REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism
Date: 2017-01-25
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Romania, administrative transparency, corruption, independence of the judiciary, judicial reform, rule of law, structural adjustment

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 25.1.2017  
COM(2017) 44 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

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

{SWD(2017) 25 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was set up at the accession of Romania 
to  the  European  Union  in  20071  to  address  shortcomings  in  judicial  reform  and  the  fight 
against  corruption.  Since  then,  CVM  reports  have  sought  to  help  focus  the  efforts  of  the 
Romanian authorities through specific recommendations and have charted the progress made. 
With the CVM having reached its tenth anniversary this year, the Commission is taking stock 
with  an  overview  of  the  achievements,  the  challenges  outstanding  and  the  remaining  steps 
needed to achieve the CVM's objectives.  

As repeatedly made clear by the Council,2 the CVM will end when all of the four benchmarks 
applying  to  Romania  are  satisfactorily  met.  The  benchmarks  were  defined  at  the  time  of 
accession and cover issues essential to the working of Member States – judicial independence 
and  efficiency,  integrity  and  the  fight  against  corruption.  To  be  met,  they  require  a 
combination  of  legislative  and  institutional  steps.  In  addition,  such  steps  can  only  be  fully 
assessed by looking at whether their intended effect is felt in practice, and whether they can 
be considered to be embedded in the legal and institutional framework of Romania and to be 
irreversible. This allows citizens to have confidence that decisions and practices in Romania 
fully  respect  the  rule  of  law  and  provides  the  basis  for  the  mutual  trust  that  is  required  for 
effective implementation of EU law.  

Judicial  reform  and  the  fight  against  corruption  have  been  key  issues  for  Romanian  society 
over the last ten years.3 The CVM has an important role in Romania as driver for reform, as 
well as a tool to  track progress. The Commission's conclusions and the methodology of the 
CVM  have  consistently  received  the  support  of  the  Council,  as  well  as  benefiting  from 
cooperation  and  input  from  many  Member  States.  Cooperation  has  also  been  reinforced  by 
targeted support to Romania under EU Funds. 

As well as tracking progress over the past 10 years, CVM reports since 2014 have been able 
to underline how the consistency of progress has started to point to sustainability. Legislative 
and  institutional  steps  have  borne  fruit  in  terms  of  track  record,  thanks  to  the  commitment 
shown by many judges and prosecutors, the implementation work of Ministers of Justice and 
the  good  cooperation  between  the  Romanian  authorities  and  the  Commission.  The  strong 
involvement of civil society has also been key to encouraging reform of the justice system and 
concrete  steps  to  address  corruption  at  all  levels.  At  the  same  time,  CVM  reports  have 
continued to highlight that there remained areas where further reform was proving difficult – 
and was sometimes resisted. Underlying issues like questioning of judicial independence and 
the  authority  of  court  decisions,  and  sometimes  specific  attempts  to  reverse  reforms,  have 
inevitably slowed the pace of progress towards the objectives of the CVM.  

This report looks back at the developments in Romania since 2007. As in previous years, it is 
the result of a careful process of analysis by the Commission, drawing on close cooperation 
with  Romanian  institutions,  as  well  as  the  input  of  civil  society  and  other  stakeholders, 
including other Member States.  

1   Conclusions of the Council of Ministers, 17 October 2006 (13339/06); Commission Decision 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, 13 December 2006 (C (2006) 6569 final). 

2   The Council concluded in March 2016 that "Building on substantial progress already achieved, the Council 
encourages  Romania  to  focus  its  efforts  on  further  consolidating  progress  made,  and  to  sustain  the  current 
positive  momentum  by  addressing  all  the  recommendations  set  out  by  the  Commission  in  its  report" 
(http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7118-2016-INIT/en/pdf). 

3   Flash  Eurobarometer  445:  The  Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism  for  Bulgaria  and  Romania, 

published on 25 January 2017. 

2 

 
                                                            
In  this  respect  it  is  important  to  be  clear  about  the  scope  of  the  CVM.  The  Decisions 
establishing the CVM set out the parameters of the CVM's scope on judicial reform and the 
fight against corruption. Action inside these parameters will determine when the benchmarks 
are met. However, the pace and depth of reform has necessarily been conditioned by the wider 
societal, legal and political environment in Romania in which the specific issues covered by 
the  CVM  can  progress.  For  example,  the  efforts  being  made  in  recent  years  in  Romania  to 
build administrative capacity are still under way, having consequences for the reform process. 
Legislative  practice  allows  for  the  sudden  introduction  of  changes  through  Parliament,  by-
passing  better  regulation  and  consultation,  and  making  it  harder  to  demonstrate  the 
sustainability of the legal framework in areas like corruption. Adherence to the principles of 
loyal cooperation between institutions and the principle of respect for judicial independence is 
still  to  be  enhanced,  with  attacks  against  judges  and  prosecutors  voiced  through  Romanian 
media  and  a  need  for  stronger  mechanisms  for  redress.  While  these  issues  are  outside  the 
CVM remit, they have a direct bearing on the ability to deliver reform and in particular, have 
made it more difficult for Romania to show that reform has taken root on a permanent basis. 

One area where this broader environment has evolved in a positive direction is transparency. 
In many areas of the CVM's work, there has been a noticeable trend – including over the past 
year – towards better quality information about the judicial system and about corruption, and 
more openness in making this accessible. Further steps in this direction by a wider range of 
Romanian  institutions  would  cement  a  change  in  practice  which  would  help  to  demonstrate 
progress.  In  the  area  of  the  CVM's  work,  this  report  therefore  makes  a  number  of 
recommendations for more intensive reporting and transparency. In the short term, this would 
help the Commission to reach final conclusions; once the CVM comes to an end, it would also 
provide support to the sustainability of reform by helping accountability.   

Finally, it should also be underlined that the distinct nature of the CVM's scope also militates 
against  making  links  with  other  policy  areas.  The  Commission  does  not  therefore  consider 
that  it  is  appropriate  to  link  the  CVM  to  decisions  in  other  areas,  such  as  eligibility  for 
European Structural and Investment Funds or the access to the Schengen area.  

This report uses the longer-term perspective to identify the key remaining steps to realise the 
goals  of  the  CVM.  The  momentum  built  up  so  far  allows  the  focus  to  shift  to  the  key 
remaining steps which need to be taken. When the steps set out under the benchmarks in this 
report are taken, the respective benchmark will be considered provisionally completed. When 
this  applies  to  all  benchmarks,  the  CVM  will  be  closed.  The  recommendations  set  out  can 
therefore  be  considered  as  sufficient  to  meet  this  goal  –  except  if  developments  were  to 
clearly reverse the course of progress. The Commission believes that this should also bring 
an acceleration of the process by the Romanian authorities and by the EU as a whole. In the 
benchmarks where it is considered that substantial progress has been made, the Commission 
considers that a determined implementation and maintaining both the pace and the consistent 
direction  of  reform  would  allow  those  benchmarks  to  be  closed  quickly  –  for  other 
benchmarks,  this  would  be  more  challenging.  The  Commission  therefore  intends  to  bring 
forward the next report to the end of 2017, and stands ready to provide further assistance to 
help  reinforcing  the  irreversibility  of  progress  and  therefore  bring  the  mechanism  to  a 
conclusion. 

3 

 
 
2.   ASSESSMENT  OF  PROGRESS  ON  THE  FULFILMENT  OF  THE 

BENCHMARKS SINCE THE START OF THE CVM  

As well as looking at progress on the recommendations made in the 2016 CVM report, this 
section makes an overall assessment of ten years of reforms. The most relevant developments 
and results are set out in detail in the accompanying technical report4. Though the benchmarks 
are self-standing, there are also important interconnections which impact on their fulfilment. 
The  assessment  of  progress  has  involved  looking  at  the  structural  conditions  (such  as  laws, 
institutions,  and  resources);  at  the  results  and  track  record;  and  at  whether  progress  can  be 
considered irreversible. It should also be noted that since the time when the CVM benchmarks 
were agreed, there have been major developments in ECHR case-law, international standards 
and best practices, and comparative information on national justice systems in the EU, which 
have guided the Romanian authorities in their reforms and also help to give an objective and 
comparable  measure  of  the  development  of  the  Romanian  judicial  system  and  fight  against 
corruption within the remit of the four benchmarks. 

2.1   The judicial process 

The first benchmark concerned the judicial system, focusing on establishing an independent, 
impartial,  and  efficient  system,  strengthening  the  consistency  of  the  judicial  process,  and 
improving transparency and accountability. In this area, institutional and legislative progress 
has  been  substantial.  Since  2012,  the  Superior  Council  of  the  Magistracy  (SCM)  has 
established itself as manager of the judicial system and has shown an increasing willingness 
to  fulfil  its  constitutional  role,  notably  in  terms  of  defending  the  independence  of  the 
judiciary, a key role that will now fall to the new Superior Council, recently elected. In 2016, 
polling continued to suggest a strong public perception of judicial independence and trust in 
the judiciary.5 But as previous CVM reports have shown, there has also been a reaction to this 
trend: with political and media attacks on magistrates and judicial institutions. Attacks against 
the National Anti-corruption Directorate were particularly intense in 2016.  

Progress in structural reforms in certain areas relating to efficiency, resources and workload 
has been slower to show significant changes – though the quality of the information that the 
Ministry of Justice has been able to provide to the Commission in recent years has shown the 
development of the information on the functioning of the judicial system now at the Ministry's 
and SCM disposal. In the last three years the Ministry of Justice, the SCM, and the judiciary 
have shown their willingness and capacity to work together and find solutions to take reform 
forward. This has been supported by the increased resources allocated to the judiciary, notably 
by the last two governments. However, progress has been slow on addressing issues such as 
workload  balance  between  and  within  courts,  such  as  how  to  address  the  discrepancies  of 
workload  between  large  and  small  courts  and  the  distribution  of  tasks  between  judges  and 
court clerks. Legislation to address those problems did not advance in 2016, and managerial 
action alone has not been able to provide a solution. The major progress is that now all tools 
are in place to monitoring the functioning of the courts and of the human resource situation, 
and there is a comprehensive Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary 2015-2020.  

The  rigour  of  entry  procedures  into  the  magistracy,  supported  by  obligatory  training  by  the 
National  Institute  of  Magistracy,  has  also  been  seen  to  have  played  an  important  part  in 
consolidating the professionalism, as well as the independence, of the magistracy. As for the 

4   SWD (2017)25. 
5   The 2016 EU Justice Scoreboard (COM 2016) 199 final, graphs 48, 44 and 46. Polling of April  2016 shows 
60%  very  high  to  high  confidence  in  DNA        http://www.inscop.ro/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/INSCOP-
raport-martie-2016-INCREDERE-INSTITUTII.pdf   

4 

 
                                                            
appointment of senior judges and prosecutors, the last CVM report identified 2016 as a test 
year  for  appointments.  This  was  notably  the  case  for  the  appointment  of  the  prosecutorial 
leadership,  and  their  deputies.  In  terms  of  results,  none  of  the  appointed  candidates  raised 
issues of integrity and professionalism or controversies within the magistracy or civil society, 
and some of them already had a very solid track record. However, the process used did not 
allow for a clear, open and transparent procedure for the selection of all candidates to be put 
in place, and consolidated into a stable and permanent system.6 

The  SCM  is  also  responsible  for  sanctioning  professional  misconduct  and  disciplinary 
offences by magistrates. The investigation of such cases rests with the Judicial Inspection. In 
2012,  a  major  reform  of  the  Judicial  Inspection  consolidated  it  as  an  independent  and 
professional  institution.  This  has  made  the  Inspection  more  efficient  and  authoritative,  as 
confirmed  again  by  its  track  record  in  2016.  The  disciplinary  decisions  of  the  SCM  can  be 
appealed before the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the 2016 CVM report noted that 
the chain of decisions seems to have become more predictable and consistent. 

Romania  has  adopted  and  implemented  new  Civil  and  Criminal  Codes  with  a  view  to 
modernising the substantive law and improving the efficiency and consistency of the judicial 
process.  The  new  Civil  Code  entered  into  force  in  2011,  the  Code  for  Civil  Procedures  in 
2013  and  the  new  Criminal  Codes  in  2014.  The  transition  to  the  new  Civil  Codes  has  been 
gradual and now applies to nearly all cases. For the Criminal Codes, all provisions applied on 
day  one,  so  that  2014,  2015  and  2016  have  been  dedicated  to  ensuring  its  consistent 
implementation in all courts and prosecution offices and to stabilisation of its legal provisions.  
By  adapting  to  this  major  reform,  the  judicial  system  as  a  whole  has  shown  its 
professionalism. There is evidence that the result has been some acceleration in the length of 
court proceedings, enhanced respect for fair trial rights as well as more consistency in judicial 
decisions. These major reforms are nearly finalised. However, finalisation of these important 
reforms  of  the  Codes,  as  recommended  in  the  2016  CVM  report,  has  proved  difficult  and 
points  to  continued  shortcomings.  In  the  case  of  the  Civil  Code,  provisions  requiring  new 
infrastructure have had to be successively postponed, suggesting deficiencies in planning. In 
the  case  of  the  Criminal  Codes,  an  inevitable  process  of  refinement  through  rulings  of  the 
Constitutional Court has been further complicated by an unpredictable legislative approach in 
Parliament. Important amendments to the Criminal Codes tabled by the Government to align 
provisions with Constitutional Court rulings were still pending at the end of the legislatures in 
December  2016;  while  attention  was  given  to  amendments  in  Parliament  which  raised 
controversy  on  the  grounds  of  weakening  the  legal  framework  on  corruption,  even  if  these 
have not been passed. On 18 January 2017, the Government put forward for consultation two 
draft emergency ordinances, one on pardon and one amending the Criminal Code and Code of 
Criminal Procedures.7   

The Constitutional Court has played an important role in further development of the rule of 
law and the consolidation of an independent justice system. Since the constitutional upheaval 
of  2012,  many  decisions  of  the  Constitutional  Court  have  contributed  to  upholding  the 
independence of justice and have sought to provide solutions linked to the balance of powers 
and respect for fundamental rights that could not be solved by the justice system alone. The 
majority of the 12 decisions by the Constitutional Court in 2016 annulling provisions of the 
new Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedures were taken on the basis of respect of the 
European Convention on Human Rights.   

6   Technical Report  Section 2.2 
7   The drafts under consultation would suggest modifications of the provisions on the corruption crimes of abuse 
of office and conflict of interest, and that the pardons law would also apply to persons sentenced for certain 
corruption crimes. 

5 

 
                                                            
At  the  point  of  Romania’s  accession  to  the  European  Union,  one  persistent  shortcoming 
identified was inconsistency in court decisions. The major legislative reforms have all sought 
to  strengthen  the  mechanisms  for  consistency.  After  the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  Codes, 
CVM  reports  have  noted  the  increasing  use  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  legal  consistency 
mechanisms implemented by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ). In recent years 
the legal mechanisms were complemented by managerial efforts to promote consistency and 
the  online  availability  of  all  court  decisions.  The  2016  CVM  report  also  noted  signs  of  a 
cultural shift in favour of consistency within the judiciary. 

Linked  to  both  independence  and  consistency  is  respect  and  implementation  of  court 
decisions. A court decision which is not implemented deprives the court decision of all useful 
effect, as well as having a direct impact on the workload of the courts through follow-up cases 
or  appeals  on  repetitive  decisions.8  Problems  with  the  respect  and  implementation  of  court 
decisions  by  State  institutions  and  public  administration  have  been  a  recurring  theme:  the 
Commission has adopted successive recommendations on this in 2014, 2015 and 2016, while 
it  has  been  also  recognised  as  a  structural  deficiency  by  the  ECtHR.9  One  important 
development in 2016 in the area of implementation of court decisions relating to confiscation 
of criminal assets was the agreement to set up the new National Agency for Management of 
Seized Assets, which is now starting its work: part of its remit will be to apply procedures to 
stimulate public bodies to carry through on asset recovery and address the consequent losses 
to public finances. 

Overall, Romania has made substantial progress on much of Benchmark One, but this has not 
been  without  difficulties,  and  efforts  are  still  required  to  demonstrate  track  record  in  areas 
including respect for judicial independence in Romania's public life, finalising reforms of the 
criminal and civil codes and ensuring efficiency in the implementation of court decisions by 
all.  

2.2  

Integrity framework and the National Integrity Agency 

The second benchmark concerns the establishment of 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 history of 
this  benchmark  illustrates  why  it  is  essential  to  be  attentive  to  irreversibility.  While  the 
National  Integrity  Agency  was  established  in  2007,  its  legitimacy  came  under  frequent 
challenge  in  its  first  years.  In  2010,  after  a  Constitutional  Court  decision,  the  Agency's 
founding  law  was  annulled  and  without  external  pressure,  it  is  not  clear  that  a  new  legal 
framework would have been put in place, as happened six months later.  

Now  Romania  has  a  comprehensive  framework  for  integrity  for  public  officials,  and  the 
National  Integrity  Agency  has  established  itself  as  an  independent  institution  to  implement 
these  rules.  When  challenged,  its  decisions  and  the  sanctions  it  can  apply  have  been 
consistently  endorsed  by  the  courts.  The  track  record  of  the  Agency  in  investigating 
unjustified  wealth,  incompatibilities  and  administrative  conflicts  of  interest  has  gradually 
increased, with a consistent trend of significant results since 2013, confirmed again in 2016. 
Importantly,  the  good  track  record  of  ANI  has  been  maintained  in  spite  of  the  management 

8      An  example  of  repetitive  case  in  2016  was  VAT  or  environmental  tax  cases  whether  the  national  and 
European level (ECJ) had already given clear rulings, but where the administration continued to bring cases 
forward. 

9   Săcăleanu (group) 73970/01: Failure or significant delay of the administration or of legal persons under the 
responsibility  of  the  State  in  abiding  by  final  domestic  court  decisions.    An  action  plan  from  the  RO 
authorities 
2016. 
https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016806d8adb  .    

in  December 

the  Council 

of  Europe 

transmitted 

been 

has 

to 

6 

 
                                                            
upheaval  caused  by  the  resignation  of  the  Agency's  President.10  ANI  will  have  another  tool 
with the PREVENT system of ex ante checks on public procurement, the legislation for which 
was agreed in Parliament in autumn 2016 and which should include all conflicts of interests as 
defined by the new Public Procurement laws. 

In line with the recommendation in the last CVM report, ANI also worked closely with the 
Permanent  Electoral  Authority  in  2016  to  ensure  that  decisions  on  integrity  were  carried 
forward into the eligibility of candidates. This proved effective, with candidates elected in the 
local elections, despite an integrity ruling, subsequently removed or resigning from office, and 
with  parties  and  the  electoral  authorities  using  the  ANI  information  to  avoid  ineligible 
candidates presenting themselves for the parliamentary elections: there seems to be only one 
outstanding case here.  

However, the legal framework for integrity, the set of laws defining the situations of conflicts 
of interests and incompatibilities for civil servants and elected or appointed officials, has been 
regularly  re-opened  in  Parliament.  It  has  not  yet  been  possible  to  put  in  place  a  clear, 
consolidated legal  framework as the bedrock for sustainability, although 2015 and 2016 did 
see  increased  efforts  by  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  to  promote  a  consistent 
application  of  the  integrity  laws.  There  has  also  been  a  recurring  problem  concerning 
resistance  to  the  implementation  of  the  Agency's  reports,  even  when  confirmed  by  a  court 
decision,  and  reluctance  from  the  responsible  institutions  and  authorities  to  apply  the 
sanctions  required  (which  consist  normally  in  either  dismissal  of  public  function  or 
administrative fines). In the last two years, the general situation has  significantly improved, 
but some decisions by Parliament have still appeared to question or delay the implementation 
of final court decisions confirming the Agency's reports.  

In its July 2013 recommendations, the Commission set out the expectation that Ministers set 
an example in respect of integrity rules and that the same should be expected with regard to 
corruption  charges.  This  remains  of  great  importance  to  the  public  credibility  of  the 
Government and the Parliament.11 

Overall,  Romania  has  made  substantial  progress  on  Benchmark  Two  and  the  National 
Integrity Agency can be considered to have established itself as a respected institution. This 
was also demonstrated by the fact that it was entrusted in 2016 with the development of the 
PREVENT system, a system for ex-ante checks on conflict of interest in public procurement, 
the working of which will need to be demonstrated in 2017. It also plays an important role in 
the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2016-2020 for corruption prevention. 

2.3   Tackling high-level corruption 

Benchmark Three concerns professional, non-partisan investigations into allegations of high-
level  corruption.  Corruption  is  a  deep-seated  societal  problem  with  consequences  for  both 
governance and the economy. It is widely recognised as a major issue in Romania, as shown 
regularly in perception surveys12 and most recently in a Eurobarometer on the CVM.13 CVM 
reports  have  been  able  to  report  a  steadily  growing  track  record  in  terms  of  investigating, 

10   CVM  reports 2014, 2015, 2016. The resignation followed  the  start of  a  criminal  investigation  into activity 

which preceded the President's term at the Agency. 

11    In early January 2017, the Ombudsman challenged to the Constitutional Court the provisions of the law 

stating that people sentenced for corruption cannot be members of the Government. 

12   Flash  Eurobarometer  428:  Businesses’  attitudes 

towards  corruption 

in 

the  EU 

,  available  at 

http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/FLAS
H/surveyKy/2084 ;   

13   Flash  Eurobarometer    445:  The  Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism  for  Bulgaria  and  Romania, 

published on 25 January 2017 

7 

 
                                                            
prosecuting  and  deciding  upon  high-level  corruption  cases  over  the  years,  with  a  clear 
acceleration  after  2011.  Since  2013,  the  track  record  of  the  institutions  involved  in 
investigating,  prosecuting  and  ruling  on  high-level  corruption  has  been  strong,  with  regular 
indictments and conclusion of cases concerning politicians of all ranks and parties, as well as 
civil  servants,  magistrates  and  businessmen.  The  National  Anti-corruption  Directorate 
investigates  a  high  number  of  cases  and  establishes  hundreds  of  cases  for  trial  for  high  and 
medium  level  corruption  every  year;  and  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  and  the 
Courts of Appeal rule final sentences in a still high number of high-level and medium level 
corruption cases. There has also been a strong trend towards confiscation of assets to recover 
the damage caused by corruption offences. The track record – consistently maintained in 2016 
– is a sign of the independence and professionalism of the judicial institutions; however, the 
repetition of similar offences also suggests that corruption prevention has not been effective. 

With  the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  Criminal  Codes  in  2014,  Romania  now  has  a 
comprehensive  legal  framework  for  combatting  corruption  crimes.  Since  the  early  days,  the 
stability  of  the  legal  framework  has  been  a  recurring  concern,  with,  as  mentioned  earlier, 
regular attempts to modify the laws incriminating corruption, often without consultation of the 
key state and judicial institutions in this area.14  

CVM  reports  have  also  noted  the  clear  link  between  the  effectiveness  of  this  work  and 
widespread media and political reaction, in terms of public criticism of individual magistrates 
and the justice system in general. They have also noted the lack of a systematic approach to 
explain  refusals  to  lift  parliamentary  immunities  to  allow  for  investigation  or  preventative 
measures.  But  overall,  the  achievements  of  Romania  in  this  area  have  rightly  attracted 
widespread recognition and substantial progress has been made on the third benchmark. 

2.4   Tackling corruption at all levels 

The fourth benchmark concerned further measures to prevent and fight against corruption, in 
particular within local government. Medium and low-level corruption is widely perceived to 
be  a  problem  in  Romania,  with  consequences  for  Romania's  economic  and  social 
development. Public procurement, for example, is an area where the prevalence of corruption 
holds back the galvanising impact of investment. Healthcare is another area where corruption 
has  serious  consequences.  Corruption  prevention  and  a  proactive  approach  from  public 
administration to closing off opportunities for corruption is an indispensable complement to 
the work of the prosecution in pursuing transgressions after they have taken place. Progress 
on  asset  recovery  will  accelerate  with  the  establishment  of  the  new  national  agency  for  the 
management  of  seized  assets  (ANABI),  which  started  to  operate  in  January  2017.  The 
prosecution  of  lower-level  corruption  has  become  a  more  standard  part  of  the  prosecution's 
work  and  remains  a  priority  of  the  prosecution.  But  additional  steps  have  to  be  taken  to 
effectively address such a widespread problem. 

The  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  is  the  core  instrument  of  corruption  prevention  by 
public  administration  at  national  and  local  level.  Anti-corruption  strategies  until  2011 
produced little results. The National Anti-Corruption strategy 2012-2015 was more successful 
in  reaching  out  to  many  institutions,  including  at  local  level,  by  its  methodology  of 
discussions within sectorial platforms and the active involvement of each institution, as well 
as peer reviews with NGOs. However, evaluation in 2015 showed that progress was slow and 
the application of prevention measures ineffective, with insufficient political will from the top 
of the institutions to implement corruption prevention measures. The Government adopted a 

14   The  two  draft  emergency  ordinances  put  forward  for  consultation  by  the  government  on  18  January  2017 

could affect the legal framework for corruption and the results of the fight against corruption.   

8 

 
                                                            
new  anti-corruption  strategy  for  2016–2020  in  August  2016,  notably  seeking  to  target  the 
identified  weaknesses  with  specific  measures.  The  main  challenge  will  be  to  effectively 
implement the measures, in all sectors and including at local level, where many observers see 
corruption risks as particularly high. 

There is no doubt that measures have been introduced by successive governments to address 
corruption,  with  a  serious  effort  to  develop  anti-corruption  strategies  and  some  innovative 
preventive  measures.  However,  though  some  progress  has  been  made  towards  fulfilling  the 
fourth  benchmark,  important  challenges  remain  in  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
preventive policies that have recently been defined. 

3. 

KEY REMAINING STEPS 

Overall, the ten years perspective shows that Romania has made major progress towards the 
CVM benchmarks. A number of key institutions and much important legislation are in place 
and  an  established  track  record  can  be  seen  in  many  areas.  The  Commission  also  considers 
that  Romania  has  demonstrated  that  a  number  of  internal  safeguards  exist  against  abrupt 
reversals of the progress. There are however important remaining shortcomings which need to 
be addressed. Reform needs to continue on the same path and internal safeguards need to be 
further  strengthened  in  order  to  ensure  the  irreversibility  required  to  satisfactorily  fulfil  the 
benchmarks. This section therefore aims to set out the remaining steps needed to ensure that 
the objectives of the CVM are reached.  

3.1.  

Judicial independence 

Appointments 

Successive CVM reports have highlighted that even if there has been a trend towards more 
merit-based  and  transparent  appointments,  the  law  on  appointments  of  top  prosecutors  and 
the  practice  of  its  implementation  is  not  sufficiently  robust  in  terms  of  avoiding  excessive 
political discretion in the appointments. From past experience, this can result in doubts being 
cast  on  the  independence  of  a  candidate,  create  delays  in  appointments  due  to  political 
deadlock,  or  even  lead  to  the  appointment  of  magistrates  who  may  later  prove  to  have 
integrity  issues.  Within  Europe,  there  are  different  legal  traditions  with  regard  to  the 
appointments  to  the  position  of  Prosecutor  General  (or  similar  top  prosecution  posts),  and 
this is recognised by the Venice Commission. But the key is to ensure appropriate safeguards 
in  terms  of  transparency  and  checks  and  balances,  even  in  cases  where  the  final  decision 
would remain with the political level.  

•  Recommendation:  Put  in  place  a  robust  and  independent  system  of  appointing  top 
prosecutors, based on clear and transparent criteria, drawing on the support of the Venice 
Commission.  

Respect for judges and the judicial process 

The  successful  prosecution  and  conviction  of  many  prominent  politicians  in  Romania  is  a 
sign of judicial independence, showing that even high office holders are not beyond the law 
if they have committed a crime. However, this seems to be at the root of attacks often directly 
targeted at individual magistrates, which go beyond criticism or disapproval of a sentence or 
a  decision  to  challenge  it  by  the  available  legal  means.  Attacks  that  aim  at  discrediting 
individual  magistrates  or  the  judicial  institutions  risk  undermining  public  confidence  in  the 
judicial  system  as  a  whole,  as  well  as  potentially  intimidating  individual  magistrates. 
Excessive or personalised criticism of judges from Parliament or government is contrary to 

9 

 
principles of mutual respect between institutions and in contradiction with respect for judicial 
independence. 

The Constitution establishes the Superior Council of the Magistracy (SCM) as main defender 
of the independence of justice. Their conclusions provide valuable support to magistrates, but 
the difficulty in securing an equivalent level of media coverage for the SCM compared to the 
initial criticisms is symptomatic of the challenge facing the judiciary in terms of the media. 
Although  the  decisions  of  the  SCM  are  always  transmitted  to  the  National  Audio-Visual 
Council, there has been no progress in terms of effective redress or corrections in the media 
that launched or relayed the attacks: a consequence of broader issues concerning freedom of 
expression in line with Council of Europe standards and the case law of the European Court 
of Human Rights. Whilst the wider issue of media regulation and redress is as such outside 
the CVM, there is a direct link with judicial independence. The new SCM and government 
could also further follow up on the recommendation to explore a more robust mechanism so 
that the SCM can support magistrates wishing to defend themselves in court or itself defend 
magistrates in courts.  

•  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  parliamentarians  now  being 
developed in Parliament includes clear provisions on mutual respect between institutions 
and making clear that parliamentarians and the parliamentary process should respect the 
independence of the judiciary. A similar Code of Conduct could be adopted for Ministers. 

The SCM should continue to report on actions it has taken in defending the independence of 
justice and protection of reputation, independence and impartiality of magistrates, and could 
organise  a  public  debate  so  that  the  Government,  the  Parliament  and  the  National  Audio-
Visual Council are invited to respond to the report. 

3.2.  

Judicial reform 

New Codes 

The current phase of the reforms of the Civil and Criminal Codes needs to be finalised. For 
the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedures, the next stage would be for Parliament 
to  take  forward  its  plans  to  adopt  the  amendments  brought  together  by  the  government  in 
2016 to ensure stability of the legal framework.   

For  the  Civil  Procedure  Code  the  government  decided  in  December  2016  to  postpone  the 
application of the remaining provisions of the new Civil Procedure Code for two years, until 1 
January  2019.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  announced  a  plan  to  determine  by  30  June  2017  the 
exact  needs  of  the system to allow full application  of the  remaining  provisions,  and to give 
enough time for their implementation by the end of 2018.  

•  Recommendation: The current phase in the reform of Romania's Criminal Codes should 
be  concluded,  with  Parliament  taking  forward  its  plans  to  adopt  the  amendments 
presented by the government in 2016 after consultation with the judicial authorities. The 
Minister of Justice, the SCM and the High Court of Cassation and Justice should finalise 
an  action  plan  to  ensure  that  the  new  deadline  for  the  implementation  of  the  remaining 
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedures can be respected. 

•  Recommendation: In order to improve further the transparency and predictability of the 
legislative process, and strengthen internal safeguards in the interest of irreversibility,  the 
Government and Parliament should ensure full transparency and take proper account of 
consultations  with  the  relevant  authorities  and  stakeholders  in  decision-making  and 
legislative  activity  on  the  Criminal  Code  and  Code  for  Criminal  Procedures,  on 
corruption  laws,  on  integrity  laws  (incompatibilities,  conflicts  of  interest,  unjustified 

10 

 
wealth), on the laws of justice (pertaining to the organisation of the justice system) and 
on  the  Civil  Code  and  Code  for  Civil  Procedures,  taking  inspiration  from  the 
transparency in decision-making put in place by the Government in 2016. 

Consistency of court decisions 

In  2016,  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  continued  to  provide  solutions  to 
inconsistencies  of  court  decisions  through  the  legal  mechanisms  of  appeal  in  the  interest  of 
the law and preliminary questions. The attitude of rank and file judges has changed as well, 
with  a  better  consideration  for  the  need  to  take  into  account  decisions  of  other  courts  in 
similar cases. The judicial management and the National Institute of Magistracy will need to 
continue promoting consistency in law and practice and developing the tools to facilitate the 
consistent  application  of  the  law  as  the  follow-up  of  jurisprudence  by  public  administration 
and  excessive  workload  of  courts  continue  to  impact  on  the  consistency  of  court  decisions. 
Further  obstacles  to  the  consistency  of  court  decisions  relate  rather  to  broader  issues 
concerning the legislative process. 

Respect for court decisions 

Respect  and  implementation  of  court  decisions  is  an  integral  part  of  the  efficiency  of  the 
in  Benchmark  One.15  Non-implementation  or  delayed 
judicial  system  as  set  out 
implementation  of  court  decisions  by  the  administration  erodes  confidence  in  justice  and 
wastes time and resources in follow-up cases or appeals on repetitive decisions.16  

•  Recommendation:  The  Government  should  put  in  place  an  appropriate  Action  Plan  to 
address the issue of implementation of court decisions and application of jurisprudence of 
the courts by public administration, including a mechanism to provide accurate statistics 
to  enable  future  monitoring.  It  should  also  develop  a  system  of  internal  monitoring 
involving the SCM and Court of Auditors in order to ensure proper implementation of the 
Action Plan. 

Structural reforms 
The comprehensive Action Plan adopted in 201617 setting out the structural reform steps to be 
taken until 2020 now under way should bring major benefits to the users of the justice system, 
and altogether improve public trust in the system.  However, as well as addressing structural 
obstacles  to  an  effective  balance  in  workload,  the  action  plan  will  need  to  be  fully 
implemented  for  the  end  users  of  the  justice  system  to  experience  an  effective  judicial 
proceeding. The users of the court system would also benefit in efficiency if motivations were 
issued at the same time as a decision was taken.  

•  Recommendation:  The  Strategic  Judicial  Management,  i.e.  the  Minister  of  Justice,  the 
SCM,  the  HCCJ  and  the  Prosecutor-General  should  ensure  the  implementation  of  the 
Action  Plan  as  adopted  and  put  in  place  regular  common  public  reporting  on  its 
implementation, including solutions to the issues of shortages of court clerks, excessive 
workload and delays in motivation of decisions. 

15   Guide  on  Article  6  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  –  Right  to  a  fair  trial  (civil  limb), 

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf  

16   An  example  of  repetitive  case  in  2016  was  VAT  or  environmental  tax  cases  whether  the  national  and 
European level (ECJ) had already given clear rulings, but where the administration continued to bring cases 
forward. 

17  Action Plan for implementing the Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary 2015-2020 approved through 

the Government Decision no. 282/2016 

11 

 
                                                            
Transparency and accountability of the Superior Council of the Magistracy 

In 2014, the CVM report noted that the Superior Council of the Magistracy (SCM) could take 
a more proactive role in increasing trust in the judicial system. The 2016 report underlined the 
importance  of  the  SCM  now  taking  office  to  the  momentum  of  reform,  to  articulate  a  clear 
collective  philosophy  on  the  basis  of  a  new  programme  and  to  take  measures  for  increased 
transparency and accountability. 

•  Recommendation:    The  new  SCM  should  prepare  a  collective  programme  for  its 
mandate,  including  measures  to  promote  transparency  and  accountability.  It  should 
include a strategy on outreach, with regular open meetings with assemblies of judges and 
prosecutors at all levels, as well as with civil society and professional organisations, and 
set up annual reporting to be discussed in courts' and prosecutors' general assemblies. 

3.3.  

Integrity framework and the National Integrity Agency 

Integrity should be the guiding principle in public life and the legal framework and integrity 
institutions are designed to promote this goal. The National Integrity Agency (ANI) can now 
be seen as an established institution, with a consistent track record. It is important to continue 
to  maintain  the  results  of  ANI  and  to  improve  further  public  acceptance  of  incompatibility 
rules  and  to  put  an  emphasis  on  upstream  prevention.  The  PREVENT  system  of  ex  ante 
checks on public procurement is an important new tool, which ANI and the National Public 
Procurement  Agency  will  need  to  bring  into  operation  in  2017.  There  has  also  been 
substantial  progress  in  the  follow-up  of  ANI  reports,  but  the  court  proceedings  remain  very 
long and there are still exceptions to the applications of sanctions. 

The legal framework for integrity remains under challenge. It is unfortunate that it does not 
seem currently possible to consolidate the long-term sustainability of the integrity framework 
through a single codification. 

•  Recommendation:  Ensure  the  entry  into  operation  of  the  PREVENT  system.  The 
National  Integrity  Agency  and  the  National  Public  Procurement  Agency  should  put  in 
place reporting on the ex-ante checks of public procurement procedures and their follow-
up,  including  ex  post  checks,  as  well  as  on  cases  of  conflicts  of  interest  or  corruption 
discovered,  and  the  organisation  of  public  debates  so  that  the  government,  local 
authorities, the judiciary and civil society are invited to respond. 

ANI  should  continue  reporting  on  the  follow-up  of  ANI  reports  in  courts  and  the 
implementation of final decisions; and on measures taken for prevention and education in the 
area of integrity.   

•  Recommendation:  The  Parliament  should  be  transparent  in  its  decision-making  with 
regard to the follow-up to final and irrevocable decisions on incompatibilities, conflicts 
of interests and unjustified wealth against its members. 

3.4   The fight against corruption 

Tackling High-level corruption  

The National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) and the High Court of Cassation and Justice 
(HCCJ)  have  established  an  impressive  track  record  in  terms  of  solving  high  and  medium-
level corruption cases. Maintaining the effort of the judicial institutions addressing high-level 
corruption remains the most important sign of consolidating the fight against corruption. The 
DNA  has  also  been  something  of  an  example  in  terms  of  its  reporting,  which  shows  a  high 
degree of openness and a willingness to analyse. In particular, the fact that similar corruption 

12 

 
cases  recur  points  to  shortcomings  in  the  process  of  learning  lessons  and  closing  loopholes 
within  public  institutions.  The  strong  media  and  political  attacks  on  magistrates  and  the 
justice system also remain a serious threat to the irreversibility of the fight against corruption.  

Corruption  laws  must  apply  equally  to  all  and  be  applied  at  all  levels.  Discussions  in 
Parliament on objective criteria to justify a refusal to lift immunities have not led to change on 
the lines of previous CVM recommendations.  

Clearly legal amendments with the effect of weakening or shrinking the scope of corruption 
as an offence, or which represented a major challenge to the independence or effectiveness of 
DNA, would entail a reassessment of the progress made.18 

•  Recommendation:  Adopt  objective  criteria  for  deciding  on  and  motivating  lifting  of 
immunity  of  Members  of  Parliament  to  help  ensure  that  immunity  is  not  used  to  avoid 
investigation and prosecution of corruption crimes. The government could also consider 
modifying the law to limit immunity of ministers to time in office. These steps could be 
assisted  by  the  Venice  Commission  and  GRECO19.  The  Parliament  should  set  up  a 
system  to  report  regularly  on  decisions  taken  by  its  Chambers  on  requests  for  lifting 
immunities and could organise a public debate so that the Superior Council of Magistracy 
and civil society can respond.  

Tackling Corruption at all levels 

Corruption  prevention  is  still  weak  and  is  not  yet  established  as  a  core  obligation  of  public 
administration.  The  new  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  (NAS)  presented  by  the 
Government in August 2016 has the potential to be an effective corruption prevention policy 
if  it  is  properly  implemented  and  followed  up  on  the  ground,  including  at  local  level.  EU 
funds  can  also  have  a  major  part  to  play  in  supporting  this  work.  The  following  actions 
foreseen under the NAS appear of particular importance, and have deadlines which should be 
adhered to: 

•  All  institutions  will  adopt  integrity  plans  and  apply  the  planned  steps  in  terms  of 

transparency of decision making and budget allocation, and access to information.  

•  The  Ministry  of  Justice  will  set  up  relevant  statistical  indicators  to  provide  a  baseline 
situation, and follow this up with statistics on integrity incidents, corruption perceptions or 
bribe giving.  

•  The legal framework for ethics counsellors will be strengthened, both in terms of mandate 

and resources. 

•  An  integrity  index  will  be  created  for  local  administration,  measuring  key  indicators  to 

allow a comparison.  

The National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets has been set up and now needs to 
demonstrate it can function properly, provide transparent data on the confiscation of criminal 
assets and eventually increase the proportion of assets effectively recovered.  

Preventing conflicts of interest, fraud and corruption in public procurement remain a serious 
challenge.  The  steps  defined  in  2016  for  reinforcing  internal  control  systems  within  the 
contracting authorities and the IT system for random and risk based ex-ante checks within the 

18    Any  finally-adopted  version  of  the  two  draft  emergency  ordinances  put  forward  for  consultation  by  the 

government on 18 January 2017 would need to be looked at in this light.  

19  The  Group  of  States  against  Corruption  (GRECO)  was  established  in  1999  by  the  Council  of  Europe  to 

monitor compliance with the organisation’s anti-corruption standards. 

13 

 
                                                            
National  Public  Procurement  Agency  are  promising,  but  still  under  development.  More 
training and specialisation of judges in public procurement would also be important. 

•  Recommendation:  Continue  to  implement  the  National  Anti-corruption  Strategy, 
respecting the deadlines set by the government in August 2016. The Minister of Justice 
should  put  in  place  a  reporting  system  on  the  effective  implementation  of  the  National 
Anti-corruption  Strategy 
in  public 
administration,  details  of  disciplinary  procedures  and  sanctions  and  information  on  the 
structural measures applied in vulnerable areas). 

(including  statistics  on 

incidents 

integrity 

•  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  National  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Seized 
Assets  is  fully  and  effectively  operational  so  that  it  can  issue  a  first  annual  report  with 
reliable statistical information on confiscation of criminal assets. The Agency should put 
in place a system to report regularly on development of administrative capacity, results in 
confiscation and managing criminal assets.  

4.  CONCLUSION  

The Commission's 2014, 2015 and 2016 CVM reports were able to highlight a positive trend 
and a track record pointing to strong progress and growing irreversibility of the reforms under 
the  CVM.  This  positive  trend  was  confirmed  in  2016  with  a  continued  track  record  for  the 
judicial institutions in a time of change in leadership and a strong impetus by the government 
to  strengthen  corruption  prevention.  The  10  years'  perspective  of  developments  under  the 
CVM shows also that, despite some periods when reform lost momentum and was questioned, 
Romania has made major progress towards the CVM benchmarks.  

At the same time a number of key issues already identified in earlier reports have remained 
outstanding,  and  therefore  this  report  cannot  conclude  that  the  benchmarks  are  at  this  stage 
satisfactorily  fulfilled.  However  this  report  is  able  to  identify  a  very  limited  number  of  key 
recommendations  to  lead  to  the  provisional  closing  of  individual  benchmarks,  and  then  the 
conclusion of the CVM process. Most of them focus on the responsibility and accountability 
required  by  the  Romanian  authorities  and  the  internal  safeguards  needed  to  ensure  the 
irreversibility  of  the  results.  It  will  also  be  supported  by  development  of  reporting  and 
accountability mechanisms to continue once the CVM has ended. The Commission considers 
that the CVM objectives can be achieved by following up the recommendations set out in this 
report. The speed of the process will depend on how quickly Romania will be able to fulfil 
them  in  an  irreversible  way,  and  on  avoiding  negative  steps  which  call  into  question  the 
progress made so far.  

The  Commission  therefore  invites  Romania  to  take  action  to  fulfil  the  recommendations 
contained in the present report. The Commission will assess progress made towards the end of 
2017. 

14