REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism
Date: 2010-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, Romania, cooperation policy, corruption, exchange of information, judicial reform, rule of law

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.7.2010 
COM(2010) 401 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

On Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism 

{SEC(2010) 949} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

On Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  purpose  of  the  Co-operation  and  Verification  Mechanism1  (CVM),  established 
on  the  accession  of  Romania  to  the  EU,  is  to  help  put  in  place  an  impartial, 
independent and effective judicial and administrative system properly equipped inter 
alia  to  fight  corruption.  This  involves  making  certain  fundamental  changes,  which 
takes time and also requires broad political support across the political spectrum as 
well  as  in  society  at  large.  Making  these  changes  is  an  indispensible  investment  in 
the future of Romania – an effective administrative and judicial system is necessary 
for  sound  public  finances  and  well  rooted  socio-economic  development.  It  is  also 
necessary to enable Romania to play its full role as a member of the EU in areas such 
as justice and home affairs.  

This  report  is  the  fourth  annual  report  since  the  CVM  was  set  up2.  It  sets  out  the 
Commission's  assessment  of 
the  reform  process  and  makes 
recommendations  on  what  needs  to  be  done  next  to  continue  with  the  necessary 
reforms. The Commission considers that the CVM serves a useful purpose: 

the  state  of 

•  for Romania by providing objective assessments and recommendations on where 

action is needed; 

•  for  the  other  Member  States  which  can  follow  progress  and  provide  appropriate 

support to Romania. 

In  this  year's  report  the  Commission  points  to  important  shortcomings  in 
Romania's  efforts  to  achieve  progress  under  the  CVM.  Romania  did  not  show 
sufficient  political  commitment  to  support  and  provide  direction  to  the  reform 
process  and  demonstrated  a  degree  of  unwillingness  within  the  leadership  of  the 
judiciary  to  cooperate  and  take  responsibility.  These  weaknesses  must  be  corrected 
urgently  in  order  to  regain  momentum  in  the  reform  process.  However,  these 
weaknesses  have  to  be  seen  in  the  light  of  a  major  legislative  reform  with  the 
Parliamentary approval of the civil and criminal procedure codes on 22 June which is 
a step in the right direction. 

1 

2 

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). 
The  report  is  based  on  regular  input  received  from  the  Romanian  authorities  notably  in  response  to 
detailed questionnaires from the Commission. The Commission has been assisted in its work by experts 
and has drawn on documentation and input provided by a variety of sources. The accompanying staff 
working paper sets out the Commission's detailed assessment of progress in each of the benchmarks set 
by the decision on the CVM. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

STATE OF THE REFORM PROCESS IN ROMANIA 

Achievements 

Since the second quarter of 2010, judicial reform has shown important progress with 
Parliamentary adoption of the Civil and Criminal Procedural Codes, the publication 
of  a  draft  multiannual  strategy  for  the  development  of  justice,  the  preparation  of  a 
draft  "Small  Reforms  Law"  to  speed  up  judicial  procedures  and  through  increased 
involvement  of  magistrates  and  associations  in  the  reform  process.  Implementing 
laws for the Criminal and Civil Codes have been approved by Government and are 
awaiting Parliamentary debate. 

However, only limited progress has been achieved since the Commission's last report 
in  improving  the  efficiency  of  the  judicial  process  and  the  consistency  of 
jurisprudence.  This  remains  a  fundamental  weakness  of  the  Romanian  judicial 
system.  The  majority  of  the  Commission's  July  2009  recommendations  in  this  area 
have only been partly addressed and still require significant implementation efforts. 
In  addition,  shortcomings  regarding  accountability  and  disciplinary  procedures 
remain. 

Romania has developed its track record in the fight against corruption: The National 
Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) continues to show a good, stable track record in 
the  investigation  of  high-level  corruption  which  has  been  reflected  in  further 
indictments and an increased number of final court judgements although trials remain 
lengthy  and  many  important  cases  have  yet  to  reach  a  first  instance  decision.  The 
National Integrity Agency (ANI) improved its track record and is recognised by the 
prosecution, DNA and other law enforcement authorities as an important partner in 
preventing and sanctioning corruption. Efforts by the General Prosecutor to enhance 
the  fight  against  corruption  by  local  prosecution  offices  are  beginning  to  deliver 
results.  The  majority  of  the  Commission's  recommendations  in  this  area  are  being 
addressed  although  a  coordinated  anti-corruption  policy  across  the  different  sectors 
of government is still missing. 

In  April  2010,  the  Constitutional  Court  declared  important  parts  of  the  law  on  the 
National  Integrity  Agency  (ANI)  unconstitutional.  Responding  to  this  ruling  the 
Romanian Senate adopted a new law on  ANI on 30 June 2010. However, this new 
law  seriously  undermines  the  process  for  effective  verification,  sanctioning  and 
forfeiture of unjustified assets. It restricts the transparency of financial and economic 
interests  of  dignitaries  and  public  officials  and  excludes  dissuasive  sanctions  that 
protect  against  corruption.  The  new  law  interrupts  the  encouraging  development  of 
ANI and breaches commitments taken by Romania upon accession3. 

Reform of the Judiciary 

In  order  to  advance  the  implementation  of  some  important  reforms  included  in  the 
procedural  codes,  the  government  has  prepared  a  "small  reform  law"  which  should 
soon  enter  Parliamentary  discussion.  In  order  to  provide  a  guideline  for  judicial 

3 

Benchmark  2 of  the  CVM  reads:  "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" (Commission Decision 2006/928/EC). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
reform in the coming years, the Ministry of Justice launched a public consultation on 
a "Strategy for the development of Justice as a Public Service" which has received a 
mixed response by magistrates and professional associations. Prior to adoption by the 
Government,  the  strategy  is  currently  being  revised  following  a  second  round  of 
consultations and must still be complemented by a detailed action plan and timetable 
which  integrates  proposals  for  legal  and  structural  reform  put  forward  by  different 
actors. A constructive cooperation between government, the judicial institutions and 
professional associations should be pursued for this purpose. 

While  the  adoption  of  the  Procedure  Codes  is  a  significant  step,  Romania  has 
achieved  little  effective  progress  since  July  2009  on  three  indicators  for  judicial 
reform: efficiency of procedures, consistency of jurisprudence and accountability of 
the judiciary.  

Human  resources  remain  a  major  challenge.  The  recommendations  of  the 
Commission to apply emergency measures such as a transfer of vacant posts between 
court levels, where significant imbalances of workload occur, have not been applied 
but  neither  has  Romania  implemented  adequate  alternative  measures.  The  Superior 
Council of the Magistracy (SCM) reacted to the net staff loss registered during 2008-
2009  with  measures  to  increase  both  the  yearly  intake  to  the  National  Institute  of 
Magistracy  (NIM)  and  in  particular  through  the  direct  recruitment  of  legal 
professionals  with  five  years  practice.  Some  initial  steps  to  address  the  significant 
imbalances in workload between courts and prosecutors' offices through a structural 
reorganisation  of  courts  have  also  been  taken.  However,  these  measures  are  too 
limited in scope to produce a significant impact on the important capacity shortfalls 
within  the  judicial  system  and  require  additional  measures  to  ensure  that  all  new 
recruits meet minimum professional standards. Predictability of staff movements has 
not improved since July 2009 as several hundred magistrates eligible for retirement 
may  still  leave  the  magistracy  at  short  notice  as  a  legal  solution  to  improve  the 
predictability of retirements has not yet been found.  

Although Romania has made progress in unifying jurisprudence (i.e. appeals in the 
interest  of  the  law),  existing  instruments  have  so  far  not  improved  the  situation 
sufficiently.  Substantial  efforts  are  still  required  to  improve  legal  unification  in  a 
significant way and to create full transparency through the electronic publication of 
motivations of all court decisions. An important step to improve legal unification will 
be the reform of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) deciding only on 
matters  of  law.  Consideration  should  be  given  to  additional  measures  to  revise  the 
internal  organisation  and  working  methods  of  the  HCCJ  and  to  the  creation  of 
specialised  panels  while  respecting  the  principle  of  random  allocation  of  cases.  A 
detailed draft law to advance the unification of jurisprudence has been prepared by 
the  HCCJ.  Given  its  difficult  budgetary  situation  Romania  should  seek  efficiency 
gains and improve legal unification also through a reform of the court system and of 
procedures.  

The results of the disciplinary system are unconvincing. Few disciplinary cases are 
opened;  sanctions  appear  lenient  and  are  not  sufficiently  differentiated  by  law.  In 
addition, disciplinary practice in important cases has been weak and demonstrates a 
lack of sensitivity for public accountability and for the importance of public trust in 
the  integrity  of  the  judiciary.  The  capacity  of  the  Judicial  Inspection  should  be 
increased and focused more on disciplinary cases. Whilst few ex-officio disciplinary 

EN 

4 

   EN 

investigations  are  launched,  a  considerable  part  of  the  activities  of  the  Judicial 
Inspection is dedicated to responding to individual complaints and investigations into 
public accusation or slander of magistrates.  

The impending elections to the Superior Council of the Magistracy (SCM) will be an 
important  opportunity  to  strengthen  the  commitment  to  reform  of  the  judiciary.  A 
group of associations have already started to promote the elections through a website 
and  meetings  at  appeal  court  level.  In  order  to  ensure  a  smooth  and  legally  sound 
transition to a new Council, the requirements of the law on the SCM concerning the 
eligibility of candidates should be observed. 

Fight against Corruption 

The National Integrity Agency (ANI) was able to demonstrate a further consolidation 
of  its  capacity  and  track  record  regarding  the  identification  of  unjustified  wealth, 
incompatibilities  and  conflicts  of  interest.  Two  years  after  its  creation,  the  Agency 
can  be  considered  fully  operational  and  has  a  promising  track  record  of  cases. 
Prosecutors  and  law  enforcement  authorities  consider  the  Agency  as  an  important 
partner in the fight against corruption. The transparency on financial and economic 
interests  created  by  asset  and  interest  declarations  posted  on  the  website  of  ANI  is 
welcomed  by  civil  society  and  law  enforcement  authorities  alike  as  an  important 
contribution to the prevention and detection of corruption. 

These achievements are threatened by detrimental changes to the law on ANI which 
were adopted on 30 June as a reaction to a decision by the Romanian Constitutional 
Court.  The  Constitutional  Court  considered  that  ANI  had  taken  the  character  of  a 
quasi-judicial institution in violation of the Constitution, that publication of asset and 
interest  declarations  breached  the  right  to  private  life,  and  that  confiscation  of 
unjustified  assets  breached  the  presumption  of  lawfully  acquired  assets  and  the 
prohibition on confiscating such assets. The amendments to the law on ANI adopted 
by  Parliament  in  response  to  the  decision  of  the  Constitutional  Court  remove  the 
possibilities  to  sanction  discrepancies  between  assets  and  income  identified  and 
therefore eliminates the control of dignitaries’ and officials’ accumulation of wealth 
whilst  in  public  office.  In  excess  of  the  requirements  of  the  court,  the  other 
the  effectiveness  of  ANI's 
amendments 
investigations  and  the  transparency  of  assets  by  introducing  less  comprehensive 
declarations.  Clearly,  Parliament  and  Government  have  the  responsibility  to  amend 
the  law  that  was  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Constitutional  Court  but  equally, 
given the commitments made at the time of accession, it has the responsibility to find 
adequate legal ways to deliver on its EU commitments. At present, the Commission 
considers  that  the  new  law  on  ANI  represents  a  significant  step  back  in  the  fight 
against  corruption  and  breaches  commitments  Romania  has  taken  upon  accession.  
On  19  July  the  Constitutional  Court  ruled  that  the  revised  version  of  the  law  is 
unconstitutional.   This  provides  an  opportunity  to  adopt  a  new  law  in  conformity 
with Romania's obligations. 

in  Parliament 

introduced 

reduce 

The  National  Anticorruption  Directorate  (DNA)  continues  to  show  a  stable  and 
convincing  track  record  of  investigations  and  indictments  in  high-level  corruption 
cases.  A  trend  towards  more  severe  and  fewer  suspended  sentences  in  DNA  cases 
applied  by  courts  in  first  instance  can  be  observed  in  the  second  half  of  2009, 

EN 

5 

   EN 

however,  it  is  not  reflected  in  the  level  of  final  judgements,  where  the  tendency  to 
issue low and suspended penalties generally remains.  

The majority of the recommendations made in June 2009 by a joint working group 
regarding inconsistency and leniency of corruption sentences are being addressed but 
not yet effectively implemented. Draft sentencing guidelines for corruption offences 
prepared  at  the  end  of  2009  have  not  yet  been  finalised  nor  substantially  amended 
and are still considered not sufficiently operational by magistrates. Inspiration could 
be  drawn  from  more  detailed  guidelines which  have  been  developed  by  a  group  of 
magistrates  at  the  Bucharest  Court  of  Appeal  and  are  being  used  for  training  by 
several institutions.  

Trials  remain  lengthy  with  only  a  few  against  prominent  politicians  having  yet 
reached a first instance decision. Exceptions of unconstitutionality continue to delay 
high-level  corruption  cases  while  a  draft  law  eliminating  the  suspension  of  trial 
proceedings  when  unconstitutionality  exceptions  are  raised  still  awaits  adoption  in 
the Parliament. 

Despite  efforts  to  strengthen  the  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  National 
Anti-Corruption  Strategy  for  vulnerable  sectors  and  local  public  administration,  it 
remains difficult to assess the impact of the strategy in the third and final year of its 
implementation.  A  new  strategy  which  is  planned  for  the  second  half  of  this  year 
should be based on an independent impact assessment of the two previous strategies 
and consider the fight against corruption as an issue of national importance. Efforts 
across the public sector should be stepped up to ensure a more proactive approach to 
preventing corruption.  

Efforts by the General Prosecutor to strengthen the fight against corruption by county 
prosecution offices are beginning to deliver results in terms of more indictments with 
a greater focus on public officials and more complex investigations. The majority of 
cases  have  been  investigated  with  the  assistance  of  the  Anti-Corruption  General 
Directorate (DGA) of the Ministry of Administration and the Interior (MAI). 

 Substantial improvements are required in protecting against conflict of interest and 
corruption  in  public  procurement.  The  Romanian  legislation  on  the  matter  appears 
inconsistent  as  conflict  of  interest  is  regulated  in  different  laws  and  legislative 
loopholes  enable  certain  cases  to  fall  through  the  system.  In  addition,  the  lack  of 
generally applied best practices for public procurement and of horizontal cooperation 
in  monitoring  the  implementation  of  legislation  generates  legal  instability  and 
uncertainty  for  contracting  authorities.  Recent  amendments 
the  public 
procurement  legislation  should  improve  the  legal  protection  against  conflicts  of 
interest4, in particular to address the cases of conflict of interest which are related to 
business interests of local politicians and their family.  

to 

There  are  concerns  that  the  track  record  of  the  Department  for  the  Fight  against 
Fraud (DLAF) in assisting the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the protection 
of the EU's financial interests could be negatively affected following the decision of 
the Romanian Constitutional Court of November 2009 on the legal basis of DLAF. 

4 

Government Emergency Ordnance 76/2010 adopted on 30 June 2010. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
The Commission's assessment shows that the competent administrative bodies do not 
apply  effective  controls  to  detect  conflict  of  interest  and  corruption  and  do  not 
sufficiently cooperate in this matter. In addition, law enforcement authorities such as 
the prosecution, DNA and also ANI are not systematically notified of potential cases 
of conflict of interest, fraud or corruption. The competent administrative authorities 
detect and sanction almost no cases of conflict of interest and annul very few public 
tenders due to violation of conflict of interest rules although the majority of conflict 
of  interest  cases  transmitted  by  the  National  Integrity  Agency  to  the  judicial 
authorities  for  decision  relate  to  public  procurement  and  a  number  of  high-level 
corruption  cases  also  relate  to  public  procurement5.  Judicial  authorities  should 
develop  a  higher  sensitivity  to  issues  of  conflict  of  interest  and  fraud  in  public 
procurement and intensively pursue cases brought to their attention.  

The Commission's services have already made a number of concrete suggestions to 
improve  public  procurement  practice  in  the  implementation  of  EU  funds.  The 
implementation  of  most  of  these  suggestions  is  still  pending.  In  order  to  focus  the 
efforts of Romania in this area, the Commission makes a series of recommendations 
for  immediate  action  under  point  4  of  this  report.  The  Commission  will  report  on 
progress  in  this  area  in  its  next  report  under  the  Cooperation  and  Verification 
Mechanism. 

3. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Overall, despite progress in some areas, the assessment of the Commission points to 
important  shortcomings  in  Romania's  efforts  to  achieve  progress  under  the  CVM. 
Romania  does  not  show  sufficient  political  commitment  to  support  the  reform 
process. The amendments to the law on the National Integrity Agency voted on 30 
June  represent  a  serious  step  back.  The  law  puts  at  risk  the  positive  track-record 
which  ANI  had  achieved  and  puts  Romania  in  clear  breach  of  its  accession 
commitments. The Commission  calls  upon Romania to  honour its commitments  by 
finding the most appropriate legal means to re-establish ANI's powers to propose the 
effective  forfeiture  of  unjustified  wealth.  Romania  should  aim  to  establish  broad-
based political support in favour of transparency and the effective protection against 
corruption and conflict of interest. 

After a slow-down of Parliamentary work, Romania has re-gained some momentum 
for reform in the second quarter of 2010 and embarked on a major legislative reform 
with  the  Parliamentary  approval  of  the  civil  and  criminal  procedure  codes  on  22 
June. The preparations for the entry into force of the four new codes, now scheduled 
for  October  2011,  are  an  important  opportunity  for  a  thorough  reform  of  the 
Romanian  judicial  system.  To  sustain  this  reform  process,  the  Commission  calls 
upon Romania to build on the strong Parliamentary support for the procedural codes 
and extend this political will to other areas.  

Romania  also  suffers  from  a  degree  of  unwillingness  within  the  leadership  of  the 
judiciary  to  cooperate  and  take  responsibility  for  the  benefit  of  reform.  Although 

5 

A  number  of  high-level  corruption  cases  concern  public  procurement  issues.  Cases  involve  a 
Parliamentarian and one high-court judge in a case of influence peddling related to public procurement, 
two  former  Ministers,  other  current  or  former  Parliamentarians  and  a  number  of  former  Directors  of 
State Companies and locally elected officials.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
pragmatic solutions are available in many cases,  they  are  often not taken up, while 
initiatives of individual magistrates, professional associations and civil society try to 
close  this  gap.  The  Commission  calls  upon  Romania  to  establish  close  and 
constructive  cooperation  between  the  different  political  and  judicial  actors  and  to 
strengthen the commitment of the judiciary to reform. 

To succeed in the reform process will require a sustained commitment by Romania, 
the Commission and other Member States. The Commission will continue to support 
Romania  in  this  endeavour  and  provide  its  next  assessment  of  progress  in  summer 
2011. 

4. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

In the light of its assessment of progress by Romania in meeting the benchmarks set 
out  in  the  CVM,  the  Commission  invites  Romania  to  take  immediate  action  in  the 
following areas: 

Recommendations regarding the Reform of the Judiciary 

While recalling the outstanding recommendations of July 2009, notably regarding the 
adoption of an implementing law and carrying out of impact studies of the four new 
codes, implementing a flexible priority driven approach to human resourcing and in 
relation  to  the  follow-up  to  the  recommendations  of  the  working  group  on  the 
individualisation  of  corruption  penalties,  the  Commission  invites  Romania  to  take 
immediate action in the following areas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Launch an independent performance review of the judicial system and carry 
out  the  necessary  structural  adjustments  including  where  necessary  the 
transfer  of  magistrates.  It  should  also  adopt  immediate  measures  to  reduce 
capacity  imbalances  by  an  extension  of  the  transfer  of  vacant  positions 
between  appellate  regions  and  between  court  levels  and  by  maximising  the 
use of delegation of magistrates to locations with acute resourcing problems. 

Ensure a smooth and legally sound transition to a new Superior Council of the 
Magistracy  by  observing  the  requirements  of  the  law  concerning  the 
eligibility of candidates. 

Increase  the  capacity  of  the  National  Institute  of  the  Magistracy  (NIM)  for 
initial  and  continuous  training  and  take  steps  to  guarantee  the  consistent 
professional standards of all new magistrates, for example through extending 
the requirement to pass the magistracy’s capacity examination to all recruits. 
Programme the capacity of NIM in line with yearly projections of recruitment 
requirements and training needs. 

Consider  a  revision  of  the  competence  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and 
Justice by reducing the competence to try cases in first instance and limiting 
the  judging  of  appeals  to  points  of  law.  Consider  implementing  other 
measures  proposed  by  the  High  Court  in  a  draft  law  to  improve  legal 
unification.  Ensure  the  full  jurisprudence  of  the  courts  are  published  and 
accessible to all in a user friendly, easily searchable database. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

(5) 

Consider  a  thorough  reform  of  the  disciplinary  system.  Re-examine  the 
objectives  and  strengthen  the  capacity  and  organisation  of  the  Judicial 
Inspection  in  order  to  ensure  sufficient  focus  on  disciplinary  investigation. 
Adapt  the  types  of  possible  disciplinary  sanctions  in  order  to  allow  for  a 
greater  variety  of  sanctions  and  take  steps  to  ensure  the  application  of 
consistent,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  disciplinary  penalties.  Introduce  an 
annual evaluation of the Judicial Inspection’s performance. 

Recommendations regarding the Fight against Corruption 

While recalling the outstanding recommendations of July 2009, notably regarding the 
monitoring  of  corruption  cases  at  court  level,  the  facilitation  of  criminal 
investigations  against  former  and  current  members  of  Parliament  and  Government 
and the elimination of the suspension of trials when exceptions of unconstitutionality 
are  raised,  the  Commission  invites  Romania  to  take  immediate  action  in  the 
following areas: 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Correct  the  law  on  ANI  in  line  with  Romania's  commitments  taken  upon 
accession. Ensure a continued effective contribution of ANI to the prevention 
and  sanctioning  of  corruption  by  issuing  mandatory  decision  on  unjustified 
wealth on the basis of which dissuasive sanctions can be taken. Correct other 
procedural  deficiencies  identified  in  the  new  law.  Promote  the  further 
development of ANI, notably through amendments to the legal provisions on 
the National Integrity Council. 

Continue monitoring the consistency and dissuasiveness of sanctions applied 
by the courts in high-level corruption cases and further promote the findings 
of  the  study  on  the  individualisation  of  penalties  for  corruption  offences  in 
meetings  at  Court  of  Appeal  level.  Identify  and  implement  measures  to 
improve the celerity of high level corruption trials. 

Strengthen the general anti-corruption policy, notably through coordination at 
high level and on the basis of an independent impact evaluation of the results 
of the last two anti-corruption strategies implemented since 2005. Ensure the 
legal and institutional stability of the anti-corruption framework including in 
the implementation of the new Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. 

Public Procurement: Evaluate the effectiveness of the legal framework and of 
the  attribution  of  responsibilities  of  competent  authorities  in  protecting 
against  conflict  of  interest  and  modify  them  where  necessary.  Consider  a 
prohibition  for  senior  civil  servants  and  elected  representatives  to  benefit 
directly  or  indirectly  from  commercial  contracts  concluded  in  the  name  of 
their institution and install full transparency in this area. 

(10)  Evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  the  competent  authorities  regarding  the 
implementation  of  public  procurement  legislation  and  implement  corrective 
actions  aiming  at  better  coordinating  the  various  institutions  and  improving 
their efficiency. Establish performance benchmarks for competent authorities 
in  the  following  areas  and  monitor  their  implementation:  prevention 
activities,  control  activities,  sanctioning  of  conflict  of  interest,  inter-
institutional cooperation and cooperation with judicial authorities. 

EN 

9 

   EN