REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism
Date: 2013-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Romania, corruption, independence of the judiciary, judicial reform, political morality, rule of law

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.1.2013  
COM(2013) 47 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

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

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
In  July  2012,  the  Commission  reported  on  Romania's  progress  since  2007  under  the 
Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM).1 The report looked at the sustainability and 
irreversibility of the reforms put in place. As the report was issued at a time when important 
questions were raised with regard to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in 
Romania,  it  included  specific  recommendations  to  restore  respect  for  these  fundamental 
principles. It was also decided to report six months later, with a focus on the Commission's 
recommendations in this area. 

Over the last six months, the situation in Romania has been dominated by the run-up to the 
recent elections. The Commission believes that the nomination of the new government after 
the  elections  provides  a  fresh  opportunity  to  ensure  respect  for  the  rule  of  law  and  judicial 
independence and ensure stability. Loyal cooperation between institutions and stability in the 
separation of powers are important foundation stones to provide the right platform for making 
progress on the issues of judicial reform and the fight against corruption. 

This  report  takes  stock  of  the  specific  recommendations  issued  by  the  Commission  on  the 
respect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. It also reports on the CVM 
benchmarks  on  the  other  aspects  of  reform  of  the  judicial  system  and  the  fight  against 
corruption. 

1. 

Respect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary 

The Commission issued ten specific recommendations to help resolve the controversies on the 
rule  of  law  and  judicial  independence.    The  Romanian  government  confirmed  to  the 
Commission  that  it  would  implement  these  recommendations.2  The  Commission  has  been 
closely monitoring progress  on  these  points, in the  light  of  the  benchmarks  set  in  the  CVM 
decision.  

The assessment shows that Romania has implemented several but not all of the Commission's 
recommendations aiming at restoring rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. While 
the  Constitution  and  the  Constitutional  Court's  role  and  decisions  have  been  respected, 
commitments  regarding  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  and  regarding  the  response  to 
integrity rulings have not been adequately implemented. At the same time, the appointment of 
a new leadership for the prosecution and the DNA is still outstanding. 

The Romanian Constitutional order 

One  of  the  primary  concerns  expressed  by  the  Commission  in  July  was  the  stability  of  the 
Constitutional order.  

The  role  of  the  Constitutional  Court  is  of  particular  importance  here.  The  powers  of  the 
Constitutional Court to check the constitutionality of the decisions adopted by the Parliament 

1 COM(2012)410 final. Its analysis and recommendations was endorsed in conclusions adopted by the General 
Affairs Council in September. 
2 Letters of 16 July and 17 July 2012 

2 

 
 
                                                            
have  effectively  been  reinstated  by  means  of  the  Constitutional  Court's  judgments,  and 
Emergency  Ordinance  38  is  therefore  "de  facto"  inapplicable.3  The  repeal  of  Emergency 
Ordinance 41 ensured respect for the Court's rulings on the quorum for a referendum. The fact 
that  the  final  Constitutional  Court  ruling  on  the  validity  of  the  29  July  referendum4  was 
respected was a key signal that Constitutional norms were no longer being put in question.  

Another source of concern had been the recourse to emergency ordinances, a concern shared 
by  the  Venice  Commission  of  the  Council  of  Europe.5  The  use  of  this  power  in  early  July 
played  an  important  role  in  the  concerns  about  by-passing  Constitutional  norms.  The 
Romanian government committed to use emergency ordinances strictly for the situations set 
out in the Constitution, and only in case of emergency. There has been less concern on this 
issue in recent months, and the start of a new Parliament with a clear majority should help to 
consolidate the ordinary legislative procedures as the right way to legislate. 

The Commission notes that all acts, including decisions of the Constitutional Court, appear to 
have been published in a timely fashion in the Official Journal. 

The  Parliament  appointed  the  new  Ombudsman  in  January  2013.  The  fact  that  the  new 
Ombudsman received the full support of the ruling coalition but not the opposition will make 
it particularly important for him to show in his actions that he can rise above party lines. The 
Ombudsman has an important role in safeguarding the checks and balances of the system, and 
in particular to control the powers of the executive to legislate through ordinances.  

In summary, the place of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court has been restored in 
line  with  the  Commission's  recommendations.  It  is  however  essential  that  the  President,  the 
new  government  and  parliament  ensure  the  stability  of  the  constitutional  order,  and  all 
political parties should work to reduce the polarisation of the political system  

In the run-up to the elections, there has also been a discussion about possible Constitutional 
change.  What  is  important  is  that  the  process  of  constitutional  reform  progresses  in  full 
respect of fundamental values such as respect for the rule of law and the separation of powers. 
This includes continued respect for the Constitutional Court as the guarantor of the supremacy 
of the Constitution, as well as the independence and stability of judicial institutions including 
the prosecution. It is also important that the debate about possible reform allows enough time 

3 Emergency Ordinance 38/2012 has not been formally repealed. However, the decisions of the Constitutional 
Court no.727 of 9 July 2012 and no.738 of 19 September 2012 found the Emergency Ordinance 38 
unconstitutional. Formally, Emergency Ordinance 38 should be repealed to comply with the ruling of the 
Constitutional Court. 
4 Ruling no. 6 of the Constitutional Court of 21 August 2012. Followed the approval by the Senate on 
19/09/2012 of the Law amending Government Emergency Ordinance  no. 41 for amending Law no. 3/2000 
concerning the Organization of the Referendum 
5 The Venice Commission considered that the issue of the excessive use of government emergency ordinances 
should be addressed: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/CDL-AD(2012)026-e.aspx 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
and  openness  to  secure  through  the  appropriate constitutional  procedure  the  widest  possible 
consensus.  It  is  also  essential  in  this  context  to  reassure  judicial  institutions  that  their 
independence is secured, and to avoid speculation creating a climate of instability. 

Independence of the judiciary 

One  of  the  major  concerns  over  the  summer  was  the  clear  evidence  of  pressure  on  judicial 
institutions  and  lack  of  respect  for  the  independence  of  the  judiciary.  This  remains  a  major 
source of concern. The Commission received numerous reports of intimidation or harassment 
against individuals working in key judicial and anti-corruption institutions, including personal 
threats against judges and their families, and media campaigns amounting to harassment.6  

Unfortunately, the Commission's recommendation has not been fully implemented. Politically 
motivated attacks on the judiciary have not ended. A critical point is the acceptance of judicial 
decisions:  this  requires  the  whole  of  the  political  class  to  form  a  consensus  to  refrain  from 
discrediting judicial decisions, undermining the credibility of magistrates or putting pressure 
on them.  

The Commission would also like to draw attention to the role of the media. There have been 
numerous  examples  of  the  media  exercising  pressure  on  the  judiciary,  as  well  as  particular 
doubts  whether  the  National  Audiovisual  Council  is  proving  an  effective  watchdog.  The 
situation suggests the need for a review of existing rules, to ensure that freedom of the press is 
accompanied by a proper protection of institutions and of individuals' fundamental rights as 
well as to provide for effective redress.  

A  specific  issue  was  that  the  Commission  was  concerned  that  previous  judicial  decisions 
could be overturned through pardons in the particular circumstances of an interim presidency 
last summer. The interim President respected this recommendation in full. 

A final aspect of judicial independence is the commitment of the executive and legislature to 
the  quality  of  appointments  to  key  posts  in  judicial  institutions.  The  Commission  considers 
that the track record of Romania against high-level corruption has been one of the important 
advances under the CVM. An effective and impartial prosecution must be maintained under 
future leadership. The Commission therefore considers that it is essential to put in place a new 
leadership in the prosecution and the National Anti-corruption Directorate (DNA) which can 
demonstrate the independence, integrity and professionalism needed to enjoy the confidence 
of the public and continue to deliver effective results.  

The report highlighted in this context the nomination of a new General Prosecutor and Chief 
Prosecutor  of  the  DNA,  in  terms  both  of  an  open  and  transparent  process  and  of  choosing 

6 For example the allegations of pressure and intimidation of judges of the Constitutional Court which have been 
brought to the attention of the Commission. Letter from President Barroso to Romanian Prime Minister Victor 
Ponta of 10/08/2012: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-621_en.htm 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
candidates with expertise, integrity, and a track record of anti-corruption action. The process 
was  initially  rushed  and  did  not  inspire  the  confidence  of  the  magistracy.  The  Minister  of 
Justice then extended deadlines and made a number of procedural improvements,7 but only a 
limited range of candidates applied. The two candidates who emerged from the process failed 
to  secure  positive  opinions  from  the  Superior Council  of  Magistracy  (SCM),  and  they  were 
eventually  rejected  by  the  President.  The  Commission  considers  that  a  sufficient  number  of 
high quality candidates in an open and transparent process and, as far as possible with support 
from  the  SCM  are  essential  elements  to  secure  a  leadership  able  to  command  public 
confidence.  

Integrity 

Those in positions of power must demonstrate high standards of integrity. In addition, where 
judicial authorities  find that  this is not the case, failure to respond to judicial decisions also 
implies a lack of respect for the rule of law. In its July report, the Commission was concerned 
that both the government and the Parliament did not fully respect this principle.  

In November, National Integrity Agency (ANI) reports8 against ministers and senior officials 
did  not  lead  to  their  resignations.9  The  new  government  reiterated  its  goal  of  tackling 
corruption,  but  amongst  the  new  Ministers  are  two  confirmed  cases  under  criminal 
investigation  for  corruption.  In  its  July  recommendations,  the  Commission  set  out  its 
expectation  that  Ministers  set  an  example  in  respect  of  integrity  issues:  the  same  should  be 
expected  in  respect  of  corruption  charges.  It  is  essential  for  the  credibility  of  a  government 
that those in charge of ministerial functions enjoy the confidence of the public, for example 
by  stepping  down  when  there  is  an  integrity  report  from  ANI  against  them.  Constitutional 
requirements,  including  suspension  from  Ministerial  office  on  indictment,  will  need  to  be 
applied in full.  

Similarly, the credibility of the Parliament would benefit from clearer procedures concerning 
the  handling  of  cases  where  Members  of  Parliament  face  rulings  on  integrity  issues  or  face 
corruption allegations.  The presumption should be that, within the established Constitutional 
rules, the prosecution can conduct its work in the same way as faced by other citizens. Clarity 
and automaticity are the best ways to offset previous concerns that there has been a degree of 
subjectivity in parliamentary proceedings in this area.  

7 Some of the changes followed discussions with both the European Commission and the Superior Council of 
Magistracy.  

8 ANI reports have a direct effect unless challenged in courts within 15 days. It should also be noted that only 
around 5% of ANI reports are successfully challenged in Court. 

9 None of these four individuals are part of the new government.  

5 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  Parliament  adopted  in  January  2013  amendments  to  the  statute  of  the  Members  of 
Parliament, changing the procedure for lifting immunities in the cases of the search, arrest or 
detention  of  parliamentarians  and  the  prosecution  of  former  Ministers.  Further  steps  are 
foreseen, including a Code of Conduct. These will need to include a deadline for each stage of 
the  procedure,  and  that  where  the  Parliament  refuses  to  lift  the  immunity,  it  provides  a  full 
justification. It is also important to clarify that ANI remains the sole authority tasked with the 
verification of potential incompatibilities of elected and appointed officials. 

In  terms  of  Parliament's  approach,  the  broader  challenge  made  to  judicial  decisions  in  one 
case was a major concern: the SCM had to appeal to the Constitutional Court to ensure that 
the Parliament effectively implemented a High Court ruling in final instance.  10   It is hoped 
that the new procedures will prevent a repetition of such problems. 

Recommendations 

The  Commission  welcomes  the  positive  steps  taken  since  July,  but  considers  that  much 
remains to be done to fully implement its recommendations. The entry into function of a new 
government and  a  new Parliament offers an  excellent opportunity to  consolidate these steps 
and  address  the  still  outstanding  points.  The  principles  underlying  the  Commission's 
recommendations  of  protecting  the  rule  of  law  and  protecting  the  ability  of  the  judiciary  to 
reach decisions without interference will remain central to the Commission's approach in the 
future 

It  will  be  important  to  continue  to  respect  the  responsibilities  and  decisions  of  the 
Constitutional  Court,  and  ensure  full  compliance  with  all  constitutional  requirements  to 
ensure  the  pluralist  functioning  of  Romanian  democracy  and  reduce  its  polarisation.  It  will 
also be important to ensure that the process of constitutional reform fully respects the rule of 
law, the separation of powers and judicial independence and stability, while being based on 
the widest possible consensus 

The  new  government  has  already  signalled  its  commitment  to  the  independence  of  the 
judiciary  and  the  supremacy  of  rule  of  law  in  the  Institutional  Collaboration  Agreement 
between the President and the Prime Minister. This should now be followed up in particular 
through the following: 

Introduce  a  clear  framework11  of  requirements  to  refrain  from  discrediting  judicial 
• 
decisions  and  undermining  or  putting  pressure  on  magistrates,  and  ensure  effective 

10 The Constitutional Court ruled on the constitutional conflict between the judiciary and the Senate in a case 
where a final High Court of Cassation and Justice decision had confirmed an incompatibility decision on a 
senator (Decision of the Constitutional Court no.972 of 21 November 2012). The Constitutional Court ruling had 
still not been applied when the term of office of the Senate came to an end. 

11 For example, a code of conduct 

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
enforcement of these requirements. The Superior Council of Magistracy should be invited to 
give an opinion on the relevant provisions; 

• 
Review  existing  standards  to  safeguard  a  free  and  pluralist  media  while  ensuring 
effective  redress  against  violation  of  individuals'  fundamental  rights  and  against  undue 
pressure or intimidation from the media against the judiciary and anti-corruption institutions. 
The National Audiovisual Council should be assured of its effective independence, and play 
fully its role by establishing and enforcing a Code of Conduct in this regard;  

• 
Ensure  that  the  new  leadership  in  the  prosecution  and  the  DNA  are  chosen  from  a 
sufficient  range  of  high  quality  candidates  after  an  open  and  transparent  process,  meet  the 
criteria  set  out  in  the  Institutional  Collaboration  Agreement,  in  particular  professional 
expertise, integrity and a track-record of anti-corruption action. A positive opinion from the 
Superior Council of Magistracy will be an important step in securing public confidence; 

The  new  Ombudsman  will  need  to  show  uncontested  authority,  integrity,  and 

• 
independence, as well as a non-partisan approach; 

• 
Take  the  necessary  steps  to  ensure  that  Ministers  subject  to  integrity  rulings  step 
down.  Ensure  swift  application  of  the  Constitutional  rules  on  suspension  of  Ministers  on 
indictment;  

• 
Parliament should build on the new rules to adopt clear, and objective procedures to 
suspend parliamentarians subject to negative integrity rulings or corruption convictions; and 
to  fix  swift  deadlines  for  processing  requests  from  the  prosecution  to  lift  immunity  of 
parliamentarians.  Full  justification  should  be  given  if  Parliament  does  not  let  normal  law 
enforcement take its course. 

2. 

Reform of the judicial system, integrity, fight against corruption 

This  section  reviews  progress  against  the  background  of  the  benchmarks  set  out  in  the  co-
operation  and  verification  mechanism  and  previous  Commission  recommendations.  These 
remain valid and will be assessed in the next report. 

Reform of the judicial system 

The  first  recommendation  in  the  July  report  on  reform  of  the  judicial  system  related  to  the 
implementation  of  all  four  legal  codes12.    The  planning  for  the  implementation  of  this  key 
reform remains uncertain. The entry into force of the Code of Civil Procedure is still planned 

12 The new Civil and Criminal Codes and the accompanying procedural codes were adopted in 2009 and 2010, 
but only the Civil Code has entered into force so far. There is no certainty about when the remaining Codes will 
enter into force  but the authorities have recently confirmed that the Civil Procedure Code will enter into force on 
1 February 2013. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
for  February  2013.  The  entry  into  force  of  the  Criminal  Code  and  the  Code  of  Criminal 
Procedure is tentatively scheduled for February 2014. More clarity is needed on how to avoid 
these dates slipping still further. 

Since  the  last  report  the  Ministry  of  Justice  has  set  out  a  multiannual  strategy  for  the 
implementation  of  the  Codes,  including  resources  aspects.  Assessing  possible  impacts  only 
after  the  adoption  of  the  Codes  by  the  Parliament  creates  extra  uncertainty,  and  a  full 
assessment of the impact on human resources aspects is only foreseen for 2014.13 This process 
will  be  complicated  if  the  text  of  the  Codes  is  frequently  reopened:  the  overall  objective  of 
ensuring that justice can be pursued and realised more effectively and quickly should not be 
lost, for example in the presentation of evidence in court on corruption cases.  

The  second  Recommendation  related  to  the  overall  workload  pressures  on  the  Romanian 
judicial  system,  and  the  need  to  restructure  the  court  system  and  prosecution  offices, 
rebalancing staff and workload. The government is tackling some of the particular causes of a 
wave  of  new  cases  at  source,  through  legislative  change.14  Such  efforts  to  reduce  the 
workload on points of pressure in the system may be more effective than trying to solve the 
problem  by  increasing  the  number  of  judges  and  prosecutors  –  which  could  also  risk 
jeopardising  recent  improvements  in  the  quality  and  training  of  new  entrants  into  the 
profession.  

The  last  recommendation  related  to  the  creation  of  an  overarching  monitoring  group  for 
judicial  reform.  This  reflected  the  need  to  create  a  consensus  for  reforming  the  judicial 
system. Since the July report, there has been no progress in bringing together the key players 
in an effective way.   

Accountability of the Judicial System 

The new legal framework for the Judicial Inspection adopted in 2011 has allowed the Judicial 
Inspection to deliver more effectively, resulting in 21 new disciplinary actions taken in its first 
few months.15 The Ministry of Justice has supported the new Inspectorate with a number of 
practical measures, including arranging for a new headquarters building. More general lessons 
learned  from  individual  cases  could  feed  into  the  joint  policy  recommended  by  the 
Commission  for  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  (SCM)  and  government  to  promote 
accountability and integrity. 

13 The July 2012 CVM report pointed to the need to distinguish between the impact of the Codes on resources 
and broader issues about the workload on the judiciary. 

14 For example, replacing a judicial procedure with an administrative procedure for handling questions related to 
taxes on first registration of a car – which is expected to relieve the courts of some 100.000 files. 

15 A particularly important case over the summer resulted in the suspension pending investigation of a prosecutor 
who is also a member of the Supreme Council of the Magistracy. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
Another essential element of the reputation and the accountability of the judicial system is the 
procedure  for  the  appointment  of  magistrates.  The  new  arrangements  for  promotion  to  the 
High Court of Cassation and Justice seem to have introduced a new rigour into the system: it 
seems more important to maintain the quality of competition rather than to redress perceived 
shortages which may prove short-term.  

Consistency and effectiveness of judicial action 

The consistency and transparency of the judicial process is a key element in its credibility and 
its effectiveness. Since the July report, the High Court of Cassation and Justice has continued 
to  take  concrete  steps  to  unify  jurisprudence  and  improve  its  quality,  ensuring  the 
transmission  of  decisions  to  lower  courts  and  improving  online  access.  Gradually 
transforming  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  in  a  fully-fledged  court  of  cassation, 
with fewer responsibilities for appeal, would also assist the concentration on the unification of 
jurisprudence on points of law. The procedure of appeal in the interest of the law is already 
helping to progress in this direction. It will be important to ensure that these steps forward are 
not  jeopardised  by  extra  workload  via  the  new  procedure  on  preliminary  rulings,  whilst  the 
existing number of judges on panels at the HCCJ seems to offer the right balance. 

An  important  issue  for  the  unification  of  jurisprudence  is  the  updating  of  the  outdated  IT 
system.  This  limits  judges'  knowledge  of  parallel  judgements.  Two  projects  are  underway. 
The Ministry of Justice intends to implement a strategy to have a simple and quick access to 
ECRIS (the main judicial database) and the SCM also tries to improve in parallel the existing 
"Jurindex" system (an alternative system). It would be useful to progress these initiatives in 
tandem.16 

Effectiveness of judicial action 

The  High  Court's  approach  towards  high-level  corruption  cases  has  continued  to  be 
characterised  by  a  welcome  degree  of  proactive  case  management.    The  HCCJ  reported 
significant progress in the handling of high level corruption cases with a decrease from 28 to 
10  open  cases,  as  well  as  a  rise  in  the  number  of  cases  solved  in  first  instance.  Where 
defendants  have  been  convicted,  there  has  also  continued  to  be  a  more  proportionate  and 
consistent  approach  to  penalties.  The  result  is  that  justice  is  seen  to  be  performing  its 
dissuasive role more effectively.  

Effectiveness also requires law enforcement to be working effectively and fairly throughout 
the system. The HCCJ has continued to make progress with setting standards and guidelines 
for lower courts. 

16 The Ministry of Justice has also launched a medium-term project to help codify legislation, with possible 
changes to speed up the process of updating.  

9 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  past  few  months  have  seen  the  Public  Ministry,  the  Directorate-General  for  Anti-
Corruption  and  the  High  Court  all  continuing  to  work  professionally  and  impartially, 
sometimes  under  extreme  pressure.  The  resilience  of  these  institutions  so  far  reinforces  the 
conclusion that their track record on high-level corruption is one of the most significant signs 
of  progress  achieved  by  Romania  under  the  CVM.  It  is  essential  that  this  advance  is 
maintained under new leadership. It must also not be undermined by other restrictions on the 
ability of law enforcement agencies to pursue justice.17 

Integrity 

Since the last report, the National Integrity Agency (ANI) has continued to develop its track 
record  and  to  develop  its  operational  efficiency18.  ANI  has  started  an  ambitious  IT  project 
aiming at collecting data on elected and appointed officials, allowing for a cross-check with 
other state databases, such as the registry of commerce or the tax office, to detect conflicts of 
interest. This will however need additional resources to work in full.  

It remains a major concern that ANI's decisions are under frequent question. This is despite 
the fact that when challenged, it has a strong record of winning appeals against its rulings in 
court. Both the Agency, the National Integrity Council (NIC) and their personnel have been 
subject to frequent political and media attacks. Parliament failed to enforce an ANI reports, 
even  when  backed  up  by  final  court  decisions  (see  above).  In  November  2012  ANI  issued 
four  incompatibility  reports  against  Ministers  and  senior  officials.  All  four  have  been 
challenged in court and none stepped down from office on these grounds.19.Together with the 
frequent  suggestions  to  amend  ANI's  legal  framework,  this  creates  an  uncertainty  which 
hinders Romania's ability to show that a robust integrity framework is in place. 

Fight against corruption 

DNA  has  continued  to  investigate  and  bring  forward  corruption  cases  successfully.  The 
number of final convictions issued based on the prosecutions launched by DNA has doubled 
in 2012 in comparison with the previous year. These have concerned politicians of all main 
parties.  There  has  also  been  a  constant  increase  in  indictment  and  conviction  in  EU  fraud 
cases  led  by  DNA.  This  can  serve  as  an  important  example  for  the  prosecution  as  a  whole, 
where  there  are  signs  of  wide  discrepancies  in  the  results  achieved  by  different  prosecution 
offices. 

17 For example, a recent suggestion that evidence gather by law enforcement while investigating other crimes 
could not be used in corruption trials 

18 It is also helpful that an appeal from ANI to a decision by a Wealth Investigation Commission has been 
admitted in Court. 

19 The three Ministers concerned appealed the reports. Another senior official stood down for other reasons (and 
also appealed).. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                            
The CVM also requires strong efforts to tackle corruption at all levels of Romanian society. 
Surveys consistently show high levels of public concern about the prevalence of corruption.20 
In this context, the July report welcomed the National Anti-Corruption Strategy. There have 
been  some  important  steps  taken  by  some  departments,  and  the  participation  of  local 
authorities  seems  to  progress21.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  has  put  in  place  structures  to  help 
make this work, which seem to be taken the process forward in spite of their small numbers. 
Field missions and a search for best practice are showing a welcome degree of proactivity. It 
is  important  to  ensure  that  adequate  resources  are  being  secured  for  the  smooth 
implementation of the Strategy. In addition to this, EU funds are financing a number of anti-
corruption  projects,  including  in  the  Ministries  of  Education,  Health  and  Regional 
Development and Public Administration. Implementation is progressing and results are now 
awaited. 

Another important element is the prosecution of money laundering and confiscation. The new 
legal framework on extended confiscation was put in place in 2012, but it is too early to yet 
assess its effectiveness. As regards money laundering as a stand-alone offence, an important 
case is now before the HCCJ. The Asset Recovery Office has seen an increase in the requests 
it is handling and notably on requests issued by Romanian authorities. There are currently no 
comprehensive statistics with exact amounts of confiscated assets, but the estimates tend to be 
low.  There  are  also  no  comprehensive  statistics available on the amounts that were actually 
recovered following the confiscation orders.  

Finally, progress seems very limited in the prevention and sanctioning of corruption related to 
public procurement. The advances made against high-level corruption have not been matched 
in  public  procurement.  Cases  seem  to  take  a  long  time,  partly  due  the  need  for  specific 
financial  expertise,  leading  to  the  particular  problem  of  contracts  concluded  before  court 
judgement  on  the  offence.  The  penalties  for  officials  involved  in  fraudulent  public 
procurement  cases  continue  to  be  very  low  and  the  law  does  not  foresee  a  possibility  of  a 
cancellation on the grounds of conflict of interest of projects that have already been executed. 
There  are  also  major  doubts  on  the  effectiveness  of  prosecution  handling  of  these  cases.  22 
Recent proposals seem to call into question the stable independent institutional basis essential 
for real progress. A more systematic approach to ex ante checks, most logically a role for ANI 
(with new resources) that would also ensure a uniform and systemic implementation, would 
offer a useful way forward. 

20 Cf. Eurobarometer n° 374 of February 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_374_en.pdf 
and the Transparency International 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index, 
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results 

21 In January 2013, 1874 city halls and 20 county councils had registered with the NAS Secretariat  

22 Cases emerge through the Commission's monitoring of public procurement legislation where strong evidence 
of wrongdoing seems to have received no follow-up by the prosecution. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                            
3. 

 Conclusion 

This  assessment  shows  that  Romania  has  implemented  several,  but  not  all,  of  the 
Commission's recommendations aiming at restoring rule of law and the independence of the 
judiciary. While the Constitution and the Constitutional Court's role and decisions have been 
respected, commitments regarding the protection of the judiciary against attacks, the stepping 
down  of  Ministers  with  integrity  rulings  against  them  and  the  resignation  of  Members  of 
Parliament  with  final  decisions  on  incompatibility  and  conflict  of  interest,  or  with  final 
convictions for high-level corruption have not been fully implemented. At the same time, the 
appointment of a new leadership for the prosecution and the DNA remains to be done. 

The Commission believes that the election of a new Parliament and the appointment of a new 
government provide the opportunity to deliver fully and rapidly on these recommendations. It 
urges the new government to take the necessary steps. 

The  Commission  also  notes  the  need  to  accelerate  progress  on  its  recommendations  of  the 
reform  of  the  judiciary,  integrity  and  the  fight  against  corruption.  It  will  monitor  progress 
closely,  in  a  constant  dialogue  with  the  Romanian  authorities,  and  will  report  at  the  end  of 
2013 on the reform process. 

12