible  results.  Between  September  2006  and  March  2007,  the  green  helpline 
(TELVERDE) of the GAD recorded 6 237 calls and voice messages. Also during 
this period, the GAD forwarded 142 criminal investigations to the DNA, which in 
turn filed indictments in 17 cases originating from the said unit. The Ministry of 
Justice  launched  another  awareness  campaign,  targeting  both  the  beneficiaries  of 
the justice system as well as the judicial staff (“don’t bribe and don’t let yourself 
be bribed”). The campaign is ongoing and there have been no measurements so far 
of the impact that it had on any of the target groups. 

•  Report on the use of measures to reduce the opportunities for corruption and to 
make  local  government  more  transparent,  as  well  as  on  the  sanctions  taken 
against public officials, in particular those in local government 

With regards to the use of measures to reduce the opportunities for corruption and 
increase  transparency  of  local  government,  the  National  Civil  Servants  Agency 
(NCSA)  is  the  beneficiary  of  a  substantial  PHARE  twining  project  initiated  in 
December  2006,  which  will  assist  the  Agency  in  re-defining  human  resources 
policies  and  internal  practices.  One  of  the  main  objectives  of  this  project  is  to 
enhance the transparency and integrity of the civil servants’ performance in public 
office. 

GAD  reported  at  the  end  of  January  2007  on  measures  used  by  the  unit  for 
preventing  and  combating  corruption  within  the  ranks  of  the  Ministry  of  Interior 
and  its  services.  For  the  Border  Police  alone,  which  has  been  the  main  focus  of 
GAD  in  2006,  the  unit  resorted  to  more  than  6 000  integrity  tests,  undercover 
operations and un-announced inspections, which had the highest number of border 
officers reporting attempts of corruption (60% higher than 2005). There have been 
67  cases  of  bribery  attempts  reported  by  border  police  officers  to  GAD,  and  the 
highest amount of money offered as a bribe and refused by an officer was 5 000 
Euro (a case of cigarette smuggling on the Romanian-Ukrainian border). 

GAD  also  engaged  in  a  consistent  preventive  campaign,  both  by  activities  with 
staff of the Ministry of Interior as well as in partnership with civil society by trying 
to involve various segments of the general public (such as student organisations) in 
the efforts of the public institutions to reform their administration and personnel. 

As  far  as  the  fraud  of  EU  funds  is  concerned,  the  Department  for  Fight  against 
Fraud (DLAF) reported 13 new cases begun in January 2007. The total number of 
cases  under  investigation  by  DLAF  between  1  September  2006  and  15  March 
2007 is 84, 63 cases being opened in the reference period. 22 files were forwarded 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
to  NAD  on  the  basis  of  the  cooperation  agreement  between  the  two  institutions, 
and 17 were forwarded to the regular prosecutors' offices. 

in 

to  assess 

the  absence  of  analytical 

The concrete results of the preventive measures adopted by public institutions are 
the 
hard 
awareness/information  campaigns  conducted  so  far.  A  comprehensive  anti-
corruption  campaign,  funded  through  a  PHARE  2004  project,  equipped  with  all 
the conceptual elements to provide a good reflection of where the central and local 
administration  is  in  preventing  and  combating  corruption  is  only  at  an  inception 
phase and will run throughout 2007. 

instruments  built 

into 

Out of all central or local institutions, the GAD of the Ministry of Administration 
and Interior appears as the central anti-corruption structure.  

4. 

FOLLOW-UP UNDER THE COOPERATION AND VERIFICATION MECHANISM 

Concerning  judicial  reform  and  the  fight  against  corruption,  Romania  should 
continue to move towards meeting the benchmarks and in particular, 

•  Finalise  the  adoption  of  the  new  Civil  Procedure  Code,  continue  the  adoption 
process  of  the  new  Criminal  Procedures  Code  and  strengthen  the  new  Criminal 
Code. 

•  Resolve  the  current  staffing  and  organisational  problems  of  the  Romanian  court 
system  and  follow-up  on  the  results  of  studies  and  pilot  projects  to  set 
performance indicators for the judiciary. 

•  Demonstrate the effectiveness of the National Integrity Agency. 

•  Assure  the  legal  and  institutional  stability  of  the  anti-corruption  framework 
including  key  institutions  such  as  the  DNA  and  promote  dissuasive  decisions  in 
cases  of  high-level  corruption.  Stronger  dissuasive  measures  such  as  tightening 
the legal conditions for applying the conditional suspension of penalty execution 
and corresponding judiciary training should be developed.  

•  Establish  a  coherent  country  wide  anti-corruption  strategy  targeting  most 

vulnerable sectors and local administration and monitor its implementation.  

•  In order to achieve the above, strengthen the capacity of the judiciary at all levels, 

including professionalism, independence, resources and powers. 

The  Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism  will  continue  to  be  used  to  monitor 
progress in Romania. In order to facilitate cooperation and verification, it would be 
useful  for  the  Romania  authorities  to  prepare  an  action  plan,  with  milestones,  by 
October  2007  showing  how  Romania  intends  to  meet  the  benchmarks.  The  plan 
should  be  based  on  a  coherent  strategy  in  fighting  corruption  at  all  levels  and  a 
credible plan to strengthen professionalism, independence, powers and resources of 
the  judiciary.  It  is  important  that  the  Romanian  authorities  foster  an  open  dialogue 
with  Romanians  by  enhancing  transparency  on  reforms  undertaken  under  the 
Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism,  including  on  corruption.  A  continued 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
political commitment to the reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption is 
essential.  

4.1. 

Support 

Support will be provided to assist Romania in its efforts to reform the judiciary and 
combat  corruption.  This  will  involve  focusing  and  targeting  existing  EC  funding 
under  the  different  programmes  available  to  Romania  on  support  for  institution 
building  and  training  programmes  related  to  judicial  reform  and  the  fight  against 
corruption. 

The  European  Commission  invites  other  Member  States  to  step  up  their  assistance 
and  valuable  practical  support  to  Romania  by  cooperating  with  the  Romanian 
authorities  in  joint  investigative  teams  on  corruption,  sharing  financial  intelligence 
and  methodologies  with  the  relevant  authorities,  seconding  experts  and  advisors  to 
key  ministries  and  bodies  (such  as  the  future  National  Integrity  Agency  and  the 
Superior  Council  of  Magistracy)  and  providing  high  level  training  to  Romanian 
police,  customs  officers  and  prosecutors  at  their  national  police  and  customs 
academies,  schools  of  magistrates  or  national  justice  institutes  and  other  centres  of 
excellence for the public service. 

The primordial importance of the principle of rule of law for the EU implies that all 
actors  –  Commission,  Romania  and  the  other  Member  States-  have  to  cooperate  to 
ensure  that  Romania  is  effectively  reforming  its  judiciary  and  fighting  crime  and 
corruption  at  all  levels.  By  October  2007,  the  Commission  will  examine  assistance 
offered from the Member States so as to identify gaps and ensure that a full range of 
support is provided to Romania. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

In  the  first  six  months  of  accession,  Romania  has  continued  to  make  progress  in 
remedying  weaknesses  that  could  prevent  an  effective  application  of  EU  laws, 
policies  and  programmes.  More  time  is  needed  to  demonstrate  that  important 
legislative  progress  is  translated  into  results  in  key  areas.  Continued  attention  will 
need  to  be  paid  to  all  areas  in  which  accompanying  measures  are  in  force.  In 
particular, there is a need to step up efforts in the pursuit of judicial reform and the 
fight  against  corruption.  In  the  light  of  the  analysis  contained  in  this  report,  the 
Commission  does  not  consider  that  it  is  warranted  at  this  stage  to  invoke  the 
safeguard provisions of the Accession Treaty. 

The Commission will continue to work in close partnership with Romania to support 
its  efforts  meeting  the  benchmarks  under  the  Cooperation  and  Verification 
Mechanism. The Decision establishing the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism 
provides that the Commission report every six months. The Commission will update 
this  report  at  the  beginning  of  2008.  It  will  prepare  the  next  detailed  report  on  the 
Cooperation and Verification Mechanism in mid 2008. In order to provide input for 
that report, Romania should report to the Commission on further progress achieved 
by 31 March 2008. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
State of play regarding safeguard measures and transitional arrangements applicable on 
Romania 

ANNEX  

Economic safeguard clause 

Not applied  

Internal market safeguard clause 

Not applied  

Justice and Home affairs safeguard clause 

Not applied  

Agricultural funds 

a) Safeguard measures 

Not applied 

b) Transitional arrangements 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/2006 of 26 September 2006 establishing a mechanism 
for  appropriate  measures  in  the  field  of  agricultural  spending  in  respect  of  Bulgaria  and 
Romania 

Food safety 

a) Safeguard measures 

Commission Decision 2007/269/EC of 23 April 2007 on protective measures with regard to 
equine infectious anaemia in Romania 

b) Transitional arrangements 

Commission  Decision  2006/779/EC  of  14  November  2006  concerning  transitional  animal 
health control measures relating to classical swine fever in Romania 

Commission  Decision  2006/802/EC  of  23  November  2006  approving  the  plans  for  the 
eradication of classical swine fever in feral pigs and the emergency vaccination of those pigs 
and of pigs in holdings against that disease in Romania 

Commission Decision 2006/805/EC of 24 November 2006 concerning animal health control 
measures  relating  to  classical  swine  fever  in  certain  Member  States  (last  amended  by 
Commission Decision 2007/152/EC of 6 March 2007) 

Commission Decision 2007/16/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down transitional measures 
for intra-Community trade in semen, ova and embryos of the bovine, porcine, ovine, caprine 
and equine species obtained in Bulgaria and Romania 

Commission Decision 2007/23/EC of 22 December 2006 amending Appendix B of Annex VII 
to  the  2005  Act  of  Accession  as  regards  certain  establishments  in  the  meat,  milk  and  fish 
sectors in Romania 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Commission  Decision  2007/27/EC  of  22  December  2006  adopting  certain  transitional 
measures concerning deliveries of raw milk to processing establishments and the processing 
of this raw milk in Romania with regard to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 
and 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of Council 

Commission Decision 2007/29/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down transitional measures 
for  certain  products  of  animal  origin  covered  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  853/2004  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  introduced  into  Bulgaria  and  Romania  from  third 
countries before 1 January 2007 

Commission Decision 2007/30/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down transitional measures 
for  the  marketing  of  certain  products  of  animal  origin  obtained  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania 
(amended by Commission Decision 2007/264/EC of 25 April 2007) 

Commission Decision 2007/228/EC of 11 April 2007 laying down transitional measures for 
the  system  for  the  identification  and  registration  of  ovine  and  caprine  animals  in  Romania 
provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 

EN 

22 

   EN