COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT ROMANIA : Technical Report Accompanying the document 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

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.1.2017  SWD(2017) 25 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT ROMANIA : Technical Report Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on Progress in Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism {COM(2017) 44 final}  
 
 
Benchmarks to be addressed by Romania pursuant to Commission Decision of 13/XII/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:1 

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

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

Benchmark 3: Building on progress already made, continue to conduct professional, non- partisan 
investigations into allegations of high- level corruption 

Benchmark 4: Take further measures to prevent and fight against corruption, in particular within the local 
government 

List of acronyms 
ANABI: National Agency for the management of seized assets  
ANAF: National Agency for Fiscal Administration 
ANI: National Integrity Agency 
ANAP: National Agency for Public Procurement 
ARO: Asset Recovery Office 
CCR: Constitutional Court 
CVM: Cooperation and Verification Mechanism 
DGA: Anti-corruption Directorate General – Ministry of Internal Affairs 
DIICOT: Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism 
DNA: National Anti-Corruption Directorate 
HCCJ: High Court of Cassation and Justice 
MoJ: Ministry of Justice 
NAS: National Anti-corruption Strategy 
NIC: National Integrity Council 
NIM: National Institute of Magistracy 
SCM: Superior Council of Magistracy 
WIC: Wealth Investigation Commissions   

References  to  "CVM  reports"  refer  to  the  Commission  report  and  the  accompanying  Technical 
Report 

CVM report July 2012: COM(2012) 410 and SWD(2012) 231 - 5 year assessment of progress 
CVM report 2013: COM(2013) 47– report of progress July 2012 to December 2012 
CVM report 2014: COM(2014) 37 and SWD(2014) 37– report of progress in 2013 
CVM report 2015: COM(2015) 35 and SWD(2015) 8– report of progress in 2014 
CVM report 2016: COM(2016) 41 and SWD(2016) 16 – report of progress in 2015 

1 Previous CVM reports can be consulted at: http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/progress_reports_en.htm  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This technical report sets out the information and the data which the Commission has used as the basis 
for its analysis under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism (CVM). This information has been 
collected from a variety of sources. In the first place, the Commission has had the benefit of working 
closely with the Romanian government and key judicial and State bodies on CVM issues, which have 
provided detailed and focused reports, as well as in frequent face-to-face meetings.2,3 The Commission 
services follow developments through a permanent presence in Romania.4 Commission contacts with 
the Romanian administration across the full range of EU policies also help to inform this work.  The 
Commission's  work  is  also  supported  by  independent  experts  from  other  Member  States,5  who 
participate in a fact-finding mission once a year that includes visits to institutions outside Bucharest.6 
The Commission also meets with non-governmental organisations active in the area of judicial reform 
and  anti-corruption  projects,  with  judges  and  prosecutors  unions,  and  with  representatives  of  the 
business community. This report remains the responsibility of the Commission services. 

The Commission further draws on the various studies and reports that are available from international 
institutions  and  other  independent  observers  in  the  field  of  judicial  reform  and  the  fight  against 
corruption.  Since  the  time  when  the  CVM  benchmarks  were  drafted,  there  have  been  major 
developments  in  ECHR  case-law,  international  standards  and  best  practices,7  and  comparative 
information  on  national  justice  systems  in  the  EU8,  which  also  help  to  give  an  objective  and 
comparable measure of the development of the Romanian judicial system and fight against corruption.  

The CVM Commission  Decision  of 2006 defined four benchmarks for Romania. These benchmarks 
have  never  been  modified.  The  assessment  of  the  progress  in  Romania  has  involved  looking  at  the 
structural conditions (such as laws, institutions, and resources); at the results and track record; and at 
sustainability  issues.  Each  year,  the  Commission  makes  recommendations  with  regard  to  each 
benchmark  to  reflect  progress  and  how  it  might  be  sustained  or  extended  in  a  time  horizon  of  the 
coming year.  

The  Commission  also  supports  the  efforts  of  Romania  in  achieving  the  CVM  objectives  through 
funding  under  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds.  In  the  2007-2013  period,  Romania 
implemented a number of projects in the anti-corruption and judicial reform area. The total amount of 
funding from the European Social Fund (ESF) was EUR 16 million. The main beneficiaries were the 
Ministries of Public Administration, Justice, Education and Health. European Regional Development 
Funds (ERDF) were invested in actions relating to integrity control projects (including PREVENT – 

2    In 2016, the Commission services had four fact-finding missions in Romania. 
3      In  2016  Commission  representatives  had  meetings  with  the  Ministers  of  Justice,  Public  Consultation  and 
Civic  Dialogue  and  Interior,  officials  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  the  National  Agency  for  Fiscal 
Administration  (ANAF),  the  Ministry  of  Regional  Development  and  Public  Administration  (MRDAP),  the 
Prime  Minister  Chancellery,  the  Ministry  of  Health  and  the  Ministry  of  Education,  the  High  Court  of 
Cassation  and Justice  (HCCJ),  the  Superior  Council  of  the  Magistracy  (SCM),  the  Prosecutor  General,  the 
National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  (DNA),  the  Directorate  for  Investigation  of  Organised  Crime  and 
Terrorism  (DIICOT),  the  National  Institute  of  the  Magistracy  (NIM),  the  Judicial  Inspection,  the  National 
School  of  Clerks,  judges  and  prosecutors  from  the  courts  of  Bucharest  and  Brasov,  the  National  Integrity 
Agency  (ANI),  the  Permanent  Electoral  Authority,  the  national  Agency  for  Public  Procurement  (ANAP), 
President  and  members  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  Vice-President  and  members  of  the  Senate,  the 
Constitutional  Court,  a  Presidential  Advisor,  the  Bar  association  (National  and  Bucharest)  and  the 
Association of bailiffs.  

4   The Commission has a CVM resident adviser in Bucharest. 
5    In the period 2007-2016, judges, prosecutors and anti-corruption experts from BE, DE, EE, ES, FR, IRL, IT, 

NL, PL, SI, UK participated in CVM fact-finding missions in Bulgaria and Romania. 

6    In the period 2007 – 2016 fact finding missions took place in Bucharest,  Brasov, Timisoara, Cluj, Constanta, 

and Iasi. 

7    The most important ones being the developments in ECHR case-law on fair trial rights, the UN Convention 
Against Corruption, Venice Commission Reports on European standards as regards the independence of the 
judicial system, and CEPEJ indicators. 

8    The EU Justice Scoreboard  

3 

 
 
                                                            
see below)9 and the capacity of public procurement agency, for a budget of about EUR 15 million.  EU 
funds will be crucial for the implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and the Strategy 
for the Development  of Justice, and the respective action plans finalised in 2016 have identified the 
areas  that  could  be  funded  through  EU  funds.  EU  funds  have  also  been  allocated  to  support  the 
Strategy on Public Procurement and the Strategy for the reform of Public Administration.  

In the 2014-2020 period, the Administrative Capacity Programme (ESF) will provide funding of about 
EUR 103 million for judicial reform projects, including 35 million specifically for anti-corruption, and 
EUR  35  million  to  support  improvements  in  public procurement.  ERDF  resources  of  up  to  EUR  15 
million will be invested in capacity building and technical assistance in public procurement, in fraud 
prevention  for  Management  Authorities  and  in  the  Fight  Against  Fraud  Department  (DLAF). 
Financing  by  EU  funds  also  contributes  to  the  stability  of  the  objectives  of  the  strategies  as  agreed 
with the Commission, some strategies being ex-ante conditionalities for using the Funds. 

2. 

THE JUDICIAL PROCESS  

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

Reform  of  the  judicial  system  is  one  of  the  two  overarching  themes  monitored  under  the  CVM  in 
Romania,  focusing  on  establishing  an  independent,  impartial,  and  efficient  judicial  system, 
strengthening  the  consistency  of  the  judicial  process,  and  improving  the  transparency  and 
accountability of the judiciary. 

2.1. 

Overview of developments under the CVM 

Whilst difficult to measure precisely, there are some clear indicators that can be used to assess judicial 
independence. The prosecution and conviction of many prominent politicians in Romania is a sign that 
the  underlying  trend  of  judicial  independence  is  positive.  The  same  trend  can  be  seen  in  opinion 
polling  on  perceived  judicial  independence  and  trust  in  the  judiciary.10  But  as  CVM  reports  have 
recorded, there has also been a reaction to this trend: political and media criticism of magistrates and 
judicial institutions has been frequent,11 with attacks against the National Anti-corruption Directorate 
continuing  to  intensify  in  2016.  The  risk  is  that  such  criticism  undermines  public  confidence  in  the 
judicial system as a whole, especially when it comes from government or Parliament.12     

The Superior Council of the Magistracy (SCM) plays a central role, as the Constitution establishes the 
SCM as main defender of the independence of Justice.  In 2012 the Commission reported that "Over 
the last five years, the SCM has had an uphill task to establish public confidence, as it initially failed 
to recognise that protecting the reputation of the judiciary is part of its core functions.  But decisions 
taken by the SCM in June 2012 to more proactively defend the independence of the judiciary and the 
rule of law are steps which show the SCM more ready to exercise its Constitutional role and address 
the issue of public confidence".13 In the following years, CVM reports have highlighted that the SCM 
has increased the emphasis on defending the independence of justice and the reputation, independence 
and  impartiality  of  magistrates,  working  more  systematically  and  with  growing  confidence.  The 
procedure in place since 2012, involving investigation of the facts by the Judicial Inspection (JI) and a 

9   IT system for ex-ante checks of conflicts of interest (see section 3.3) 
10   The  2016  EU  Justice  Scoreboard  (COM  2016)  199  final,  see  graphs  48,  44  and  46.  According  to  the 
European  Commission's  Eurobarometer  surveys,  between 2007  and  2016 the  Romanians’  trust in judiciary 
increased from 26% in 2007, up to 35% in the year 2016. The largest percentages were recorded in the year 
2015 with 48% and in 2013 with 44%. 

11   COM(2012) 410 final, COM(2013) 47 final, COM(2014) 37 final, COM(2015) 35 final. 
12   Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  CM/Rec  (2010)12  on  judges:  independence,  efficiency  and 
responsibilities,  §18:  If  commenting  on  the  judges'  decisions,  the  executive  and  legislative  powers  should 
avoid criticism that would undermine the independence of or public confidence in the judiciary. 

13   CVM report July 2012  

4 

 
 
                                                            
decision  by  the  SCM  plenum,  also  made  public  through  press  releases  and  information  to  media,  is 
now well established.14 The SCM considers that its actions in defence of the independence of justice 
have helped this issue to be taken more seriously by citizens and politicians. However, the difficulty in 
securing  an  equivalent  level  of  coverage  for  the  SCM  press  statements  compared  to  the  initial 
criticisms  was  noted  in  the  2015  and  2016  CVM  reports.15  Although  the  decisions  of  the  SCM  are 
always transmitted to the National Audio-Visual Council, this has not resulted in effective redress or 
corrections  in  the  media  that  launched  or  relayed  the  attacks.16  In  January  2016,  the  Commission 
therefore  recommended  that  the  new  SCM  should  determine  if  more  could  be  done  to  provide 
appropriate support to individual magistrates facing criticism undermining judicial independence. 

As  highlighted  already  in  many  CVM  reports,  the  space  that  such  allegations  receive  in  the  public 
sphere  and  the  uneven  public  reaction  against  them  illustrate  that  the  principles  of  judicial 
independence  have  not  been  fully  internalised.  Successive  recommendations  from  the  Commission 
that  "the  Code  of  Conduct  for  parliamentarians  [should]  include  clear  provisions  so  that 
parliamentarians  and  the  parliamentary  process  respect  the  independence  of  the  judiciary"  have  not 
been  achieved.17A  draft  Code  of  Conduct  was  elaborated  in  Parliament  in  2014  and  will  be 
reconsidered by the newly elected Parliament, but it did not include provisions on the respect of the 
independence of the judiciary.  

The Constitutional Court has a key role in further development of the rule of law and the consolidation 
of an independent justice system. CVM reports have highlighted that notably since the constitutional 
crisis  of  2012,  many  decisions  of  the  Constitutional  Court  have  contributed  to  upholding  the 
independence of justice, in particular in terms of respect of court decisions, 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.18 

The rigour of entry procedures into the magistracy has also been seen to have placed an important part 
in  the  independence,  as  well  as  the  professionalism,  of  the  magistracy.19  In  the  period  2007-2012, 
nearly  half  of  the  new  recruits  entered  the  magistracy  using  provisions  in  the  law  allowing  for 
extraordinary  direct  entrants,  as  opposed  to  the  two-years  training  at  the  National  Institute  of 
Magistracy  (NIM).20  Following  successive  recommendations  from  the  Commission,  more  robust 
appointment  procedures  based  on  open  competitions  to  enter  the  magistracy  or  be  promoted  to  the 
High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  were  put  in  place  between  2007  and  2012,  and  the  entry  into 
profession  training  at  the  NIM  has  been  generalised  for  all  new  entrants.21  The  2016  CVM  report 
noted  that  most  magistrate  positions,  including  leading  positions  in  courts  and  prosecutors'  offices, 
posts are filled through open competitions organized by the SCM and the NIM.  

Throughout the years 2011 - 2016, the capacity and the organisation of the NIM continued to be re-
enforced with additional personnel and training staff, resources, including important external funding, 
while  the  training  programmes  continued  to  improve  and  adapt  to  the  needs  of  the  judiciary.  In  the 
period 2011-2016, an important part of the training curriculum focused on the new civil and criminal 
Codes. International training activities were also developed.  Romania also participates actively in the 
European training programmes or other multi-national programmes. In 2015, more Romanian judges, 
prosecutors and lawyers than the average of all EU Member States participated in training on EU law 

14  CVM reports 2014, 2015, 2016 
15  COM(2015) 35 final, p 4., CVM report 2016 
16  The National Audio-Visual Council has itself been the subject of criticism by NGOs and in Parliament: its 

President is also the subject of an ongoing DNA investigation.  

17   CVM reports 2014, 2015, 2016 
18   CVM reports 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 
19   CVM report 2016 
20   CVM report July 2012, p11 
21   CVM report July 2012 

5 

 
 
                                                            
law  of  another  EU  Member  State,  surpassing 

or 
Commission´s  Communication (2011) 551 on European judicial training.22  

training 

the 

targets  set  out 

in 

the 

Concerning  appointments in  leadership  positions  of the key judicial institutions  – the High Court  of 
Cassation, the Public Ministry and the National Anti-Corruption Directorate, and the Superior Council 
of the Magistracy-, CVM reports have repeatedly emphasised the importance of transparent and merit-
based  selection  procedures23  as  a  way  to  provide  robust  leadership,  avoid  political  interference  in 
senior appointments and support judicial independence. The reports have noted a mixed track record in 
this regard.24 The January 2016 CVM report noted that 2016 will see a series of appointments to key 
posts and both the process and the results would be a key test of the ability of the judicial system to 
maintain the reform process through a time of change.25,26  

A  central  component  of  the  judicial  reform  initiatives  has  been  the  modernisation  of  legislation.  In 
2009  Romania  adopted  new  substantive  Civil  and  Criminal  Codes  and  in  2010  their  accompanying 
procedural  Codes,  aiming  to  modernise  the  substantive  law  and  to  improve  the  efficiency  and 
consistency of the judicial process. In 2011 the Civil Code entered into force and in 2013 the Code of 
Civil Procedures.  The 2016 CVM report noted that he transition towards the application of new Code 
of Civil Procedure was coming to an end, with the large majority of cases in courts now falling under 
the  new  codes.  This  major  reform  is  thus  nearly  finalised:  however,  the  need  to  introduce  logistical 
and structural changes in the courts has led  to successive delays of certain provisions, with no clear 
plan to tackle the issue of how to update courts to the needs of the new Codes. The 2016 CVM report 
recommended that the Government and the SCM should set up a clear plan to ensure that the deadline 
of January 2017 for the implementation of the remaining provisions of the Code of Civil Procedures 
can be respected.  
The  new  Criminal  Code  and  Code  of  Criminal  Procedures  entered  into  force  on  1st  February  2014. 
Overall this major reform step has been seen as a success by the judiciary, as well as by civil society. 
CVM reports in 2015 and 2016 concluded that judicial institutions, judges and prosecutors, and court 
clerks, have shown professionalism and the capacity to make the reform work, while the Ministry of 
Justice has constantly supported the reforms through budget and resources allocations and adoption of 
necessary legal amendments.  Since their entry into force  a number of developments have called into 
question the stability of the Codes,  and required adoption of urgent amendments , but these have been 
pending  in  Parliament  for  over  two  years.27  Eventually,  to  ensure  stability  and  legal  certainty  the 
Government  adopted  several  Emergency  Ordinances  in  2016,  but  these  still  need  to  be  adopted  in 
Parliament. 28 

At the point of Romania’s accession to the European Union, one persistent shortcoming identified was 
the  inconsistency  in  court decisions.  The  major  legislative  reforms  have  all  sought  to  strengthen  the 
mechanisms for consistency. In 2010 the Small Reform Law refocused the competences of the High 
Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  (HCCJ)  on  cassation  and  consistent  interpretation  of  the  law,  and 
streamlined  the  unification  mechanism  of  appeal  in  the  interest  of  the  law.  The  Civil  and  Criminal 
Procedure Codes further consolidated the unification and cassation role of the HCCJ and introduced a 
new  mechanism,  preliminary  ruling,  for  ensuring  uniform  interpretation  before  a  final  decision  is 
taken.  CVM  reports  have  noted  the  increasing  use  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  legal  unification 

22   European judicial training 2016 report  
23   COM (2015) 35 final; COM (2014) 37 final; COM (2013) 47 final; COM (2012) 410 final. 
24   CVM  report  July  2011,  CVM  report  July  2012,  CVM  report  2013,  CVM  report  2014,  CVM  report  2015, 

CVM report 2016 

25  General Prosecutor and Chief Prosecutor of the DNA: May 2016, President of the High Court of Cassation 

and Justice: September 2016, Superior Council of Magistracy: elections in late 2016. 

26    The  nomination  procedure  for  the  Chief  Prosecutor  of  DIICOT  also  applies  to  all  senior  prosecutors,  their 
deputies and includes the level of heads of sections in the Public Ministry and the DNA.  In total, there were 
15 prosecution posts to be chosen by the Minister of Justice in 2016. 

27   CVM reports 2015, 2016 
28  There are 7 Emergency ordinances pending in Parliament on the Civil and Criminal Codes (5 on the criminal 

codes) 

6 

 
 
                                                            
mechanisms since the entry into force of the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes.29  Next to the legal 
mechanisms, at managerial level, the HCCJ, the National Institute of Magistracy (NIM), the SCM, the 
General  Prosecution  service  and  the  Presidents  of  the  Courts  of  Appeal  have  encouraged  awareness 
and  training  of  judges  and  prosecutors  on  the  need  for  consistency,  developed  online  tools  and 
organised regular meetings at all court levels to discuss diverging interpretations, thereby supporting 
the  legal  work  of  the  HCCJ,  but  also  complementing  it  through  developing  common  practice  in  the 
application  of  the  procedural  codes.  CVM  reports  have  highlighted  that  these  management  efforts 
intensified when the new codes entered into force and noted in 2016 signs of a cultural shift in favour 
of consistency within the judiciary.30  

The availability and transparency of court decisions also contribute to consistency of decisions. While 
the 2012 report noted that access to court decisions remain an important impediment, with only part of 
the  decisions  of  the  HCCJ  published  online  and  the  majority  of  decisions  of  lower  courts  not 
publically  available,  several  steps  have  been  taken  to  remedy  this  situation:  first  the  HCCJ  fully 
revamped its website in 2014 and now publishes all decisions (including past decisions)  and second, 
the  SCM  developed  together  with  the  Bar  Association  a  public  on-line  repository  for  all  judicial 
decisions (ROLII), that started operating end of 2015.  

Previous  CVM  reports  have  identified  a  number  of  obstacles  to  the  consistency  of  court  decisions. 
Some  of  these  are  issues  which  go  beyond  the  scope  of  the  CVM  itself,  such  as  of  the  quality  of 
legislation31  and  the  risks  inherent  in  widespread  recourse  to  instruments  such  as  Government 
Executive Ordinances.  Other factors relate directly to the functioning of the  judicial system, such as 
the quality and delay of motivations of judicial decisions and workload issues.  

Structural  reforms  to  the  administration  of  justice  have  been  shown  to  have  a  direct  impact  on  the 
effectiveness of justice. Issues like the efficiency of the system, its affordability, and the ease of access 
are all important factors in an effective justice system. The efficiency of the judicial process had been 
identified  in  2007  as  a  major  problem  of  the  Romanian  justice  system.  Problems  such  as  judges  in 
large courts facing problems in coping with a massive caseload, courts and prosecution offices which 
lack the critical mass to operate at the right level of professionalism, and shortages in terms of court 
clerks,  offices,  court  rooms  and  IT  facilities  are  well  known.  Structural  reforms  are  a  shared 
responsibility,  with  the  main  actors  being  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  and  the  Minister  of 
Justice. In 2012, the CVM report noted that although important efforts had been made to increase the 
number of magistrates, work to implement structural reforms of the judicial system in the period 2007-
2012 had been slow,32 with little progress in rebalancing of workload between courts, in rationalising 
the territorial distribution of courts and prosecution offices,33 and in the transfer of tasks from judges 
to court clerks.34  The Functional Review of the judicial system prepared by the World Bank in 2013 
provided  for  the  first  time  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the  functioning  of  the  system  and  global 
recommendations on the reform steps. Another study in 2014 on the optimal volume of work to judges 
and court clerks complemented this work. On the basis of these studies and CVM recommendations, 
the judicial management – SCM, Ministry of Justice, Prosecutor General and HCCJ – have defined a 
comprehensive  structural  reform  plan,  Strategy  for  the  Development  of  the  Judiciary  2015-2020, 
setting out a vision for the judiciary and the key structural reform steps up to 2020, which was adopted 
by  the  Government  in  December  2014.  In  addition  various  management  tools  for  monitoring  the 
functioning  of  the  courts  and  prosecution  office  and  the  human  resource  situation  have  been 

29   CVM reports 2014, 2015, 2016 
30   CVM reports 2015, 2016 
31   In  general  the  problem  of  quality  of  legislation  does  not  apply  to  legislation  prepared  by  the  Ministry  of 
Justice which, because of the stability and quality of its staff, has developed a strong judicial expertise and 
consistently applies public consultation and transparent law-making tools.  

32   CVM report July 2012 
33   A law adopted in 2011 closed three working courts and their accompanying prosecution office. 
34   A draft law has been pending in Parliament since 2011. 

7 

 
 
                                                            
developed.35  The  detailed  action  plan  for  this  Strategy  was  adopted  in  April  2016,  and  its 
implementation will be supported by EU funds and loans from the World Bank. When the measures 
will be fully implemented, it should bring major benefits to the users of the justice system, while those 
working within the system should experience better workload and working conditions.   

The  introduction  of  new  legislation  has  also  aimed  at  improving  efficiency.  The  2012  CVM  report 
notes  that  the  Small  Reform  Law  adopted  in  2010  helped  to  accelerate  judicial  proceedings  and 
strengthen the efficiency of the prosecution. CVM reports in 2015 and 2016 further described how the 
entry into force of the new procedural codes in 2013 and 2014 helped to improve the effectiveness of 
the  judicial  process,  although  the  full  impact  on  efficiency  is  yet  to  be  concluded.36  The  entry  into 
force of the new codes was also supported by an important commitment of successive governments to 
support implementation of the Codes with increased resources.37  
Respect  and  implementation  of  court  decisions  is  an  integral  part  of  an  effective  judicial  system.38 
Problems  with  the  respect  and  implementation  of  court  decisions  by  State  institutions  and  public 
administration  have  been  a  consistent  theme  of  CVM  reports.39  Whereas  the  problems  of  effective 
confiscation of criminal assets are being addressed through the development of the  National Agency 
for Managing seized and confiscated assets (ANABI) agency (see Section 5), few steps were taken to 
address  the  respect  of  court  decisions  by  the  public  administration,  although  it  has  also  been 
recognised  as  a  structural  deficiency  by  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  (ECtHR)40  and  has  a 
direct impact on the workload of the courts.41 

Integrity,  transparency  and  accountability  within  the  judicial  system  were  another  major  concern 
affecting  the  Romanian  judicial  system  identified  at  the  point  of  accession.  These  concerns  were 

35   This is an ongoing project set out in the CVM report 2016, p17: The SCM has continued the development of 
tools  for  monitoring  and  managing  the  activities  of  the  courts:  as  well  as  the  ROLII  project  (see  above), 
electronic case file application has been introduced in some Courts of Appeal, also supported by the local 
Bar  associations.  The  EMAP  portal  is  used  by  the  SCM  for  interconnection  of  information  available  in 
different  courts  and  for  managing  various  administrative  and  human  resource  activities,  while  the  STATIS 
system monitors the activity of the courts in handling cases and is now installed in all courts.  

36   According to the latest data from the Romanian authorities, the rate of settlement of the files from the initial 
stock (civil and criminal) has risen from 69,2% in 2012 to 75, 9% in 2016. The rate of settlement of the new 
files has risen from 48.7% in 2012 to 62.2% in 2016, both at first instance and at tribunals.  The increase is 
particurly visible in the rate of settlement of criminal cases with 87.44% at the courts of appeal, 107,30% at 
the tribunals and 89,77% at first instance courts. The 2016 EU Justice Scoreboard showed a similar trendof 
improvement of the overall efficiency of the courts since 2012. However, the first analysis by the SCM of the 
impact  of  the  codes  in  2015  showed  some  clear  areas  of  vulnerabilities  and  where  efficiency  had  rather 
decreased, an analysis further confirmed in the SCM Report on the status of justice 2015 published in April 
2016. 

37  In the last 6 years the budget budget approved for the judiciary (Ministry of Justice, Public Ministry, SCM, 
HCCJ) increased as follows: 2011 – 676 million euros; 2012 – 714 million euros; 2013 – 820 million euros; 
2014 – 1066 million euros; 2015 – 1008 million euros; 2016 – 942 million euros. Similarly there has been an 
important increase in the personnel allocated for the judiciary:  the number of judgesincreased from  4482 in 
2007  to  5066  in  2016,  while  the  number  of  the  filled-in  position  increased  from  3968  in  2007  to  4499  in 
2016.  The number of prosecutors increased form 2854 in 2007 to 2961 in 2016, while the number of filled-in 
positions increased from 2240 in 2007 to 2653 in 2016. 

38  ECHR guidelines on article 6: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf 
39  CVM reports July 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 
40    In  2014,  The  Department  for  execution  of  judgement  from  the  Council of  Europe  has  identified  in several 
groups of ECtHR cases as a structural issue the failures or significant delays in execution of domestic court 
decisions  by  the  public  administration  (Sacaleanu  and  Strungariu  groups)  and  the  failure  of  authorities  to 
assist  applicants  to  enforce  final  court  decisions  concerning  private  parties  (Ruianu  group).  Romania  has 
proposed  an  Action  Plan  to  address  issues  under  the  Sacaleanu  group  of  cases  in  December  2016.  The 
Council  of  Europe  Committee  of  Ministers  will  examine  the  status  of  implementation  of  the  ECHR’s 
judgments  on  non-enforcement  of  final  court  decisions  in  Romania  by  the  Administration  in  March  2017 
(1280th meeting, 7 – 9 March). 

41  CVM report 2016 

8 

 
 
                                                            
closely  related  to  the  ability  of  the  Superior  Council  of  the  Magistracy  (SCM)  and  of  the  Judicial 
Inspection  (JI)  to  ensure  a  transparent,  accountable  and  effective  judicial  system,  and  to  uphold  the 
highest standards of integrity within the judiciary. 

In  line  with  recommendations  set  out  in  CVM  reports,  since  2007  the  SCM  has  taken  a  number  of 
measures to improve its institutional transparency and has strengthened the objectivity of management 
decisions within the Council (for example on appointments).42 In 2014, the CVM report noted that the 
SCM is the central interface for the justice system towards Romanian citizens and  other users of the 
system, and that it would be in line with the judicial strategy to see the SCM taking a more proactive 
role  in  increasing  trust  in  the  judicial  system.  The  2015  report  highlighted  that  the  interface  which 
lawyers, businessmen, NGOs and citizens face in their dealings with courts could be improved, while 
the  2016  CVM  report  called  for  the  new  SCM  to  take  office  in  2017  to  take  clear  measures  for 
increased transparency and accountability. 

Integrity within the judiciary is a particularly important test of the management of the magistracy. In 
March  2012 the  SCM  adopted  a  strategy  for  integrity  within  the judiciary,  to  increase  transparency, 
improve access to the judicial system, enhance ethical and integrity rules, and improve the system of 
disciplinary liability. In the following years, CVM reports have noted increased steps by the SCM to 
highlight integrity, with several integrity projects including with international partners.  

CVM  reports  have  also  noted  an  increase  of  corruption  investigations  initiated  against  magistrates, 
with a peak of cases in 2013, 2014 and 2015, attributed to an increase in whistleblowing. By the end of 
2015,  DNA  reported  that  there  had  been  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  complaints  and  new  cases  of 
corruption  in  the  judiciary,  and  they  considered  that  this  was  the  positive  result  of  a  real  decrease 
following a reduced tolerance for corruption within the system. The SCM needs to authorise the search 
and  arrest  of  magistrates,  and  has  admitted  all  cases  since  2007.  Since  2012,  it  has  also  applied  a 
policy of suspending magistrates under criminal investigations, a policy which was later confirmed in 
a formal decision. In 2014, the “Law limiting special pensions for magistrates convicted of corruption” 
came  into  force.  This  provides  that  magistrates  convicted  of  corruption  will  not  receive  the  special 
pension normally enjoyed by the profession. 

The  SCM  is  also  responsible  for  sanctioning  professional  misconduct  and  disciplinary  offences  by 
magistrates,  notably  on  the  grounds  of  bad  behaviour,  incompetence  and  serious  negligence.  The 
investigation  of  such  cases  rests  with  the  Judicial  Inspection.  In  the  period  2007-2011,  various 
measures  had  been  taken  to  strengthen  the  Judicial  Inspection  and  the  disciplinary  system  for 
magistrates,  but  the  July  2012  report  noted  that  progress  in  addressing  deficiencies  of  the  Judicial 
Inspection was slow, and that the track record over the five years did not reveal significant change in 
the  number  or  types  of  disciplinary  sanctions  applied  to  magistrates.  CVM  recommendations  had 
pointed  to  the  need  to  consider  a  more  thorough  reform  of  the  Judicial  Inspection  and  disciplinary 
system. In 2012, a new law introduced far reaching changes to the Judicial Inspection, strengthening 
the  disciplinary  system  through  enhancing  the  autonomy  of  the  Inspection,  expanding  the  range  of 
disciplinary offences and sanctions, and closing loopholes that had undermined the effectiveness of the 
disciplinary  system.43  From  2013,  CVM  reports  have  noted  an  increase  in  the  number  and  types  of 
disciplinary  actions  initiated  by  the  Judicial  Inspection,44  and  highlighted  its  essential  role  in  the 
transformation of the Romanian Judiciary. The accumulation of cases over the years has now allowed 
the Judicial Inspection to identify the main causes for disciplinary actions, to better define preventive 
measures. The reports of the Judicial Inspection are forwarded  to the respective SCM  sections, who 
decide on the sanctions. The decisions of the SCM can be appealed before the HCCJ. The 2016 CVM 

42  CVM report July 2012: These have included efforts to strengthen communication, the progressive expansion 
of the institution’s website, and the online publication of its decisions, including disciplinary decisions (since 
2010), and web streaming of Council sessions from 2011. 

43   CVM report July 2012 
44   CVM reports 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016.. In the period 2013 - 2016 there is a significant increase in both the 
number of notifications (2013: 5018, 2014 - 5546, 2015: 6034, 30th October 2016 - 5871) and the number of 
disciplinary actions (2013: 22, 2014 - 30, 2015: 45, 30th October 2016 - 38). 

9 

 
 
                                                            
report  noted  that  the  chain  of  decisions  seems  to  have  become  more  predictable  and  consistent:  in 
comparison  to  2013,  the  SCM  reports  much  less  variations  between  SCM  decisions  and  HCCJ 
appeals.  

CVM  reports  since  2012  have  also  mentioned  that  the  non-disciplinary  inspections  (horizontal 
inspections)  of  the  Judicial  Inspection  contribute  to  identifying  diverging  practices  in  the 
administration  of  justice  and  structural  shortcomings  in  the  management  of  courts  and  the 
management of cases and provide recommendations for improvements. 

In the Commission decision setting up the CVM in 2006, the lack of trust in applying and recognising 
judicial  decisions  taken  in  Romania  in  another  Member  State  was  identified  as  an  important 
vulnerability  for  the  judicial  cooperation  within  the  EU.45  Today  Romania  participates  actively  in 
judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters at EU level. Romania contributes proactively to 
the  activities  of  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and  commercial  matters.  In  criminal 
matters, Romania completed the transposition of the relevant EU instruments and is making 
use  of  them,  e.g.  in  confiscation  of  criminal  assets  and  the  cooperation  of  Asset  Recovery 
Offices or participation in joint investigation teams (JITs). Over the past ten years the number 
of both incoming and outgoing requests for mutual legal cooperation has tripled and has risen 
in  complexity.46  However,  some  obstacles  to  the  judicial  cooperation  persist.47  One  concerns 
decisions  in  other  Member  States  to  execute  European  Arrest  Warrants  (EAW)  or  prisoner  transfer 
decisions  which  would  lead  to  the  person  being  imprisoned  in  Romania.  The  CJEU  ruled  in  spring 
2016  that  the  execution  of  EAW  must  be  deferred  if  there  is  a  real  risk  of  inhuman  or  degrading 
treatment  because  of  the  conditions  of  detention  of  the  requested  person  in  the  issuing  State.48  The 
underlying  reason  is  the  prison  conditions  in  Romania  –  an  issue  not  itself  within  the  scope  of  the 
CVM.  

2.2. 

Judicial independence: recent developments 

Judicial independence is essential for the rule of law and the justice system to work, so that society can 
trust that the judiciary fulfils its task in an impartial and professional  way.  It is guaranteed  not only 
through recognition in law but also through daily practice. Trust is endangered if there is interference 
in  the  judicial  system,  but  also  if  court  decisions  are  ignored.  In  addition,  attacks  on  judicial 
institutions  and  on  individual  judges  and  prosecutors  can  have  direct  negative  effects  on  the 
independence  and  the  impartiality  of  the  judiciary.  Political  interference  in  senior  appointments  is 
recognised  as  a  key  risk  factor  with  regard  to  judicial  independence.49  The  consolidation  of  the 

45   Recital  (7)  stated  that  If  Romania  should  fail  to  address  the  benchmarks  adequately,  the  Commission  may 
apply safeguard measures based on articles 37 and 38 of the Act of Accession, including the suspension of 
Member  States'  obligation  to  recognise  and  execute,  under  the  conditions  laid  down  in  Community  law, 
Romanian judgments and judicial decisions, such as European arrest warrants. 

46  Source  www.diicot.ro;  DIICOT,  through  its  network  of  15  territorial  prosecutors'  offices  provides  very 
actively in-depth expertise and training to the prosecutors and judges on the practical use of EU instruments 
on mutual legal assistance and mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. Romania entered 
into strategic partnerships with judicial authorities in number of Member states ( and third countries).  

47    One  example  in  civil  matters  concerns  recognition  and  enforcement  in  Romania  of  judgements  given  in 
another  Member  State,  in  particular  in  family  matters.  In  particular,  Romania  does  not  recognise 
guardianship  judgments  given  in  other  Member  States  in  respect  of  Romanian  minors  and  requires  a 
declaration of enforceability (exequatur) of such judgments in Romania. This issue arises, in particular, when 
guardians of Romanian minors request the issuing of passports for the minors concerned. 

48  Joined Cases Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru (C 404/15 and C 659/15 PPU), Judgment of 5 April 2016. 
The  CJEU  specified  that  the  relevant  judicial  authorities  should  first  come  into  dialogue  with  the  aim  to 
eliminate the risk of violation of fundamental rights of the particular requested person. Only, if the existence 
of  that  risk  cannot  be  discounted  within  a  reasonable  period,  the  executing  judicial  authority  must  decide 
whether the surrender procedure should be brought to an end. 

49   The Venice Commission has drawn particular attention to the prosecution in this regard: “It is important that 
the method of selection of the general prosecutor should be such as to gain the confidence of the public and 

10 

 
 
                                                            
 
independence of the justice system, and how institutions react to threats to independence, is therefore a 
key element to any assessment of the effectiveness of a judicial system. 

Checks and balances at work 

Throughout  2016,  the  judiciary  (represented  by  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  and  the 
Superior  Council  of  the  Magistracy)  and  the  Constitutional  Court  continued  to  support  judicial 
independence  as  institutional  actors  contributing  to  the  balance  of  power.  Increasingly,  this  role  has 
been  shown  through  a  public  profile,  notably  through  setting  out  the  positions  of  the  judicial 
institutions during parliamentary discussions on relevant legislation.  

As  set  out  above,  the  Constitutional  Court  (CCR)  has  a  key  role  in  the  rule  of  law  and  in  the 
consolidation  of  an  independent  justice  system.50  This  trend  has  continued  with  a  number  of  cases 
where the CCR has been called upon to assess decisions made in Parliament:  

 

 

 

In  June,  the  CCR  annulled  a  decision  from  the  Senate  to  allow  a  partial  renewal  of  the  SCM 
members. The CCR ruled that the SCM mandate is of collegial nature and all members' mandates 
should end at the same time. The referral was brought by the Judges' Union.   
In  July,  the  CCR  annulled  an  amendment  to  the  law  on  the  Status  of  local  elected  officials 
adopted by Parliament in June which would have removed the termination of the mandate of local 
elected officials (including mayors and presidents of County Councils) sentenced for corruption if 
the execution of the sentence is suspended. The arguments of the CCR were that being sentenced 
by final court decision removes the presumption of innocence and therefore the conviction itself 
causes  the  loss  of  integrity  which  is  fundamental  for  the  legitimacy  of  the  mandate.  Excluding 
people for whom the execution of the sentence is suspended from the sanction of termination of 
the mandate would therefore create a privilege contrary to the constitutional principles of equality 
before the law. The referral was brought by the President of Romania. 
In October, the CCR annulled an amendment of the Statute of Deputies and Senators adopted in 
June  in  relation  to  provisions  on  conflicts  of  interest  in  hiring  family  members.  The  provisions 
had stated that prior to the adoption of the statute in 2013 there was no restriction on MPs hiring 
relatives. The amendments were adopted while a series of ANI cases on  conflicts of interests of 
MPs for hiring relatives were making their way to court. (See section 3.X)  

Threats to the independence of the judiciary 

2016  saw  an  increase  in  criticism  of  magistrates  and  judicial  institutions,  in  particular  targeting  the 
National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  (DNA).  A  pattern  could  be  discerned  where  allegations  were 
launched  in  public  debate  through  social  media,  TV  channels,  or  even  official  pages  of  State 
institutions51,  which  could  then  be  multiplied  through  repetition  by  other  media  outlets.  Many 
allegations were being voiced by high officials and public figures (e.g. former president of the state, 
president of the Senate, deputies, senators) and thus carrying more weight, which conflicts with norms 
of  respect  for  judicial  independence,  and  risks  in  terms  of  undermining  public  confidence  in  the 
judicial system as a whole.52 

The  allegations  have  included  claims  that  the  DNA  acted  abusively,  following  political  orders  and 
infringing  the  law.  An  example  of  personalised  attacks  came  when  the  DNA  Chief  Prosecutor  was 
accused of plagiarising her PhD thesis, in spite of the fact that a similar accusation had already been 

the  respect  of  the  judiciary  and  the  legal  profession."  Report  on  European  standards  as  regards  the 
independence of the judicial system – Part II: The prosecution service, CDL-AD(2010)040   

50  COM(2015) 35 final, p4. 
51   One accusation appeared on the official website of the Senate in October 2016 accusing prosecutors to play 
electoral games by pursuing cases of politicians before the elections and encouraging all MPs to refuse any 
future  request  for  lifting  of  immunity.  https://www.senat.ro/StiriSenatDetaliu.aspx?ID=DA135DD8-0EBC-
47D6-9BC9-E351FA281581 

52   Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  CM/Rec  (2010)12  on  judges:  independence,  efficiency  and 
responsibilities,  §18:  If  commenting  on  the  judges'  decisions,  the  executive  and  legislative  powers  should 
avoid criticism that would undermine the independence of or public confidence in the judiciary. 

11 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
dismissed by a specialised education committee in 2012. This new accusation claiming that members 
of this committee were influenced in their decision was brought forward by a parliamentarian who was 
a defendant in several DNA cases. A new academic committee dismissed the accusation in December.  

The defence of judicial independence by the Superior Council of Magistracy 

One  of  the  roles  of  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  (SCM)  is  to  guarantee  the  independence  of 
justice.  When  the  SCM  considers  that  the  independence  of  justice  may  be  affected,  it  notifies  the 
Judicial  Inspection  on  its  own  initiative.  In  2016,  the  SCM  took  20  decisions  defending  the 
independence  of  the  justice  system  and  20  decisions  defending  the  professional  reputation, 
independence and impartiality of magistrates.53 The large majority of the SCM decisions were reacting 
to statements against DNA prosecutors.  

As  mentioned  in  previous  reports,  few  magistrates  seek  redress  in  court.  Proceedings  are  long  and 
uncertain  –  as  an  example,  a  case  brought  by  the  Chief  Prosecutor  of  DNA  against  a  TV  station 
relating to allegations made in 2014, which was confirmed in a first instance decision in October 2015, 
is  still  pending  on  appeal.  The  January  2016  CVM  report  recommended  that  the  new  SCM  should 
assess if  more could be done to support individual magistrates facing criticism undermining judicial 
independence.    There  is  little  support  from  the  SCM  to  back  up  a  decision  of  the  SCM  on  the 
substance  with  financial  or  legal  help  for  magistrates  in  such  situations  (there  are  cases  in  other 
Member States where magistrates receive advice and financial support for launching an injunction or a 
criminal complaint)54, or to take on a case on its own behalf. The SCM has taken a first step, amending 
its  protocol  with  the  National  Union  of  Romanian  Bar  Associations,  giving  the  magistrates  the 
possibility  to  benefit  of  free  legal  assistance  when  seeking  redress  in  courts  to  defend  their 
professional  reputation.  The  agreement  was  signed  in  June  2016,  though  it  is  not  clear  whether 
magistrates have already made use of this possibility. 

The SCM seeks to publicise its actions in this area through issuing press releases and has worked on 
increasing  the  impact  of  its  decisions  defending  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  by  issuing  more 
press  releases  immediately  after  the  SCM  plenum  sessions,  and  by  proactively  notifying  journalists 
directly before the plenum session and as soon as the press release has been published. However, as 
set out in past CVM reports, there is a  difficulty in securing  an equivalent level of coverage for the 
SCM press statements compared to the initial criticisms.55  

Besides the SCM, it is notably rare that any State authority, politician, or media publically condemns 
such  criticism  of  the  justice  system  or  individual  magistrates  on  the  grounds  that  it  harms  the 
independence of the justice system, even once established that the claim is untrue.56  

Appointments in leadership positions in the magistracy 
In line with international standards,57 CVM reports have underlined the importance of transparent and 
merit-based  selection  procedures  for  the  appointment  of  leading  positions.  In  view  of  a  number  of 
important  appointment  procedures  in  2016  (including  the  General  Prosecutor,  the  DNA  Chief 
Prosecutor  and  their  deputies,  as  well  as  the  President  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice 
(HCCJ)) the Commission had recommended in its January 2016 report to "Ensure that clear and robust 
procedures are in place in time for the appointments to senior positions in the magistracy foreseen in 

53   In total the SCM took 54 decisions among which 40 requests of defence were admitted. The average duration 
between  admitting  the  notification  and  the  decision  was  31  days.  In  2015,  the  SCM  took  12  decisions 
defending the independence of justice and 7 decisions defending the professional reputation of magistrates. 
54   Example  France  recently  renewed  the  procedure  on  defending  the  independence  and  reputation  of 

magistrates and on the financial support provided by the Minister of Justice. 

55  COM(2015) 35 final, p 4. 
56 In 2016, the Minister of Justice publicly defended DNA Chief Prosecutor on one occasion and the President of 

Romania also expressed public concerns regarding the independence of justice. 

57   Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12; Venice Commission report on European standards as 
regards  the  independence  of  the  judicial  system;  Consultative  Council  of  European  Prosecutors,    Opinion 
No.9 (2014) on European norms and principles concerning prosecutors. 

12 

 
 
                                                            
2016. This would imply that several months before each procedure, the different steps and the criteria 
which will govern the decisions will be set out. Use a different approach for appointments below the 
top leadership of the prosecution services, with the newly-appointed Heads playing an important role 
in selecting their own team. Ensure transparency of all procedures" and further "Subsequently, a more 
robust and independent system of appointing top prosecutors should be settled in law, with the support 
of the Venice Commission". This year there were also elections for a new composition of the Superior 
Council of the Magistracy (SCM). 

The  current  procedure  established  by  law  for  appointing  top  prosecutors  is  as  follows:    the  General 
Prosecutor of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Deputies, the Chief Prosecutor of DNA, the 
Deputies  and  the  Heads  of  section  in DNA,  the  Chief  Prosecutor  of  DIICOT58  and  the  Deputies  are 
appointed by the President on the proposal of the Minister of Justice, with the approval of the Superior 
Council  of  Magistracy.  All  candidates  need  to  have  a  minimum  length  of  10  years  as  judge  or 
prosecutor. They are appointed for a period of three years, with the possibility to be reinvested once.59  

The appointment process for the Prosecutor General started in February 2016, after the resignation of 
the previous Prosecutor General.60 The Minister of Justice chose to follow an open procedure similar 
to  that  followed  in  2015 for  the  appointment  of  the  Chief  Prosecutor  of  DIICOT.61  In  February, the 
Minister  of  Justice  published  the  vacancy  together  with  criteria  to  be  fulfilled  by  the  candidates.  In 
March, The Minister of Justice chose a nomination from amongst four candidates, and communicated 
the motivation for the selection of the candidate, with integrity an important criteria.   In the first phase 
of the procedure with selection of the candidate by the Minister of Justice, the candidates do not have 
to present a management plan and the dialogue with the Minister is not public. The SCM interviewed 
the candidate on the basis of the candidate's management plan and criteria established by the SCM for 
the  appointment  of  prosecutors,  the  interview  being  broadcast,  gave  a  positive  opinion  on  the 
candidate, and the procedure was finalised through appointment by the President on 28 April 2016.  

For the Chief Prosecutor of DNA, the Minister of Justice choose to follow the legal possibility for the 
incumbent to be reinvested, rather than an open procedure, on the basis of the quality of the work of 
the DNA Chief Prosecutor in her first mandate.62,63 On 25 February, the Minister of Justice publically 
announced that she would re-appoint Mrs Kovesi and made the proposal to the SCM on 9 March. The 
procedure in the SCM remains the same: public interview and presentation of management plan. The 
SCM endorsed the choice and the procedure was finalised in May 2016, with re-appointment by the 
President of Romania for a period of three years.  

A similar procedure was  applied  for the appointment of the Deputy  Chief Prosecutors in DNA. The 
incumbent  deputies  were  re-appointed  for  a  period  of  three  years.  Their  re-appointment  was  put 
forward by the Minister of Justice, with the motivation that the good results of DNA were also a result 
of  good  teamwork  of  DNA  management  and  that  both  candidates  had  proven  the  quality  and 
professionalism of their work in their previous mandate.  Consultation with the DNA Chief Prosecutor 
took  place,  in  line  with  a  CVM  report  recommendation.64  A  similar  approach  was  taken  for  the 
appointment of the Deputy Chief Prosecutor in DIICOT.  

The appointments of the Deputies of the Prosecutor General proved more complicated. Two deputies 
were suggested by the Prosecutor General in June, but the Minister of Justice first considered that the 

58   Organised Crime and Terrorism Department 
59   art. 54. alin.1-2 din Legea nr. 303/2004 
60   Prosecutor General T. Nitu resigned on 2 February 2016, in connection with events which led DNA to start 
an investigation against him for complicity in abuse of service. He was subsequently indicted in the case. 

61   CVM report 2016 
62  As a Minister of justice, I take act of the DNA performance and to assume the function I have in applying the 
legal provisions by proposing to reinvest DNA Chief Prosecutor˝ http://jurnalul.ro/stiri/justitie/raluca-pruna-
propune-reinvestirea-laurei-codruta-kovesi-in-funtia-de-procuror-sef-708550.html  

63   Such an assessment is consistent with many public statements from international observers, as well as with 

the appreciation of the DNA's track record in recent CVM reports and Council conclusions. 

64   COM(2016) 41, p.13 

13 

 
 
                                                            
appointments should await the appointment of a new Minister in 2017 after the elections. This has the 
consequence that the two deputies were temporarily delegated in their functions. 65  In the second half 
of December, the appointment procedure was eventually started mid-December 2016. The Minister of 
Justice  put  forward  the  candidacies  of  the  two  deputies  delegated  by  the  Prosecutor  General.    They 
were interviewed by the SCM on 29 December 2016 and their appointment for a three year mandate 
was finalised on 30 December 2017. 

These cases  were not able to fulfil the recommendation  for "clear and robust procedures …. several 
months  before  each  procedure,  [with]  the  different  steps  and  the  criteria  which  will  govern  the 
decisions … set out". This approach would have set a clear precedent. However, it is also important to 
note  that  that  none  of  the  appointed  candidates  raised  issues  of  integrity  and  professionalism  or 
controversies within the magistracy or civil society.  

Successive  CVM  reports  have  highlighted  some  inherent  weaknesses  in  the  law  on  appointments  of 
top  prosecutors  which  can  lead  to  doubts  on  the  independence  of  the  candidates.  66  Within  Europe, 
there are different legal traditions with regard to the appointments of the leadership in the Prosecution. 
However, a 2010 Report from the Venice Commission on the independence of judges and prosecutors 
puts forward guiding principles which previous CVM reports have already highlighted: 67 

34. It is important that the method of selection of the general prosecutor should be such as to gain the 
confidence  of  the  public  and  the  respect  of  the  judiciary  and  the  legal  profession.  Therefore 
professional,  non-political  expertise  should  be  involved  in  the  selection  process.  However,  it  is 
reasonable  for  a  Government  to  wish  to  have  some  control  over  the  appointment,  because  of  the 
importance of the prosecution of crime in the orderly and efficient functioning of the state, and to be 
unwilling to give some other body, however distinguished, carte blanche in the selection process. It is 
suggested,  therefore,  that  consideration  might  be  given  to  the  creation  of  a  commission  of 
appointment  comprised  of  persons  who  would  be  respected  by  the  public  and  trusted  by  the 
Government.  

37. It is important that the Prosecutor General should not be eligible for re-appointment, at least not 
by either the legislature or the executive. There is a potential risk that a prosecutor who is seeking re-
appointment by a political body will behave in such a manner as to obtain the favour of that body or at 
least to be perceived as doing so. A Prosecutor General should be appointed permanently or for a 
relatively long period without the possibility of renewal at the end of that period. The period of office 
should  not  coincide  with  Parliament’s  term  in  office.  That  would  ensure  the  greater  stability  of  the 
prosecutor and make him or her independent of current political change. 

To encourage a long-term solution, the Commission recommended that the Minister of Justice and the 
SCM  launch  a  debate  on  the  issue  in  order  to  achieve  a  more  robust  and  independent  system  of 
appointing top prosecutors being settled in law, with the support of the Venice Commission. The 2016 
CVM report mentioned that the SCM  has proposed to align the legal framework for nominating top 
prosecutors on the law governing the appointment of the President of the HCCJ,68 as part of a broader 
package amending the laws on justice. (See also below) 

In  2016,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  created  an  advisory  group  for  cooperation  and  consultation  on  the 
draft project of amending the laws on justice,69  composed of representatives of magistrates from the 

65   A  similar  situation  occurred  in  2015,  when  non-appointment  of  DNA  section  heads  led  to  successive 

delegations (CVM report 2015 and 2016). 

66  A  similar  analysis  was  made  in  the  4the  evaluation  of  the  Group  of  states  Against  Corruption  (GRECO) 
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round4/Eval%20IV/GrecoEval4%282015%294_Rom
ania_EN.pdf 

67   Bold  from  Venice  Commission  report.  Report  on  European  standards  as  regards  the  independence  of  the 

judicial system – Part II: The prosecution service, CDL-AD(2010)040  

68   As such this would remove the role of the Minister of Justice in choosing the candidate, except insofar as the 

Minister is a member of the SCM. 

69   Law no. 303/2004 on the statute of judges and prosecutors, Law no. 304/2004 regarding the Judiciary and 

Law no. 317/2004 on the Superior Council of Magistracy 

14 

 
 
                                                            
HCCJ,  the  SCM,  the  Prosecution,  and  the  National  Institute  of  Magistracy,  as  well  as  from 
magistrates'  associations.  Consultations  were  launched  for  Courts  of  Appeal  and  to  the  Prosecutors’ 
Offices attached to the Courts of Appeal, as well as meetings at different locations.  This was followed 
by  a  public  consultation.  However,  the  intention  of the  Minister  of  Justice  to  present  a  consolidated 
package  on  the  laws  of  justice  to  the  Government  before  the  elections  could  not  be  realised,  so  the 
work  will  need  to  be  continued  under  the  new  government  and  the  new  SCM.  The  Venice 
Commission has not yet been consulted on the draft law. 

In September 2016, a new President of the HCCJ was appointed (for a mandate of three years). The 
appointment  procedure  involving  a  selection  process  by  the  SCM  and  the  appointment  by  the 
President of Romania was open and transparent. The process mirrored previous examples and appears 
well accepted, although there was only one candidate for the post – an existing Vice-President of the 
HCCJ. A similar process was applied for the appointment of the two Vice-Presidents.  

The  elections  for  the  members  of  the  Superior  Council  of  the  Magistracy,  including  appointing 
representatives  of  civil  society,  took  place  this  year,  following  the  end  of  the  six  year  term  of  the 
Council.70 The process started with a disagreement: In March 2016, the Romanian Senate had decided 
that the mandates of the SCM members were individual, so that each shall carry out a full term of six 
years  when  filling  in  a  vacant  position.  Since  over  half  of  the  members  had  taken  over  during  the 
course of the SCM's mandate, this would have meant a minority being renewed. Following a referral 
to  the  Constitutional  Court  by  one  of  the  judges  associations,  the  CCR  annulled  Senate's  decision, 
ruling that the SCM mandate is of collegial nature and all mandates should end at the same time. The 
election process therefore included all posts.  

In  the  organisation  of  the  2016  elections,  shortcomings  identified  during  past  elections  have  been 
taken  into account. The electoral  procedure was organised  according  to a pre-established and public 
calendar  published online and accessible on a dedicated website. The electoral campaign was mainly 
addressed to the magistrates entitled to vote and the candidates were able to present their programmes 
within the respective courts. The programme of the candidates was publically accessible on the same 
2016  SCM  elections  website.  The  procedure  started  in  June  and  elections  were  planned  for  the  27 
October and, in case of a second convocation, on the 2nd November 2016. The lists were validated by 
an  SCM  plenary  decision  on  the  6th  October.  On  the  22nd  November  2016,  the  SCM  Plenum 
confirmed  the  legality  of  the  election  procedure  and  validated  the  list  of  elected  members.  After 
verifications with the National Council in charge of studying the archives of the Securitate, the list was 
transmitted to the Senate, which validated the new Council  end of December. The Senate has not yet 
appointed the two representatives of civil society. The new SCM will start working in January 2017. 

There  were  a  few  initial  controversies  with  some  candidates  during  the  summer  but  the  elected 
candidates did not appear to raise controversies within civil society.  

In order to improve and modernise the management of magistrates' careers, the Minister of Justice, on 
the basis of a SCM proposal, had also proposed further amendments to the package of laws on justice 
such as increasing the seniority required to be considered for promotion to a higher court. The draft 
proposal  from  the  Minister  of  Justice  also  proposed  to  change  the  appointment  procedures  for  the 
Judicial Inspection, with a shorter mandate and with a greater role for the SCM in the appointment of 
inspectors.  It  was  not  clear  how  such  changes  would  affect  the  independence  of  the  Inspection, 
underlined in previous CVM reports. 

2.3. 

The new Codes 

Legal systems periodically need to update the Codes that are the basis of the judicial process in civil 
and  criminal  law.  The  demands  of  social  change,  developments  in  the  interpretation  of  fundamental 
rights, economic change and European law can all call for a modernisation and simplification of legal 
Codes. This can help to improve the quality of justice, as well as the efficiency of the judicial process 
in rendering predictable and timely decisions. Such reforms could be expected to be needed relatively 

70  The  first  SCM has  been  elected  according  to  the  law  317/2004  and  set  up  in  January  2005.  Since  then,  the 

SCM was renewed twice. 

15 

 
 
                                                            
rarely, so would normally be based on a strong consensus and be well prepared. They are a sensitive 
and complex undertaking, and as such are a challenge for government, legislators, the legal system and 
legal practitioners.   

Criminal codes: stability of the legal framework 

The  new  Criminal  Code  and  Code  of  Criminal  Procedures  entered  into  force  two  years  ago,  on  1 
February  2014.  Overall  this  major  reform  is  seen  as  a  success  by  the  judiciary,  as  well  as  by  civil 
society.  In  the  2015  CVM  report,  the  Commission  recommended  to  "Finalise  the  necessary 
adjustments to the criminal codes as soon as possible, in consultation with the SCM, the HCCJ and the 
Prosecution.  The  goal  should  then  be  to  secure  a  stable  framework  which  does  not  need  successive 
amendments."  The  2016  CVM  report  called  for  the  current  phase  in  the  reform  of  Romania's  legal 
codes  to  be  brought  to  a  conclusion  in  Parliament,  passing  amendments  to  provide  legal  certainty 
which respect the opinion of the judicial institutions, as presented  by the government.  However, the 
question of the stability of the Codes remains.  

Some  amendment  of  such  Codes  is  inevitable.  In  consultation  with  the  judiciary,  as  early  as  spring 
2014  the  Government  proposed  amendments  to  address  identified  problems  or  to  respond  to 
Constitutional  Court  decisions.  However,  these  amendments  were  not  given  priority  attention  in 
Parliament and were still pending at the time of the 2016 CVM report.  

In early 2016, the government worked with Parliament to advance the discussions on the amendments 
to the Codes, but by the end of April, only two sets of amendments tabled as emergency ordinances in 
2014,  and  complemented  with  amendments  from  Constitutional  Court  decisions  of  2014  and  2015, 
had been adopted by the Parliament.71  

In  order to bring  coherence  to  the  situation, the  government  adopted  a  new  emergency  ordinance  in 
May  2016.  This  brought  together  amendments  to  implement  the  CCR  rulings  (including  on  the 
opportunity  principle),  to  transpose  EU  Directives  in  the  field  of  criminal  law  (such  as  the  right  to 
information in criminal proceedings), and included all amendments from the Government pending in 
Parliament since 2014. The result was to provide legal stability, even though the emergency ordinance 
still needs to be approved by Parliament.  

At  the  same  time,  referrals  to  the  Constitutional  Court  concerning  the  provisions  of  the  Criminal 
Codes  continued  (the  Constitutional  Court  took  more  than  30  decisions  since  2014  annulling 
provisions of the criminal  Codes). In the course of 2016, the CCR took 12 decisions concerning the 
provisions of the new Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedures. A majority of these decisions 
aimed at reinforcing respect for fair trials and rights of the parties in line with ECtHR case-law. The 
Government sought to apply the CCR rulings through new emergency ordinances. Important examples 
included the CCR ruling to maintain the validity of the crime of abuse of office, in line with the UN 
anti-corruption convention.72 Some exceptions of unconstitutionality had a major impact on the work 
of  the  judiciary.  In  February  2016,  the  CCR  invalidated  the  principle  of  opportunity  used  by 
prosecutors to drop charges in the public interest (more than 130,000 cases had been resolved in this 
way  in  2015).73  Another  key  decision  taken  the  same  month  concerned  restricting  the  possibility  to 
carry  out  technical  surveillance  measures  in  criminal  investigations  by  authorities  outside  the 
prosecution  or  police  services.  74  Prior  to  the  CCR  decision  such  surveillance  measures  based  on  a 
prosecutor's  order  and  approved by  a court  were  technically  carried  out  by  the  intelligence  services. 
Since the CCR decision would be immediately applicable, the latter risked creating a legal vacuum in 
terms of gathering evidence and prompted the Government to address the issue urgently by creating a 
new  prosecution  capacity  through  an  emergency  ordinance  in  March  2016.75  As  an  emergency 

71 GEO 3/2014 was adopted on 16 March 2016; GEO 82/2014 was adopted on 6 April 2016. 
72 CCR decision 405/2016  
73 CCR decision 23/2016 
74 CCR decision 51/2016 
75 GEO 6/2016 

16 

 
 
                                                            
ordinance, the new provisions entered into effect immediately, however the law needs to be adopted in 
Parliament.   

Further  CCR  decisions,  notably  concerning  the  competence  of  the  HCCJ  to  judge  extraordinary 
appeals, have required new amendments and a new emergency ordinance in October.76 Whilst by the 
end  of  2016,  there  had  been  some  progress  through  the  parliamentary  process,  with  two  ordinances 
having passed one of the chambers, the overall process remains slow. At the end of the legislatures, all 
ordinances was still pending in Parliament. 

The 2016 CVM report also referred to the fact that a number of additional amendments to the Criminal 
code and Code for Criminal Procedures had been put forward by MPs, including some which triggered 
public debate and negative reactions from the judicial authorities, on the grounds that they would harm 
the  fight  against  corruption  and  reduce  the  capacity  of  the  prosecution  and  judges  to  investigate  or 
sentence  corruption  crimes. Some of these  amendments were  put forward by MPs themselves under 
investigation  or  convicted  for  corruption.  By  the  end  of  2016,  none  of  these  amendments  has  been 
adopted, though some remain on the table of Parliament. 

The  Minister  of  Justice  modified  the  law  allowing  a  reduction  of  sentence  for  intellectual  work 
undertaken in prison. A number of high-profile figures convicted for corruption have benefited from 
this law, amid accusations of plagiarism and ghost-writing of the works they produced. 

Respect of fair trial rights 

Respect of fair trial rights in line with ECHR case law is an essential element of the criminal codes 
and of criminal judicial proceedings. Trust in the respect of fair trial rights in another country are the 
basis for judicial cooperation in criminal matters. As mentioned in  the 2016 CVM report, respect of 
fair trial rights in criminal proceedings has been an important issue of public debate, in particular in 
cases relating to the activity of the prosecution and the courts in corruption cases.   

Respect of fair trial rights has also been an important theme in the rulings of the CCR and the HCCJ 
and in the statements of the SCM, the DNA and the judiciary in general. It is an important theme of 
the new Codes – introducing the "rights and liberty" judge who will examine and control the demands 
of the prosecution, in terms of search and arrests. Since the introduction of the new criminal codes, the 
CCR has ruled on several "open" issues or has annulled provisions, in view of re-enforcing respect for 
fair trials in line with ECHR case law: notably electronic surveillance measures to be enforced solely 
by law enforcement bodies, and safeguards when applying the opportunity principle. In all these cases, 
the judiciary has been  quick  to adapt and the Minister of Justice  has  reacted swiftly with legislative 
amendments. 

The Commission CVM team visited the European Court of human Rights (ECtHR) and the Council of 
Europe  Department  for  the  Execution  of  judgements  in  June  2016,  and  was  informed  that  so  far 
applications  to  the  ECtHR  alleging  a  violation  of  fair  trial  rights  by  the  prosecution  services  (in 
corruption  cases)    have  not  been  admitted,  that  there  was  an  improvement  of  the  quality  of  the 
judgements of the Romanian High Court and the judicial system overall and that the Grand chamber 
ruled inadmissible a claim that the Romanian judicial system was dysfunctional. Regarding the type of 
cases, the CVM team was informed that   the type of cases brought to the court has shifted. There are 
less new cases on the excessive length of civil proceedings  or on ineffective criminal investigations, 
while the number of cases in relation with prison conditions has steadily increased.  

The issue of respect of fair trial rights is often used as an argument in  public debates to criticise the 
judiciary and advocate for changes in the (corruption) laws. For example,  in autumn, an ECHR case 
against Romania regarding proceedings in a corruption case was cited in public debate as an example 
of abuse by the HCCJ. However, the case referred to an old procedural issue in the law,77 for which 
Romania had already been condemned in other cases several years ago and for which a legal solution 

76 CCR decision 540/2016; GEO 70/2016 
77 In the second phase of appeal, the law only provided for looking at evidence on paper. 

17 

 
 
                                                            
has already been provided while HCCJ had adapted its practice even before the adoption of the new 
law.  

Civil codes: implementing the final provisions 

The new Civil Code entered into force on 1 October 2011. The new Code of Civil Procedure entered 
into force on 15 February 2013, with some provisions to become  applicable on 1 of January 2016.78 
The transition towards the application of new Code of Civil Procedure is now coming to an end with 
the large majority of cases in courts now falling under the new code, but there is one major exception. 
The  provisions  which  were  to  have  entered  into  application  in  January  2016  were  postponed  to 
January  2017.  These  provisions  refer  to  solving  cases  in  council  chamber,  preparing  files  in  appeal 
phase  by  the  court  that  pronounced  the  ruling  that  is  appealed,  and  changing  the  value  ceiling  for 
jurisdiction of cases. They therefore imply a logistical investment not only in terms of personnel but 
also in terms of buildings. Clarity on the extent of changes required and how to effect these changes 
has been elusive, so in January 2016 the Commission recommended that the government and the SCM 
should  set  up  a  clear  plan  to  ensure  that  the  deadline  for  the  implementation  of  the  remaining 
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedures could be respected.  

This required an agreement between the SCM and the Government on the needs of the courts in terms 
of council rooms, though the HCCJ also recommended that the opportunity of the delay should also be 
used to conclude ongoing legal discussion on some of the remaining provisions.  The realisation that 
the  situation  would  not  be  resolved  in  time  for  the  January  2017  deadline  led  to  a  decision  in 
December  2016  to  postpone  the  application  of  the  remaining  provisions  of  the  Code  for  Civil 
Procedures for another two years, until 1 January 2019. However, work is also now under way on a 
needs  assessment,  to  be  concluded  by  30  June  2017,  so  that  works  can  be  started  immediately  and 
concluded by the end of 2018. 

2.4. 

Consistency of jurisprudence and predictability of the judicial process 

The consistency of jurisprudence has been used as a term to describe the need for consistent judicial 
decisions on similar cases taken by different courts and judges. This is important for the quality and 
predictability of the judicial process and the accountability of the judicial system towards the society it 
serves.79  Inconsistency  in  judicial  decisions  also  adversely  affects  public  perceptions  of  the  judicial 
system.80  If  the  same  judicial  system,  using  the  same  legal  instruments,  results  in  very  different 
decisions in similar cases, this causes uncertainty, and can even fuel suspicions of corruption. 

Different  factors  contribute  to  the  consistency  of  court  decisions:  legal  mechanisms  to  resolve  in 
consistencies, the organisation of the system in terms of management and procedures; the availability 
and transparency of court decisions; and the awareness and training of judges and prosecutors on the 
need for consistency. Broader issues of the quality of public administration and quality of legislation 
also play a role. In line with its constitutional role, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) has 
the  main  responsibility  in  the  consistency  of  jurisprudence  and  interpretation  of  the  laws.  An 
increasing  part  of  the  HCCJ’s  work  is  dedicated  to  enforcing  consistent  interpretation  and  practice. 
The HCCJ fulfils this role through defined legal mechanisms and meetings with lower level courts.  

Legal consistency mechanisms  

As stated above, the HCCJ has two legal mechanisms at its disposal for consistency of jurisprudence 
and providing a  consistent interpretation: the preliminary ruling and the appeal in the interest of the 
law. The "preliminary ruling procedure" allows for a court ruling in final instance to address questions 
to the High Court and request an interpretative ruling that is binding both for the court in question and 

78 Articles XII, XIII,XVIII, XIX,  of Law no.2 of 1st of February 2013.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
79  ECtHR  has  found  that  under  certain  conditions  divergences  in  case-law  lead  to  violation  of  Art.6  ECHR, 

§211-215 http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf 

80   Practical guide to Art. 6 ECHR, civili limb, § 214, 

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

18 

 
 
                                                            
for future cases. Appeals in the interest of the law can be used to resolve the interpretation of the law 
when facing inconsistent judgements. 

The number of requests for preliminary rulings is steady. In criminal cases, there were 25 preliminary 
questions lodged and 24 settled in 2016, compared with 35 questions lodged and 33 settled in 2015. In 
civil matters, including administrative and tax matters, there were 82 questions lodged and 56 settled 
in 2016, compared with 51 questions lodged and 47 settled in 2014. This shows that the mechanisms 
are well established and used by judges in lower courts.81  

The other unification mechanism, appeals in the interest of the law, continues to provide a substantial 
contribution  to  unification.  In  2016,  20  appeals  were  lodged  and  15  were  settled  in  civil  matters;  8 
appeals were lodged and 6 were settled in criminal matters.  

Management action for consistency 

Regular meetings within court sections, with the Courts of Appeal, or between Courts of appeals, the 
NIM and the HCCJ take place regularly to discuss issues of diverging interpretations and practice. The 
January 2016 report also noted signs of a cultural shift in favour of consistency.82 The consistency of 
court  decisions  and  judicial  practice  is  also  part  of  the  training  of  judges  and  prosecutors.  In  the 
prosecution, a special service for guidance and analysis also issues guidelines for unifying practice at 
prosecutorial level. The SCM has set up an online wiki for unifying jurisprudence, where courts can 
upload  the  results  of  its  internal  discussions,  and  a  forum  where  judges  throughout  the  country  can 
discuss  cases  of  non-unitary  practice.  A  common  interpretation  can  also  emerge  from  these 
discussions. Through its thematic inspections in courts and prosecutors office, the  Judicial Inspection 
also  contributes  to  unification  by  making  relevant  recommendations  when  there  are  diverging 
practices or procedures. 

Publication of jurisprudence 

The  availability  of  online  open  and  searchable  access  to  all  court  decisions  remains  one  of  the 
important  means  for  magistrates  and  all  parties  to  refer  to  similar  cases  and  decisions.  The  HCCJ 
continues to publish its decisions on its website. It publishes summaries of key decisions as well as the 
full texts of all decisions.83 The RoLII project (Romanian Institute for legal information) to publish all 
court decisions online became operational last year – in the first nine months of 2016, the system was 
accessed  over  115,000  times,  by  39,000  users.  While  some  judges  reported  that  they  use  RoLII 
regularly and successfully, in other cases there seemed to be a need for the tool to be further promoted, 
including to legal professions and the public administration. 

Obstacles to the consistency of jurisprudence  

Previous  CVM  reports  have  identified  a  number  of  obstacles  to  the  consistency  of  jurisprudence. 
Some  of  these  are  broader  issues,  such  as  of  the  quality  of  legislation,  such  as  the  risks  inherent  in 
widespread  recourse  to  instruments  such  as  executive  ordinances.84,85    A  planned  reform  of  public 
administration,86 with the support of EU funds, could help to promote a consistent approach by public 
administration towards the judicial system.  

81   In  meetings  with  Commission  services,  judges  in  Bucharest  and  Brasov  confirmed  the  value  of  the 

procedures, rather calling for an expansion of their scope.  

82   The value of these meetings, and the cultural change, was recognised in meetings with judges in Bucharest 

and Brasov 

83  The database from the web-site of the High Court of Cassation and Justice currently includes 13.854 resumed 
relevant  decisions  and  348.085  integral  text  of  the  decisions  (anonymised),  including  the  decisions 
concerning preliminary ruling requests. 

84   COM (2015) 35 final, SWD(2015) 8 final, p14. 
85   For  2015,  the  Ombudsman  reports  raising  7  exceptions  of  unconstitutionality  including  2  concerning 

Government Executive ordinances and filing 3 requests for appeals in the interest of the law.  

86   http://www.mdrt.ro/userfiles/strategie_adm_publica.pdf 

19 

 
 
                                                            
Whilst every case has its own specificities, the motivation of the decision can be used to explain cases 
where  there  is  an  apparent  divergence  from  precedents  or  jurisprudence  from  higher  courts.87  This 
points to the importance of training in drafting motivations, as well as the need for sufficient time  – 
judges, particularly in lower level courts, have commented to the Commission that they do not have 
sufficient  time  to  write  their  decisions  to  good  standards  within  the  legal  deadlines.  This  issue  of 
efficiency is further developed below. In addition, judicial decisions are pronounced while motivation 
of  the  decisions  follows  one  month  later  (when  it  is  not  delayed).  This  time  discrepancy  between 
decision and motivation can also impact negatively on the coherence and the quality of decisions, and 
can  fuel  speculation  about  the  reasons  for  the  decision  and  distrust  or  criticism  of  the  judicial 
institutions.88  The  SCM  reported  that  a  pilot  project  to  align  judicial  decisions  and  motivations  is 
ongoing.  The  importance  of  the  uniform  application  of  the  law  and  the  uniform  implementation  of 
court decisions by the public administration  has also  been  noted as a factor  for  consistency of court 
decisions. 

2.5. 

Structural reforms  

Structural  reforms  to  the  administration  of  justice  have  been  shown  to  have  a  direct  impact  on  the 
effectiveness of justice. Issues like the efficiency of the system, its independence, its affordability, and 
the ease of access are all important factors in an effective justice system. This is true for citizens, but 
also for businesses, and justice is a key element in a successful business climate.   

The Strategic framework 

An  action  plan  for  the  Strategy  for  the  Development  of  the  Judiciary  2015-2020,  with  detailed 
planning  of  actions  and  responsible  institutions  and  including  a  detailed  budget  and  sources  of 
funding, was adopted by the Government in April 2016. The financial envelope for the action plan is 
some  EUR  509  million  for  four  years  (2016-2020).  It  will  be  funded  through  the  national  budget 
(54%), EU funds and the World Bank. The full implementation of the action plan will be essential for 
a sustainable improvement of the administration of justice and of the trust in the judiciary.  

In  2016,  important  measures  under  the  action  plan  were  implemented.  In  September,  the  Strategic 
Management Council was  established. The members are the Minister of Justice, the President of the 
SCM, the President of the HCCJ, and the Prosecutor General. The Council is responsible for setting up 
the general priorities of the judicial system, including the development and allocation of human and 
material  resources,  and  will  follow  the  implementation  of  the  measures  of  the  action  plan.  The 
expectation  is  that  the  Strategic  Management  Council  will  help  address  issues  for  which  several 
institutions share part of the responsibility: budget, personnel, court clerks, buildings, and IT systems. 
Also worth mentioning are the actions taken by the SCM to strengthen integrity within the judiciary.  

Resources 

The  Minister  of  Justice  has  continued  to  support  the  reform  of  the  justice  system  through  securing 
budget  for  the  justice  system  and  providing  additional  posts,  in  total  630  additional  positions:  342 
positions  of  judges,  and  168  positions  of  clerk  for  courts;  40  positions  for  DNA,  40  positions  for 
DIICOT and 40 for the Public Ministry, in order to be able to develop in house capacity for electronic 
surveillance  measures.    The  total  Ministry  of  Justice  budget  for  2016  was  of  the  order  of  EUR  693 
million. 

Management tools, efficiency and quality of the judicial process  

The SCM  has continued the development of tools for monitoring  and managing  the activities of the 
courts  and  for  managing  various  administrative  and  human  resource  activities.  The  STATIS  system, 
monitoring  the  activity  of  the  courts  in  handling  cases,  has  been  further  extended  and  refined.  The 
SCM  publishes  every  six  months  the  results  of  aggregated  performance  indicators,  highlighting  the 

87   Divergence of case law among last instance courts or where a supreme court departs from its own case law 

can lead to a violation of Art 6 §1 ECtHR Guide on Art. 6, § 193 

88   Cases have happened of decisions in corruption cases not being understood as they appeared very severe; and 

as a result the judges have been severely criticised in the media. 

20 

 
 
                                                            
strong points and weaker points, and the measures to remedy those. An analysis of the best performing 
courts is also made to highlight good examples and best practices. Cumulative analysis over several 
years  will  also  provide  an  important  policy  tool  for  human  resource  management  and  justice 
administration policies in general. 

The e-filing in courts and prosecution offices has also been worked on. In particular, a mechanism was 
created to deliver the indictments and the credit for guilty pleas from the prosecution office to the law 
courts through the electronic case management system (ECRIS). The SCM, the NIM and the National 
School of Clerks are working on standardised electronic models of decisions both in civil and criminal 
matters. Balancing the workload 

The  problem  of  workload  imbalances  is  a  long-standing  CVM  issue.  There  is  joint  working  group 
looking at practical solutions such as changing territorial jurisdiction. For example, this year the SCM 
proposed to alter the geographical area covered by some courts. The issue of small prosecutor's offices 
is also a major concern for the Prosecutor General.  

One problem which has an  impact on the workload of courts is the issue of repetitive cases,  mostly 
cases raised by citizens against the public administration, which seem to create an unnecessary burden. 
This has been raised in previous CVM reports and in the context of consistency of jurisprudence and 
implementation  of  court  decisions,  but  it  also  has  consequences  in  terms  of  efficiency.  Identifying 
equivalent cases and relevant legal decisions can also be a support role for clerks with legal training; 
however, the draft law that would modernise the status of clerks and create a new category of clerks – 
judicial clerks who could take over administrative tasks from judges – remains before Parliament. The 
Minister  of  Justice  has  proposed  to  relaunch  this  debate.  In  parallel,  the  SCM  has  also  finalised  a 
project  on  the  work  of  clerks  in  tandem  with  The  Netherlands  which  has  resulted  in  a  series  of 
recommendations, which the SCM is intending to apply in the Romanian courts.89 

Enforcement of court decisions by public administration 

"The right to prompt implementation of a final and binding judicial decision is an integral part of the 
“right to a court" provided by Article 6.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Otherwise, 
the provisions of Article 6 § 1 would be deprived of all useful effect. This is of even greater importance 
in the context of administrative proceedings. The effective protection of the litigant and the restoration 
of legality therefore presuppose an obligation on the administrative authorities’ part to comply with 
the  judgment."  90  "The  refusal  of  an  authority  to  take  account  of  a  ruling  given  by  a  higher  court  – 
leading potentially to a series of judgments in the context of the same set of proceedings, repeatedly 
setting aside the decisions given – is also contrary to Article 6 § 1."91  

Problems  of  enforcement  of  court  decisions  by  public  administration  or  State  institutions  have  been 
repeatedly flagged in CVM reports and recommendations, though statistics on effective enforcement 
are not available. The reports92 have mentioned different issues:  

  Reluctance of Parliament or other public authorities to enforce the legal sanction following final 

and irrevocable decisions in ANI cases. 

89   The  activities  within  the  Project  revealed  serious  systemic  problems,  namely  an  acute  lack  of  human 
resources and excessive regulation, which leads to bureaucracy. Solutions suggested: to provide an optimal 
number  of  judges  and  clerks  in  order  to  allow  a  better  judicial  act,  by  keeping  the  number  of  judges  and 
increasing  the  number  of  clerks,  necessity  to  change  primary  and  secondary  legislation  for  an  optimal 
management of the human resource, need of a more flexible legislation but also the entry into force of certain 
legal  amendments  which  would  allow  the  transfer  of  duties  from  judges  to  clerks  and  decentralisation  for 
some  of  the  managing  authority regarding  the  human  resource,  goals  achievable  only  if  the  SCM    and  the 
Ministry of Justice take the responsibility, according to their legal powers. 

90  Guide on Article 6 of the Convention – Right to a fair trial (civil limb) 
91   Ibid footnote 90 
92   CVM reports 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. 

21 

 
 
                                                            
  Delay  in  execution  or  no  execution  at  all  of  final  court  decisions  against  the  State,  such  as 
reimbursement of taxes, pension rights or stopping works when a court has ruled that a building 
permit is illegal.93 

  Reluctance of public authorities to apply the result of a final court decision in one case to similar 
cases (including reluctance to apply the binding interpretations of the High Court of Cassation and 
Justice). As a result, courts have to deal with repetitive cases.94  

  Difficulties or reluctance of the Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) to enforce confiscation 
decisions in criminal cases. Estimates from the Ministry of Justice and the prosecution of effective 
recovery by the State have put the proportion as low as 5 to 10 % of the amounts confiscated in 
the final court decisions.  

There  are  some  signs  of  progress  on  the  first  and  last  points,  through  for  example  intensified 
cooperation  between  the  National  Integrity  Agency  and  other  public  authorities,  or  through  the  new 
Asset Recovery Agency. On the other two little progress was reported in discussions with the Ministry 
of Justice.95  

Relationship with the Bar   

Discussions between Commission services and the National Bar of Romania and the Bar of Bucharest 
report  an  improvement  in  the  institutional  relations  with  the  SCM,  the  courts  and  the  Ministry  of 
Justice, but also note that the day to day relations in court can remain difficult. Overall there does not 
seem to be a strong mutual desire to improve the relationship. A proposed amendment to the Law on 
the organisation of the legal profession has also increased tensions: this proposed to give immunity to 
lawyers,  which  the  government  considered  would  go  beyond  ECHR  case-law  and  could  serve  as  an 
obstacle to the prosecution of corruption. The draft law was approved by the Parliament in October, 
but was challenged before the Constitutional Court by the government and the President.  

Integrity within the judiciary 

Integrity within the judiciary is a particularly important test of the management of the magistracy, with 
consequences for the reputation of justice in general.  
In  2016,  DNA  indicted  7  judges,  and  8  prosecutors.96  The  Courts  ruled  final  conviction  decisions 
against  9  judges.  DNA  confirmed  the  trend  of  last  year  that  there  had  now  been  a  decrease  in  the 
number  of  complaints  and  new  cases  of  corruption  in  the  judiciary.    The  SCM  approved  preventive 
measures regarding magistrates, such as pre-trial detention, search and custody –the numbers show a 
slight decrease on 2015 – and suspended 14 judges and 16 prosecutors from duty.  

In  this  respect,  studies  point  to  the  importance  that  the  judicial  hierarchy  is  attentive  to  any  risk  of 
integrity for judges and prosecutors, and that magistrates receive proper guidance with regard to  the 
rules on conflict of interest or incompatibilities.  Ideally, such measures might also extend to judicial 
assistants  and  clerks.  The  fourth  evaluation  of  GRECO  also  includes  recommendations  on  proper 
guidance  for  judges  and  prosecutors  and  increased  responsiveness  from  the  SCM,  the  Judicial 
Inspection and judicial management in general to the risks of integrity within the judicial system.  97 A 
project completed last year recommended to appoint ethics counsellors in courts for practical advice to 
magistrates.98  In  May  2016,  SCM  established  ethics  counsellors  for  Courts  of  appeal  and  Tribunals 

93    This  problem  has  been  recognised  as  a  structural  problem  in  Romania  by  the  European  Court  of  Human 
Rights and there is a specific monitoring and follow-up by the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe. 
94  Examples:  environmental  tax  annulled  by  the  ECJ.  All  citizens  had  to  go  individually  to  court  to  be 
reimbursed  until  the  case was  eventually  solved  by  a government  decision. Interpretations provided by  the 
HCCJ on pension calculations following amendments of the law are not applied in other cases by the pension 
administration. 
95  See footnote 40 
96  2 of them Chief Prosecutors and 1 General Prosecutor of a Court of Appeal  
97  Ibid footnote 66 
98  CVM report 2016. 

22 

 
 
                                                            
and  for  the  prosecution  offices,  including  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  and  Department 
for  Investigation  of  Organised  Crime  and  terrorism,  later  extended  to  the  SCM  itself,  the  National 
Institute  of  Magistracy,  the  National  School  of  Clerks  and  the  Judicial  Inspection.  These  are  also 
objectives  of  the  national  Anti-corruption  Strategy  for  the  judiciary.  However,  the  decision  sparked 
resistance  within  the  judiciary  as  the  ethics  counsellor  was  perceived  as  a  controller  rather  than  an 
advisor.  One  of  the  judges'  unions  challenged  the  decision  in  court.  The  decision  is  now  suspended 
until final settlement.  

Every  year,  as  part  of  their  assets,  incompatibilities  or  interests  declarations,  judges  also  have  to 
declare  that  they  do  not  have  any  activity  for  the  Romanian  Intelligence  Services  (SRI).  These 
declarations are verified by the CSAT (Superior Council for Country Defence), ex-officio or upon a 
notification  introduced by the CSM. In May 2015, following a request from the Romanian  National 
Union  of  Judges  (UNJR),  CSM  formally  seized  the  CSAT  to  verify  the  declarations  as  allegations 
were aired as regards the existence of undercover SRI agents within the magistracy. The verifications 
recently  finalised  by  the  CSAT  in  January  2016  sparked  controversy  with  respect  to  the  procedure 
followed, the UNJR requesting a follow-up. 

Disciplinary action 

The  SCM  is  responsible  for  sanctioning  professional  misconduct  and  disciplinary  offences  of 
magistrates,  notably  bad  behaviour,  incompetence  and  serious  negligence.  The  investigation  of  such 
cases  rests  with  the  Judicial  Inspection.  Overall  there  have  been  fewer  disciplinary  actions  and 
sanctions in 2016, compared to 2015. In 2016, from 6304 referrals on disciplinary offences registered, 
the Judicial Inspection took forward 52 disciplinary actions. The reports of the Judicial Inspection are 
forwarded to the respective SCM sections, who issued 28 decisions concerning judges (accepting 20 
cases and rejecting 8) and 10 decisions regarding prosecutors (with 5 acceptances, 3 partially admitted 
and 2 rejections). The SCM applied 20 sanctions to judges and 8 to prosecutors. The sanctions applied 
are similar to last year (warning, decrease of monthly salary, suspension from office, exclusion from 
magistracy).   

3. 

INTEGRITY FRAMEWORK AND THE NATIONAL INTEGRITY AGENCY 

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

Romania  now  has  a  comprehensive  framework  for  integrity  for  public  officials,  and  an  independent 
institution  to  help  the  application  of  these  rules  and  to  apply  sanctions  (which  can  be  challenged  in 
court).  The  integrity  framework  defines  both  situations  of  incompatibility  with  holding  official 
positions,  and  situations  of  administrative  conflict  of  interest.  An  important  aspect  of  this  work  is 
seeking to ensure that  conflicts of interest can be avoided in the first place, so it also contributes to 
corruption prevention.  

Since the last CVM report, the National Integrity Agency (ANI) continued to deal with a high number 
of  cases.  It  initiated  a  substantial  number  of  new  cases,  which  as  in  previous  years  illustrated 
continued integrity concerns in particular  with respect to local politicians.99 The legal framework on 
incompatibilities  and  the  implementation  of  ANI  reports,  even  when  confirmed  by  court  decisions, 
continued  to  be  questioned.  Ahead  of  local  and  general  elections  in  2016,  ANI  developed  stronger 
prevention activities to promote respect of the integrity requirements for all candidates.  

In  the  2016  CVM  report,  the  recommendations  on  integrity  covered  pursuing  efforts  towards 
consistency  of  jurisprudence  of  integrity  decisions;  ensuring  that  court  decisions  requiring  the 
suspension from office of parliamentarians are automatically applied by Parliament; implementing the 

99   In 2016, 75% of 263 incompatibility cases, 82% of 123 administrative conflicts of interest cases and 59% of 
51  criminal  conflicts  of  interests  cases  concern  mayors,  deputy  mayors,  local  councillors  or  county 
councillors.  

23 

 
 
                                                            
ex-ante  check  of  conflict  of  interests  in  public  procurement  through  the  Prevent  programme;  taking 
steps to ensure the respect of the rules on integrity in the organisation of elections; and more generally 
put an emphasis on upstream prevention of incompatibility and conflict of interest and on improving 
public acceptance and effective implementation of incompatibility rules. 

3.1. 

Overview of developments under the CVM 

The law establishing the National Integrity Agency (ANI) was adopted in 2007, and strengthened by a 
Government  Emergency  Ordinance  the  same  year.  ANI  was  established  as  an  independent 
administrative authority competent for verifying assets, incompatibilities and conflicts of interests of 
public and elected officials. However, in spring 2010 central elements of ANI's legal framework were 
declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Constitutional  Court  and  in  the  absence  of  a  legal  framework,  ANI 
ceased working for several months. New legislation was adopted, and law 176/2010 came into force in 
September 2010. Law 176/2010 now underpins ANI’s activities.100 It was also in 2010 that the Wealth 
Investigation Commissions were established to serve as a pre-judicial filter in unjustified wealth cases 
over EUR 10,000. 

The  adoption  in  2010  of  the  ANI  law  176/2010  was  accompanied  by  difficult  discussions  in 
Parliament,  covering  issues  beyond  amendments  required  to  comply  with  the  Constitutional  Court 
decision.  This  was  symptomatic  of  a  general  questioning  of  ANI's  legitimacy,  through  periodic 
proposals  in  Parliament  to  re-open  the  ANI  law.  These  challenges  became  less  frequent  after  2013. 
However,  the  integrity  legal  framework  itself,  the  set  of  laws  defining  the  situations  of  conflicts  of 
interests and incompatibilities for civil servants and elected or appointed officials, has continued to be 
challenged,  resulting  in  some  changes  to  remove  activities  from  the  scope  of  incompatibilities  or 
conflicts of interest.101  

In  2014,  the  Constitutional  Court  was  called  upon  to  rule  on  the  question  as  to  whether  the  general 
three-year  election  ban  under  the  ANI  law  –  which  applies  after  someone  is  found  incompatible,  in 
conflict of interest or with undeclared assets – applied to all elected functions, and not just the function 
held when the transgression took place. The Constitutional Court upheld this position. However, this 
issue has been raised again in Parliament, though amendments to restrict the general election ban to 
the same function have not been adopted.102 

The  National  Integrity  Council  (NIC)  provides  political  oversight  for  ANI,  guaranteeing  its 
independence and monitoring its performance. Its members are appointed by the Senate from political 
parties, representatives of local government and civil society, representing key institutions and sectors 
covered  by  ANI's  activities.  Until  the  end  of  2011,  the  relationship  between  the  NIC  and  ANI  was 
difficult and the Commission expressed concerns about whether the NIC was effectively exercising its 
role.103  However,  in  recent  years,  CVM  reports  have  noted  the  active  role  of  the  NIC  in  supporting 
ANI's  ability  to  perform  its  tasks  effectively.  This  has  included  arguing  the  case  to  maintain  ANI's 
legal framework and calling for sufficient resources for ANI, including in Parliament, as well as taking 
a  public  stand  when  public  institutions  did  not  implement  the  sanctions  required  under  the  law 
(notably when ANI reports have been confirmed in court) and when ANI's leadership has been subject 

100  CVM report July 2012 
101  CVM  reports 2014,  2015,  2016,  2017.  Recent  examples:  in  2015  a  law  was  adopted  allowing  mayors  and 
county representatives to participate in the board of Interregional Associations of public interest. In 2016, the 
Parliament  adopted  a  new  amendment  to  law  161/2003,  eliminating  incompatibilities  for  mayors  or  local 
elected officials to sit in boards of commercial companies that provide utility services. The law has now been 
challenged to the constitutional Court.  

102  3 Proposals to amend ANI Law no. 176/2010 regarding integrity in exercising the public offices and dignities 
and  3 Proposals to  amend  Law nr. 161/2003  on  certain measures  to  ensure  transparency  in  the  exercise  of 
public  dignities,  of  public  offices  and  in  the  business  environment,  and  prevent  and  sanction  corruption.  
Some  have  progressed  as  far  as  being  on  the  agenda  of  the  plenum  of  the  decisional  chamber,  but  these 
proposals have not been adopted. As they are not rejected either, they will be pending for the new Parliament.   

103  CVM report July 2012 

24 

 
 
                                                            
to political and media attack.104 The NIC also successfully organised competitions for appointments of 
the ANI leadership.105 

The  track  record  of  ANI  in  investigating  unjustified  wealth,  incompatibilities  and  administrative 
conflicts of interest had a slow start, and was interrupted by the legal vacuum in 2010. However, the 
scale  of  its  work  then  gradually increased,  following  several  actions  using  targeted  risk  assessments 
and prioritisation on the most serious cases.106 Between 2010 and 2016, ANI finalised 12,297 files, of 
which 2,167 files had specific findings. This track record significantly increased from 2013 on,107 and 
has remained stable since then, in spite of the management upheaval caused by the resignation of the 
ANI President following the start of a criminal investigation into activity which preceded his term at 
the  Agency.108  In  the  same  period,  cooperation  with  judicial  and  administrative  authorities 
significantly  improved,  so  that  the  large  majority  of  notifications  to  ANI  are  now  external 
notifications.109  Each  year  the  reports  of  ANI  concern  officials  and  politicians  from  all  ranks  and 
parties.110 A large majority of ANI reports are challenged in court, but the confirmation rate of ANI's 
reports by the courts is consistently above 80%. ANI communicates its activity by publishing on its 
web page press releases informing the public about its findings, and about definitive and irrevocable 
decisions.  

A major challenge in integrity cases is the fact that situations of administrative conflicts of interest or 
incompatibilities are defined in many different laws, so that the whole legal setting is complicated, and 
can  be  ambiguous.  There  are  many  examples  where  this  has  led  to  decisions  at  first  instance  which 
were overturned on appeal. Already in 2012, the CVM report recommended that the Government and 
ANI should work together to develop and propose legislation to improve the integrity framework. This 
avenue  has  however  not  been  pursued,  and  at  different  times  both  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  ANI 
have cited the reason as concern that parliamentary debates on a consolidated draft law would end up 
to  unify  divergent 
diluting 
interpretations). This concern has been reinforced by a number of amendments with this effect which 
have  passed  at  least  one  chamber  of  parliament,  on  some  occasions  without  debate  or  public 
consultation.  Both  ANI  and  the  Minister  of  Justice  have  opposed  a  number  of  such  amendments, 
others have been challenged by the President of Romania and referred to the Constitutional Court.111 
Changes to the law which were not agreed with ANI and the Government have however taken place 
(see footnote 101). 

integrity  framework  (preferring 

jurisprudence 

to  rely  on 

the 

Since the early days of ANI, CVM reports have noted resistance to the implementation of ANI reports, 
even when confirmed by a court decision, and reluctance of the responsible institutions and authorities 
to  apply  the  legal  sanctions,  which  normally  consist  in  either  dismissal  of  public  function  or 
administrative  fines.  In  2012,  the  CVM  report  noted  that  "For  a  number  of  years  the  Commission’s 
reports  have  consistently  flagged  inadequate  follow  up  to  ANI’s  cases  by  other  administrative  and 
judicial  authorities  and  made  a  series  of  recommendations  in  this  regard."112  Since  2014,  ANI  has 
monitored more closely the follow-up of its reports and has issued administrative sanctions when the 

104  CVM report July 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 
105  CVM reports July 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 
106  In  the  period  2008-2012,  ANI  has  undertaken  about  7000  verifications,  issuing  about    250  reports  of 
incompatibility, 37 reports of administrative conflict of interest, 24 reports of suspected of unjustified assets 
and 239 referrals of possible criminal offences to prosecutors, with over 70% of these verifications having 
been started ex officio by the Agency. (CVM report July 2012) 

107  with 342 cases of incompatibilities, 80 cases of administrative conflict of interest, 16 cases of suspected of 
unjustified wealth and 45 referrals for  possible criminal conflicts of interest in 2013 only (CVM report 2014) 

108  CVM reports 2014, 2015, 2016 
109   In 2010 there were about 90% ex-officio notification, in 2016 the proportion decreased to 38%. 
110  CVM reports 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 
111  For example, a law adopted in June 2016 to allow Members of Parliament to hire relatives without being in 
conflict of interest. A number of such cases were pending before the Courts at the time. This amendment was 
challenged before the Constitutional Court and was annulled (Ref). 

112  CVM report 2012 (p22) 

25 

 
 
                                                            
authorities have failed to act.113,114 Successive CVM reports have highlighted that the implementation 
of ANI reports concerning Members of Parliament, even when confirmed by court decision, have been 
questioned.115  A  Constitutional  Court  decision  on  this  issue,  and  the  new  Statute  of  Senators  and 
Deputies adopted in 2013 – which clarified the procedure to be followed by the respective chamber in 
case of incompatibilities or conflicts of interest  – have not succeeded in ending cases where the law 
has not been implemented or in accelerating the application of sanctions.116,117 

The  objective of the rules  on integrity is preventive: avoiding  situations of  conflicts of interests  and 
lowering the risk for corruption in the first place. Starting from 2014, ANI has developed prevention 
activities  in  order  to  clarify  the  formalities  to  complete  and  submit  asset  and  interest  disclosures,  as 
well  as  to  explain  the  legal  regime  for  incompatibilities  and  conflicts  of  interests.  ANI's  prevention 
activity  was  further  developed  and  boosted  in  preparation  of  local  and  general  elections  in  2016.  In 
addition,  ANI  developed  a  system  of  ex-ante  detection  of  potential  conflicts  of  interests  in  public 
procurement  (PREVENT)  to  preclude  awarding  contracts  when  possible  conflicts  of  interests  are 
detected and remedial measures are not implemented. This will complement the ex-ante verifications 
of the National Agency for Public Procurement (ANAP). The law establishing PREVENT was passed 
by Parliament in October 2016. 

The track record of ANI is also attested by the fact that it has been the subject of increasing attention 
from other countries interested in developing their own integrity framework.118 

3.2. 

The National Integrity Agency in 2016 

Institutional capacity 

The  institutional  capacity  of  ANI  continues  to  be  consolidated.  By  the  end  of  2016,  ANI  employed 
111 persons, compared with 104 in 2015. There are 48 integrity inspectors, with an average caseload 
of  81  files.  The  position  of  Vice-President  is  still  vacant  as  the  procedure  was  delayed  because  of 
internal  logistics  within  the  National  Integrity  Council,  but  the  competition  has  now  been  launched 
and should be finalised in February 2017. 

ANI continues to report good cooperation with institutions dealing directly with  its files: the Wealth 
Investigation  Commissions,  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  (HCCJ),  and  the  General 
Prosecution. ANI was also closely associated with the Ministry of Justice in the development of the 
National Anti-Corruption Strategy. ANI has also reported that there has been less external pressure on 
the Agency and its personnel. 

113  The  Agency  is  constantly  monitoring  the  implementation  of  definitive  and  irrevocable  court  decisions 
regarding unjustified assets or conflict of interests and incompatibilities. After a court issues a definitive and 
irrevocable  decision,  it  is  communicated  to  the  authorities  provided  by  law  with  the  competences  of,  as 
appropriate, asset confiscation, removal from public office, or applying other types of sanctions applying to 
persons for whom unjustified assets, incompatibility or conflict of interest has been established. In parallel, 
the  Agency  publishes  on  its  website  a  press  release  to  opinion  the  public  (including  names  in  the  case  of 
persons with definitive and irrevocable decisions). If there are authorities or institutions that fail to apply the 
sanction agreed by the courts, the Agency can apply contravention fines. (ANI report 2014) 

114  Between 2010 and 2016, ANI applied Administrative 203 fines for non-disciplinary sanctions applied after 

the ascertaining act remained final.  
115 CVM reports 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 
116 CVM report 2014, 2015, 2016 
117 ANI reports that since 2010, 51 cases of incompatibilities (22) and administrative conflicts of interests (29) 
regarding  50  deputies  and  senators  remained  definitive.  On  average  the  Parliament  applied  disciplinary 
sanctions  approximately  8  months  after  the  evaluation  reports  regarding  deputies  and  senators  remained 
definitive for incompatibility cases, and 6 months for conflict of interests cases. In 4 cases, no sanction was 
applied. 

118  Finland, France, Bulgaria, Spain (Region of Catalonia), Moldova. 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Track record – conflict of interest, unjustified wealth, incompatibility 

In  2016,  ANI's  track  record  was  stable  compared  to  previous  years.  ANI  finalised  1635  cases  and 
found  263  cases  of  incompatibilities,  123  cases  of  administrative  conflicts  of  interest,  51  cases  of 
criminal conflicts of interest, and 25 cases of significant differences between income and assets. The 
cases include 94 mayors, 137 local counsellors, 89 deputy mayors and 5 Members of Parliament. ANI 
notified the prosecution of 19 cases where there was a sufficient suspicion of a criminal offence. The 
Agency  has  continued  its  communication  policy  of  publishing  all  definitive  and  irrevocable 
decisions.119  

A high proportion of ANI decisions are challenged in court, but the confirmation rate of ANI decisions 
in  court  remains  above  80%.  In  2016,  216  cases  have  remained  definitive  and  irrevocable.120 
Successive CVM reports have pointed to the issue of the length of court proceedings in ANI cases, as 
sanctions can only be applied when the decision is final and irrevocable. Long delays (sometimes over 
two  years)  risk  to  defeat  the  prevention  purpose  of  the  integrity  laws.121  This  situation  has  been 
attributed to the heavy workload of administrative sections, notably at the HCCJ.122 The efforts of the 
Administrative Section in the HCCJ to  accelerate  ANIs cases seem to have borne fruit,  as there has 
been  a  significant  increase  in  the  number  of  final  decisions  in  incompatibility  and  administrative 
conflict of interest in 2016.  

ANI  reports  an  overall  improvement  in  the  implementation  of  final  court  decisions  regarding 
unjustified  assets  or  conflict  of  interests  and  incompatibilities,  and  attributes  this  to  its  policy  of 
monitoring  closely  all  final  cases,  notifying  the  relevant  disciplinary  authority  and  imposing  fines  if 
the authority does not apply the legal sanctions. In incompatibility cases, by 2015, 82 % of persons in 
incompatibility had their mandate terminated, or resigned/were dismissed from their function. By the 
end of 2016, this figure had increased to 86% of persons in incompatibility, while at the same time the 
number of final decisions has significantly increased. It seems thus that the sanction was applied for 
nearly  all  new  final  cases  in  2016,  which  is  an  important  improvement  with  regard  to  previous 
years.123   

Although  the  2012  CVM  report  had  put  forward  mixed  conclusions  on  the  Wealth  Investigation 
Commission (WIC), the 2014 CVM report noted a normalisation of the procedures between ANI and 
the WIC. By end of 2016, ANI reported that more than EUR 26 million had been identified in all cases 
of unjustified wealth, with EUR 3 million already transferred to the State budget and a further EUR 
430,000 pending confiscation in relation with the 16 court cases won so far. The number of cases still 
before the WIC is nevertheless high and the overall procedure is slow, with more than half of the cases 
notified  by  ANI  since  2010  still  pending.  Judges  in  the  WIC  would  like  to  modernise  the  law  and 
make it more efficient, for example by creating more committees to analyse the cases (who also have 
other tasks).  

Regarding  criminal  conflicts  of  interest,  ANI  notified  51  cases  to  the  General  Prosecution  in  2016, 
which continues to allocate theses case to experienced prosecutors in the Courts of Appeal.124 In 2016, 
prosecution services solved more cases than in previous years:  378 cases of conflicts of interests. 48 
cases were sent to court,  125 of which 13 were notified by ANI. A ten year summary provided by the 
General Prosecution services shows a stable track record of indictments since 2013, in contrast to only 

119  http://www.integritate.eu 
120  146  cases  of  incompatibility,  68  cases  of  administrative  conflicts  of  interests  and  2  cases  of  unjustified 

wealth. The courts also issue 9 convictions (with suspension) in criminal conflict of interest cases. 

121  CVM reports 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 
122  Although  the  Administrative  Section  has  significantly  increased  the  number  of  solutions  for  ANI  files  this 
year, the judges have to deal with a very high workload with overall 7,000 cases in administrative matters, 
including some 700 ANI files. 

123  CVM report 2015 
124  The newly appointed Prosecutor General has also strong expertise in conflicts of interest. 
125  Concerning  54  defendants,  including  17  mayors,  4  deputy  mayors,  2  members  of  Parliament,  6  local 

counsellors, 1 hospital director. 

27 

 
 
                                                            
a few cases brought to courts by the Public Ministry in the period 2007–2012. The number of cases 
solved by the Public Ministry has also risen after 2012, but so has the number of notifications, so that 
there  is  now  a  high  number  of  pending  cases.126  The  guidance  service  of  the  General  Prosecutor's 
Office  regularly  draws  up  analyses  of  the  typology  of  the  conflicts  of  interest  cases  sent  to  trial.127 
These analyses help the prosecution to identify priority investigation areas.  

3.3. 

Legal Framework and jurisprudence on incompatibilities 

The preventative impact of the integrity framework relies on the law being clear to everyone, and on 
predictable  sanctions  for  incompatibilities  and  conflict  of  interest.  In  the  past,  there  have  been  clear 
examples of inconsistent court decisions undermining its effectiveness.128  

In  the  2016  CVM  report,  the  Commission  recommended  that  efforts  towards  consistency  of 
jurisprudence  of  integrity  decisions  should  be  pursued,  with  consolidated  case-law  to  be  made 
available to lower courts. The High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) plays a key role in setting 
jurisprudence in incompatibility cases, with hundreds of decisions on incompatibility and conflict of 
interests cases since 2008. The work of the Administrative Section of the HCCJ has been  fed into a 
table of ANI case-law, organised by recurring  types of incompatibilities and providing the solutions 
applied in those cases. This case-law table is updated every six months and is made available on the 
HCCJ website. Within the Section itself, when interpretation issues are identified, a discussion takes 
place  and  the  interpretation  is  settled  by  the  view  of  the  majority.  Lower  courts  report  that  they 
constantly  refer  to  the  uniform  practice  in  the  HCCJ  on  ANI  cases  and  recognise  the  usefulness  of 
their access to the case-law. ANI also makes the case-law available on its website and promotes it for 
prevention purposes.  

In  2016,  amendments  to  the  integrity  framework  continued  to  be  tabled  in  Parliament  without  prior 
debate on the public interest underlying the changes. In October 2016, the Parliament adopted a new 
amendment to law 161/2003, eliminating incompatibilities for mayors or local elected officials to sit in 
boards  of  commercial  companies  that  provide  utility  services.    The  law  has  been  challenged  at  the 
Constitutional Court. Other initiatives pending in Parliament would eliminate common incompatibility 
situations or restrict the three-year election ban.129  

3.4. 

Integrity and the Romanian Parliament 

At the same time, problems continue in the implementation of the law in respect of ANI's decisions, 
even when confirmed by a clear court decision. The automaticity with which Parliament implements 
final court judgments which have upheld decisions of the National Integrity Agency (ANI) is an issue 
that has been regularly raised in previous CVM reports.130  

Article 7 of the Statute of Senators and Deputies regulates how the Parliament should proceed when a 
member has been found incompatible. Although the termination of office is automatic on the date the 
decision  of  incompatibility  becomes  final  and  irrevocable,131  other  steps  are  needed  to  put  this  into 

126  In 2007, there were 77 cases to be solved and 47 cases solved, while in 2015 there were 236 cases solved and 

966 cases to be solved. 

127  For  example:  mayors  or  deputy  mayors  signing  lease  contracts  for  communal  meadows  to  associations 
(whose  members  include  their  family  members),  which  subsequently  receive  significant  agricultural 
subsidies; local elected officials or public servants awarding contracts to companies they control.  

128  COM(2015) 35 final, SWD (2015) 8 final, CVM report 2016 
129  3 Proposals to amend ANI Law no. 176/2010 regarding integrity in exercising the public offices and dignities 
and  3 Proposals to  amend  Law nr. 161/2003  on  certain measures  to  ensure  transparency  in  the  exercise  of 
public  dignities,  of  public  offices  and  in  the  business  environment,  and  prevent  and  sanction  corruption.  
Some  have  progressed  as  far  as  being  on  the  agenda  of  the  plenum  of  the  decisional  chamber,  but  these 
proposals have not been adopted. As they are not rejected either, they will be pending for the new Parliament. 

130  COM(2015)35 final 
131  Act No 96 of 21 April 2006 on the Statute of Deputies and Senators, Article 7 (2): The termination of office 
of  Deputies  or  Senators  due  to  incompatibility  occurs:….c)  on  the  date  of  the  final  and  irrevocable 
judgement dismissing the appeal against the National Integrity Agency report stating the incompatibility; d) 
on  the  expiry  date  of  the  term  stipulated  in  Act  No  176/2010  on  the  integrity  in  the  exercise  of  public 

28 

 
 
                                                            
 
effect. The President of the Chamber has to take note of the termination of the mandate of the Deputy 
or the Senator, and puts the question to the vote of the plenary session of the Chamber where the place 
of the Deputy or Senator shall become vacant.132 
In 2016 four incompatibility cases of Deputies became final and irrevocable.133 In three cases out of 
four,  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  revoked  the  mandate.  In  one  case,  this  process  took  more  than  six 
months,  though  one  case  was  concluded  in  less  than  a  month.  In  one  case,  the  Deputy  was  still  a 
Member of Parliament when the 2012-2016 legislatures ended.134 However, his candidacy to the 2016 
parliamentary elections was rejected by the Central Electoral Bureau as subject to a three-year election 
ban (see below). 
One of the cases reported in the January 2016 CVM report,135 which was considered final by ANI as it 
had not been challenged in court within the legal deadlines, was eventually overturned in the Court of 
Appeal, which admitted the case in April 2016. The Deputy was reinstated in the Chamber of Deputies 
(in the previous legislatures). ANI appealed the decision and the case is now pending at the HCCJ. 

In  2016,  four  cases  of  administrative  conflict  of  interest  of  Deputies  became  final  and  irrevocable 
(though  one  case  returned  to  court).  Again  decisions  took  several  months,  but  in  all  four  cases,  the 
Parliament  applied  the  disciplinary  sanction  –  although  in  one  case,  it  subsequently  reversed  its 
decision and the disciplinary sanction of temporary salary decrease was not applied. 
On 21 December ANI notified the new Parliament on two cases concerning elected MPs.136  

3.5. 

Ex ante checks and prevention activities 

The  electronic  system  PREVENT  aims  at  automatically  detecting  potential  situations  of  conflict  of 
interests in public procurement, before the selection and contract award procedure. It will apply to all 
procedures,  irrespective  of  the  sources  of  funding.  An  essential  element  of  PREVENT  is  that  the 
contracting  authorities  are  obliged  to  effectively  fill  in  the  integrity  form,  and  failure  to  fill  in  the 
required  information  will  automatically lead to the suspension  of the  procurement  procedure.  If the 
system  detects  a  potential  situation  of  conflict  of  interests,  it  issues  a  warning  to  the  contracting 
authority so that corrective measures can be taken before awarding the contract.137  The first step is an 
electronic check alone, but in a second step a more thorough verification of how the conflict of interest 
situation has been resolved can be triggered by the Agency. The system is designed to detect potential 
conflicts of interest as defined currently in the Romanian legislation, i.e. the existence of kinship to the 
third grade (parents, children, siblings), but it could potentially be extended to also cover third parties, 
consultants  or  sub-contractors.  According  to  ANI,  a  very  large  share  of  situations  of  conflicts  of 
interest (85 to 90%) involve concluding public contracts with companies linked to or owned by family 
members of local officials. The draft law establishing PREVENT was proposed by the Government in 
September 2015 and was adopted by Parliament and promulgated in October 2016. The system will 

functions  and  dignities,  […],  from  the  date  of  taking  knowledge  of  the  evaluation  report  of  the  National 
Integrity Agency, unless within that period the Deputy or Senator disputed the report at the administrative 
litigation  court.  Acknowledgement  shall  be  done  by  signing  the  receipt  of  the  National  Integrity  Agency 
report by the Deputy or Senator concerned or, if they refuse its receipt, by the announcement made by the 
President of the plenary session of the Chamber to which they belong. 

132  Act No 96 of 21 April 2006 on the Statute of Deputies and Senators – Article 7 (4). 
133  An additional report became final in 2016 concerning Deputy OCHI ION, but he had already resigned from 

office on 01.09.2015, under judicial control, accused of bribe taking and abuse of office 

134  ANI website www.integritate.eu/ and Chamber of Deputies website www.cdep.ro 
135  CVM report 2016  
136 One case concerns incompatibility of an MP re-elected despite the three year election ban, and another case 

concerns an MP with an election ban following  conflict of interest in the previous mandate. 

137  When  such  a  situation  arises,  ANI  issues  a  warning  in  SEAP  (public  procurement  system).  Following  the 
warning the authorising officer of the contracting authority has to take measures and to report back to ANI of 
these measures. Failure to take the necessary measures and to report back to ANI triggers the administrative 
procedure  for  checking  the  conflicts  of  interest.  The  warning  does  not  prevent  the  contracting  authority  to 
award the contract. 

29 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
apply to all public procurement procedures run via the Electronic Public Procurement System (SEAP), 
involving both EU funds and national funds.  

The  priority  for  ANI  is  now  to  make  the  system  operational.  For  this  it  is  collaborating  with  the 
National Agency for Public Procurement (ANAP), the Ministry of Interior (responsible for population 
databases)  and  with  the  Ministry  of  Justice.  ANI  and  ANAP  will  still  need  to  develop  solutions  to 
cover all conflict of interest as defined by the new public procurement laws, as the new definition is 
broader  than  the  one  currently  covered  by  ANI.  Through  the  National  Integrity  Council,  ANI  could 
also  develop  collaboration  with  the  Union  of  Notaries.  It  is  planned  that  the  system  will  become 
operational  in  summer  2017.  ANI  will  organise  training  for  the  new  system,  complementing  on  the 
public procurement trainings planned by ANAP.  

While PREVENT will be compulsory for all public procurement procedures, it will not be able detect 
all  potential  conflicts  of  interests.  Therefore,  the  absence  of  an  integrity  alert  does  not  exclude  the 
responsibility and the active obligation of the contracting authorities to identify conflicts of interests, 
nor relieve the control bodies from further ex-ante and ex-post verifications.   

Throughout 2016, ANI continued to expand its prevention activities. One important focus was on the 
elections  (see  below)  but  other  activities  are  also  being  set  up.  One  of  them  is  a  post-graduate  anti-
corruption  and  integrity  programme  “Public  Integrity  and  Anti-corruption  Public  Policies”  given  by 
ANI  at  Babes-Bolyai  University  in  Cluj-Napoca.  The  main  objective  of  the  programme  is  to  train 
public  servants  in  city  halls,  county  councils  and  parliamentary  offices  on  conflict  of  interests  and 
incompatibilities,  as  well  on  filling  in  assets  and  interests'  disclosures,  assets  evaluation,  and  the 
effectiveness  of  strategies  and  public  policies  in  public  integrity.    In  September  2016,  ANI  also 
launched  an  18  month  project  with  the  Institute  for  Public  Policies  on  "Mapping  Risk  Areas  in 
Conflict  of  Interest  in  Romania",  with  a  view  to  strengthening  the  administrative  capacity  of  the 
integrity system for early identification of risk areas, and prevention of conflict of interest (targeting 
the most vulnerable areas, such as public procurement).  

Public  awareness  is  also  an  important  part  of  prevention.  ANI  reports  improvements  in  public 
acceptance  of  the  integrity  laws  and  of  the  role  of  the  Agency.  Compared  to  previous  years,  ANI 
receives  many  more notifications and complaints when administrations or persons do not follow the 
rules. This has led to cases of administrative bodies failing to comply with their legal obligations, and 
154 fines were applied in 2016 (compared to less than 10 in 2015). ANI also reports an improvement 
in  the  willingness  of  institutions  to  proactively  ask  ANI  how  best  to  prevent  integrity  incidents.138 
ANI's website provides a large amount of practical information and was accessed by 50.000 users per 
month in 2016. 

3.6. 

Respect of integrity rules in local and general elections 

In  January  2016  the  CVM  report  recommended  to  take  steps  to  ensure  the  respect  of  the  rules  on 
integrity in the organisation of the local and general elections to take place in 2016. Ensuring integrity 
in elections is an essential element to fight corruption, in particular in public procurement, as well as 
one  which  sets  an  example  for  society  at  large.  The  specific  issue  for  the  CVM  was  the  effective 
application of the integrity rules to candidates. Candidates have to submit asset and interest disclosures 
and  persons  subject  to  a  final  decision  of  incompatibility,  conflict  of  interest  or  unjustified  assets 
cannot stand within the three year election ban.  

For  the  June  2016  local  elections,  ANI  put  in  place  a  dedicated  integrity  website  in  mid-April  as  a 
practical way to help application of the rules, as well as to signal potential transgressions. The website 
had a single access point for all asset and interests declarations (around 520.000), a guide to identify 
recurring errors and most common incompatibilities, the list of all persons under a three-year election 
ban,  a  guide  for  filling  in  the  assets  and  interests  declaration  forms  on-line  and  an  interface  for 
submitting  complaints  or  notifications  concerning  candidates.  ANI  also  opened  a  hotline,  with 
integrity inspectors providing help to candidates or local authorities concerning the asset and interests 

138 Since 2012, over 4.600 point of view have been issued to Institutions and private persons seeking advice in 

integrity issues.  

30 

 
 
                                                            
declarations. ANI reports that these measures were readily adopted by the candidates, that the website 
and hotline were broadly used and that they were notified very quickly whenever there were errors in 
assets declarations online. With the support of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, ANI organised a video 
conference with all prefects (responsible for the application of the law at the regional level) to explain 
the process. 

ANI had also sent the list of about 230 persons under election ban to the local electoral bureaus and 
the  Permanent  Electoral  Authority,  though  there  did  not  appear  to  have  been  a  formal  response  and 
some  candidates  were  approved  despite  the  election  ban.    After  the  elections  ANI  found  out  that  7 
persons  under  the  election  ban  were  elected.  By  November,  all  of  these  people  had  either  been 
removed from office or had resigned. 

For  the  general  elections,  ANI  put  similar  measures  in  place  and  had  effective  cooperation  with  the 
Permanent Electoral Authority and the Central Electoral Bureau. ANI sent information (including the 
list  of  persons  under  election  bans),  to  those  involved  in  the  electoral  process,  and  to  political 
parties.139  In  addition,  the  Permanent  Electoral  Authority  requested  that  the  electoral  bureaus  should 
consult with ANI before validating candidates, to ensure that problems were detected at an early stage. 
There  were  two  cases  identified  by  the  electoral  bureaus  of  persons  under  election  ban.  In  the  first 
case, the electoral bureau contacted ANI to check and then rejected his candidacy, a decision which 
was upheld in court.  In the other case, the electoral bureau also contacted ANI and then decided that 
the election ban only starts at the end of the person's current mandate, so that the interdiction should in 
principle take effect when new MPs are appointed.  

There is also another case of a person under election ban that has been elected and problems with his 
candidacy had not been flagged before the elections.140 ANI notified the Parliament on 21 December.     

4. 

TACKLING HIGH-LEVEL CORRUPTION 

Benchmark  3:  Building  on  progress  already  made,  continue  to  conduct  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 
surveys141  and  most  recently  in  a  Eurobarometer  on  the  CVM.142  Civil  society  continues  to  play  an 
important part in exposing corruption. For example, several initiatives from civil society in the run-up 
to the general elections involved listing all candidates sentenced for corruption, conflict of interest or 
found incompatible, indicted for corruption crimes or investigated for corruption or who made public 
statements or political initiatives threatening the rule of law.143 

Romania has a comprehensive legal framework for combatting corruption crimes, and previous CVM 
reports have recognised that there are independent judicial institutions investigating, prosecuting and 
deciding  upon  high-level  corruption  cases.  Since  the  last  CVM  report,  the  National  Anti-corruption 
Directorate  (DNA)  has  continued  to  investigate  a  high  number  of  cases  and  send  hundreds  of 
defendants to trial; and the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) and the Courts of Appeal have 
continued  to  rule  final  sentences  in  a  still  large  number  of  high-level  and  medium  level  corruption 
cases and have continued to confiscate assets to recover the damage caused by the corruption offences. 

139  Electronic  Asset  and  Interests  Disclosure  forms,  filling  in  assets  and  interests  disclosure  guides,  guides  to 
incompatibilities and conflicts of interests, as well as the list of persons prohibited to occupy a public office 
or dignity for a period of 3 years. 

140 The final incompatibility court decision dates from 03.11.2016, and he had been revoked from Parliament on 

28.11.2016 (source: website of Chamber of Deputies - www.cdep.ro).  

141  Flash  Eurobarometer  428:  Businesses’  attitudes 

towards  corruption 

in 

the  EU 

,  available  at 

http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/FLASH/surveyKy/2084 ;   
142  Flash  Eurobarometer    445:  The  Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism  for  Bulgaria  and  Romania, 

published on 25 January 2017 

143  http://www.alegeriparlamentare2016.ro/  

31 

 
 
                                                            
These cases have involved, for example, Senators, Deputies, former ministers, generals, presidents of 
County Councils, mayors, judges and prosecutors, 

Over  the  years  the  investigations  of  DNA  suggest  that  the  same  patterns  of  corruption  crimes  recur 
from one year to another. In the presentation of the DNA annual report in 2016, the Chief Prosecutor 
highlighted that "The cases under investigation show us that we haven’t caught all the corrupt people. 
Our  results  prove  that  there  are  major  vulnerabilities  which  endanger  the  good  functioning  of  our 
society.144 Corruption has dramatic effects and it manifests through the same repetitive actions. In the 
absence  of  clear  measures  for  preventing  and  controlling  this  phenomenon,  the  typology  of  the 
investigated crimes and the mechanisms allowing them to be committed repeat themselves."145  

In  the  2016  CVM  report,  the  recommendations  covered  maintaining  the  effort  of  the  judicial 
institutions addressing high-level corruption; ensuring that corruption laws apply equally to all and at 
all  levels;  and  adopting  objective  criteria  for  deciding  on  and  motivating  lifting  of  immunity  of 
Members of Parliament and ensuring that immunity is not used to avoid investigation and prosecution 
of corruption crimes.  

4.1. 

Overview of developments under the CVM 

CVM  reports  have  been  able  to  show  a  steadily  growing  track  record  in  terms  of  investigating, 
prosecuting and adjudicating high-level corruption cases over the years, with a clear acceleration after 
2011.146  Since  2013,  the  track  record  of  the  institutions  involved  in  fighting  high-level  corruption 
remained  strong,  with  regular  indictments  and  conclusion  of  cases  concerning  politicians  and  civil 
servants, magistrates and businessmen. To give an order of comparison, in 2007 DNA sent 167 cases 
to court against  415  defendants. There were 63 final conviction decisions against 109  defendants147.  
In  2015,  DNA  sent  357  cases  to  trial  regarding  1258  defendants.  There  were  302  final  conviction 
decisions against 973 defendants. DNA also finalises an increasing number of cases every year (more 
than 4500 in recent years, compared to 1,500 in 2007), while the number of new cases of complaints 
from  citizens,  businesses  or  public  authorities  also  increased  steadily  and  reached  10,000  in  2016. 
There is consistent evidence that the work of the DNA is appreciated by the general public.148 

In  2007  many  corruption  cases  were  pending  at  first  instance  in  the  HCCJ  and  the  pace  of  solving 
corruption cases was slow. The situation started to change in 2010–2011. This was the result of both 
management  decisions  in  the  HCCJ,  which  improved  the  case  management  of  corruption  cases,  and 
legislation:  the  Small  Reform  Law  in  2010  took  away  the  suspension  of  a  case  when  there  was  an 
objection  of  non-constitutionality.  An  increase  in  the  number  of  high-level  officials  convicted  for 
corruption started to be seen from 2010, but to begin with, virtually no decisions were reached in cases 
involving  the  most  politically  influential  defendants.  From  2012on,  there  was  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  and  pace  of  Court  decisions  against  high  ranking  defendants,  including  the  first  final 
decisions against high ranking defendants, and the first prison sentences.149 Since then, CVM reports 
have been able to record a constant pace of decisions on corruption cases at the HCCJ,150 despite the 

144  "There  are  sectors  in  public  procurement  where  corruption  is  generalized.  Many  times,  the  awarding  of 
contracts or the payments related to contracts are conditioned by receiving different sums of money disguised 
by fraudulent deals or fictitious agreements." 
145  http://www.pna.ro/faces/comunicat.xhtml?id=7128 
146  CVM reports 2007 - 2016 
147  CVM report 2012 
148  DNA  surveys  and other  polling  indicate  55,8%  trust in  2014,  61%  trust  in  2015, 60%  in  April  2016,  55% 

after summer? 
149  CVM report 2012 
150  Between 2013 and 2016 the HCCJ solved:  
-  44 first instance high-level corruption cases: 2013: 10 cases, 2014: 12 cases, 2015: 11 cases, 2016: 14 cases 
-  48 final decisions on high-level corruption cases: 2013: 15 cases,  2014: 13 cases, 2015: 11 cases,  2016: 13 

cases 

32 

 
 
                                                            
increasing complexity of the cases (the result of, for example, a shift in competences after the entry 
into force of the new criminal Codes).151 

The  consistency  and  dissuasiveness  of  corruption  sentences  has  been  a  recurrent  theme  in  CVM 
reports and recommendations. Today the case-law of sentencing for high-level corruption is extensive, 
showing that the HCCJ but also the Appeal Courts have pronounced prison sentences at the upper end 
of the sentencing range  to influential public figures found guilty of corruption, including judges and 
prosecutors.    However,  the  overall  dissuasive  effect  was  reduced  by  the  proportion  of  suspended 
sentences,  though  the  proportion  of  sentences  with  execution  in  DNA  cases  has  increased  from  one 
quarter to one third of cases from 2014 on while at the same time the number of final convictions also 
increased.  NGOs  and  magistrates  have  drawn  attention  to  cases  where  on  the  one  hand,  relatively 
minor corruption offences were punished by severe prison sentences, whilst on the other hand, some 
of high-level cases resulted in suspended sentences  – with the effect that convicted politicians could 
continue to sit in Parliament or be re-elected (with no deprivation of civic rights). 

The  stability  of  the  legal  framework  for  fighting  corruption  has  been  a  recurring  theme.  The  2012 
CVM  report  noted  "there  have  been  a  number  of  proposals  to  change  the  criminal  and  criminal 
procedural law on aspects related to corruption. Some of these attempts to weaken the framework were 
successful – such as the decriminalisation of certain bank fraud offences. Others have not succeeded, 
including  recent  proposals  in  Parliament  to  take  elected  and  appointed  officials  out  of  the  scope  of 
corruption  offences  and  to  effectively  decriminalise  conflict  of  interest."  In  December  2013,  a  few 
months before the entry into force of the new Criminal Codes, Parliament adopted amendments to the 
old and new Criminal Codes weakening the provisions on the fight against corruption and taking away 
MPs  from  the  category  of  people  that can  be  investigated  for  corruption  crimes.  These  amendments 
were  annulled  by  the  Constitutional  Court  in  January  2014.152  In  2015,  new  amendments  to  the 
Criminal  Code  and  Code  for  Criminal  Procedures  still  pending  in  Parliament  questioned  again  the 
stability of the framework to fight corruption (See Section 2). 

CVM  reports  and  studies  have  highlighted  that  the  investigation,  prosecution  and  conviction  of 
corruption  have  involved  public  figures  and  politicians  of  all  levels  and  political  parties.153  There 
seems  to  be  a  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  (see 
Section 2.1) and in terms of a resistance to explain refusals to lift parliamentary immunities to allow 
for investigation of preventative measures (see below).  

4.2. 

Legal framework  

CVM  reports  have  highlighted  that  the  current  legal  framework  for  the  fight  against  corruption  is 
effective. In 2014, the Criminal Code addressed a number of outstanding recommendations raised by 
the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO),154 while the new Criminal Procedure Code built on 
a smaller scale reform of 2011 and has enabled the prosecution and the courts to overcome a series of 
procedural obstacles that were exploited by some defendants to delay trials. 

Section 2.2 describes how the issue of the stability of the new Criminal Code and Code for Criminal 
Procedures, a source of concern since their entry into force in 2014, has been partially addressed by 
the Government through Emergency Ordinances. However, it also describes how the stability of the 
legal  framework  for  corruption  has  continued  to  be  called  into  question  by  amendments  triggering 
concerns  from  the  judicial  authorities  on  the  grounds  that  they  would  reduce  the  capacity  of  the 
prosecution and judges to investigate or sentence corruption crimes.  

151  CVM report 2016 
152  CVM report 2014 
153  CVM reports 2012, 2014, 2015 
154  CVM  report  2016:  Three  GRECO  recommendations  on  the  incrimination  of  corruption  crimes  are  only 
partially addressed. The Group of States Against corruption is a body of the Council of Europe, performing 
among others regular evaluations on the implementation of anti-corruption standards.  

33 

 
 
                                                            
Two Constitutional Court (CCR) decisions in 2016 concerned the fight against corruption and the full 
legal consequences of the decisions on ongoing cases are still being determined as cases go through 
the  courts.  One  decision  invalidated  technical  surveillance  measures  ordered  by  prosecutors  but 
enforced by the security services. As mentioned in Section 2.3, the Government has sought to bring 
solutions  through  an  Emergency  Ordinance  by  setting  up  this  capacity  in  the  prosecution.  But  there 
remains  uncertainty  about  future  court  decisions  relying  on  evidence  collected  through  electronic 
surveillance  measures  administered  before  the  Constitutional  Court  decision.  Shortly  after  the  CCR 
decision, the HCCJ ruled in one case to admit the evidence. This line seems to be followed by most 
courts; nevertheless DNA reports that this is not a universal approach.155 

A  second  decision  concerns  the  crime  of  abuse  of  office.  The  CCR  decision  upheld  the 
constitutionality  of  the  incrimination  in  line  with  international  standards,  and  further  clarified  the 
interpretation  of  certain  provisions  in  the  Criminal  Code.  The  full  implications  of  the  CCR  decision 
will need to be worked out through specific cases in the courts, and DNA is waiting for this to become 
clear before sending new cases to court. 

4.3. 

High Court of Cassation and Justice  

In the last ten years, corruption trials have been one of the most visible parts of the activity of the High 
Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ). As set out above, CVM reports have acknowledged that the 
HCCJ has maintained a constant track record in solving high-level corruption cases. This is a result of 
the Presidency of the HCCJ, the judges of the criminal section and the HCCJ as a whole adopting a 
managerial rigour to ensure that justice is delivered as swiftly as possible. This has happened in spite 
of  an  important  strain  on  the  resources  of  the  HCCJ,  particularly  in  terms  of  insufficient  council 
rooms, offices and archive rooms.   

In 2016 the Penal Chamber settled, at first instance, 14 high-level corruption cases and the panels of 
five judges settled, as final instance, 13 high-level corruption cases, with many cases involving a high 
number  of  witnesses  and  complex  evidence.  The  HCCJ  consistently  reports  attention  for  respect  of 
procedural rights. However, as in the case of anti-corruption prosecutors, judges have been subject to 
public criticism, including on a personal level. 

The  main  challenge  for  the  judges  of  the  HCCJ  dealing  with  corruption  cases  lies  in  the  increasing 
complexity  of  the  corruption  cases,  as  well  as  the  dual  role  of  judging  and  interpreting  the  new 
provisions of the new Criminal Codes and dealing with the consequences of the continued changes to 
the Codes.  

The National Anti-Corruption Directorate  

4.4. 
The  National  Anti-corruption  Directorate  (DNA)  investigates  high  and  medium  level  corruption.156 
Because  of  its  consistent  non-partisan  track  record,  DNA  continues  to  enjoy  a  very  high  support  in 
public  opinion.157  The  high-level  corruption  cases  are  judged  by  the  HCCJ  and  the  Courts  of 
Appeal.158  For  all  other  corruption  cases  investigated  by  DNA,  the  Tribunalele  (tribunals)  are  the 
competent first instance court, unless assigned by law under the jurisdiction of a higher court. 

155  This issue also affects the other specialised prosecution office for fight against organised crime and terrorism 

(DIICOT). 

156  The  law  establishes  three  criteria  for  medium  and  high  level  corruption:  the  amount  of  bribes  or  undue 
benefits  exceeds  €10,000;  the  damage  caused  exceeds  €200,000;  corruption  offenses  are  committed 
(regardless of the amount) by people who occupy important positions such as Deputies, Senators, members 
of  Government,  State  Secretaries,  prosecutors  and  judges,  officers,  admirals,  generals,  mayors  and  deputy 
mayors,  presidents or deputies of county councils, county councillors, prefects and sub-prefects. 

157  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 

158  According  to  the  new  Code  of  Criminal  Procedures,  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  (HCCJ)  is 
competent  for  first  instance  and  appeal  trials  for  offences  committed  by  Senators,  Deputies,  Government 
members, judges of the Constitutional Court, members of the Superior Council of Magistracy, judges of the 
HCCJ  and  prosecutors  of  the  Prosecutor's  office  attached to  the  HCCJ.  In  final  instance,  the  HCCJ  judges 

34 

 
 
                                                            
 
Institutional capacity 

The number of DNA cases continues to increase. DNA registered even more new cases in 2016.159 In 
2015, DNA finalised 4500 cases but at the end of the year there were still 3500 cases pending. There is 
an obligation to deal with all cases: prosecutors cannot invoke the opportunity principle because there 
is a public interest in fighting corruption. The use of plea bargaining is limited by law, as it can only 
be used in cases involving small amounts of money. The result is that the workload per prosecutor is 
very high: about 100 cases per prosecutor (supported by two police officers). 

The activity of the DNA offices outside the capital has continued to increase, with more investigations 
of  important  local  figures.  During  a  Commission  visit  to  Brasov,  the  DNA  local  branch  presented 
examples of cases involving illegal forest retrocessions and corruption of a judge, and they highlighted 
the challenges in tracing cash when investigating complex money laundry schemes.  Other examples 
can  be  found  in  DNA  Ploiesti,  where  prosecutors  started  investigations  against  the  President  of  the 
local  Permanent  Electoral  Authority  and  indicted  a  Deputy  for  bribery,  buying  influence,  money 
laundering,  and  extortion.  Such  cases  have  also  brought  an  increase  in  attacks  on  local  DNA 
prosecutors. This situation makes recruitment particularly difficult outside Bucharest, in turn putting 
additional workload on the prosecutors in place when vacancies cannot be filled. DNA headquarters – 
where a strong team spirit and vocation seems to have helped in retaining its staff – has tried to help 
by seconding prosecutors or taking over some of the files.  

The  Constitutional  Court  decision  of  February  2016  to  invalidate  (electronic)  surveillance  measures 
ordered  by  prosecutors  but  implemented  by  the  Romanian  Security  Services  (SRI)  required  major 
changes in the work of DNA prosecutors (and all prosecution services). Whilst most DNA cases are 
not  based  solely  on  electronic  surveillance  evidence,  this  is  an  important  source  and  DNA  had  to 
immediately re-organise its work and start to boost internal capacity. The Minister of Justice allocated 
40 posts of judicial police officers to DNA (as well as 40 to DIICOT and 40 to the Public Ministry) to 
develop in-house capacity for wiretapping or surveillance measures. DNA already had a small team in 
place on which it could build; nevertheless development to full capacity will still take more time.160   

2016  saw  an  important  increase  in  political  and  media  attacks  on  DNA  and  its  prosecutors.  As 
confirmed by the decisions of the Superior Council of Magistracy, these constitute attacks against the 
independence of justice and professional reputation of magistrates (see Section 2.1).   

Track record  

DNA  has  maintained  its  results  in  terms  of  conducting  investigations  of  high  and  medium  level 
corruption  cases.    In  2016,  403  cases  were  sent  to  trial,  involving  1271  defendants.161  Amongst  the 
high  profile  cases,  DNA  has  indicted  defendants  for  alleged  corruption  crimes  one  President  of  the 
Chamber of deputies, 12 Deputies and 6 Senators, 1 minister, 1 President and 1 general secretary of 
the  Chamber  of  commerce  and  Industry  of  Romania,  1  Secretary  General  of  the  Senate,  2  State 
Secretaries, the President of the Insurances Supervision Commission, 1 President and Vice-President 
of  the  National  Agency  for  Fiscal  Administration,  1  President  and  2  vice-presidents  of  the  National 
Authority for Property Restitution, 1 vice-president of the Romanian Electoral Authority, 5 presidents 
and  2  vice-presidents  of  county  councils,  3  prefects  and  2  under  prefects,  20  mayors  and  6  vice-

appeals against the Court of Appeals' decisions for offences committed (among others) by councillors, public 
notaries,  bailiffs,  public  auditors,  judges  of  Judicatorie,  Tribunalele  and  Courts  of  Appeal  and  prosecutors 
from offices attached to these courts. 

159  DNA  reports  that  85  to  90  %  of  cases  originate  from  citizens'  complaints,  5  to  10%  are  ex-officio  or 
complaints from  other  institutions  and  less  than  5%  of  cases  originate  from  notification  of  the  intelligence 
services. 

160 This would also imply more posts for judicial police.  
161 88 of these defendants were indicted with plea bargain agreements. 

35 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
mayors,  44  directors  of  public  agencies,  authorities  and  state  owned  companies,    52  police  officers. 
Seven judges and 8 prosecutors  were indicted.162 

In order to recover the damages caused by the offences or to ensure the confiscation of the proceeds of 
corruption  crimes,  DNA  prosecutors  ordered  interim  seizures  measures  in  the  cases  sent  to  trial  for 
money and goods worth about EUR 643 million. In two cases DNA prosecutors requested the court to 
order extended confiscation measures. 

In  2016,  339  final  conviction  decisions  were  ruled  in  court  against  879  defendants  in  the  cases 
conducted by DNA.163 Among those convicted were 2 senators and 8 deputies (including a former vice 
prime minister), 1 MEP, 1 minister, 1 state secretary, 6 generals and 1 commander, 5 presidents and 4 
vice-presidents of county councils,  9 judges, 1 director of penitentiary,9 mayors, 32 directors within 
public  institutions  and  state  owned  companies  and  81police  officers  (including  1  deputy  director 
general of the General Directorate of the Bucharest Municipality Police)164. The courts ruled 37 final 
acquittal decisions. 

In  the  cases  with  final  conviction  decisions,  the  courts  ruled  the  confiscation  of  the  total  sum  of 
approximately  EUR  36.7  million,  including  movable  goods.  The  courts  ordered  the  extended 
confiscation of EUR 29,500. Compensation ordered to civil parties amounted at EUR  189.4 million, 
with  EUR  168.4  million  (89%)  of  this  for  public  authorities  and  state  owned  enterprises.  DNA  has 
started  a  closer  monitoring  of  the  follow-up  of  confiscation  decisions  and  has  as  yet  found  no 
improvement in the effective amounts recovered. (See section 5.3) 

4.5. 

Sentences in (high-level) corruption cases 

Consistency and dissuasiveness of corruption sentences is a long standing theme in CVM reports. The 
High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  (HCCJ)  issued  the  first  prison  sentences  against  high  ranking 
defendants in corruption cases in 2012. Over the years, the HCCJ has developed case-law concerning 
sentencing  for  high-level  corruption  which  serves  as  an  example  for  lower  courts.  In  parallel,  the 
HCCJ had also developed two studies on the individualisation of sentences for corruption offences and  
guideline  for  the  individualisation  of  sentences  for  passive  bribery,  passive  and  active  trading  in 
influence, which judges and  prosecutors have described  as very useful.165  In recent years, the HCCJ 
but also the Appeal Courts have decided corruption prison sentences at the upper end of the sentencing 
range  for  influential  public  figures.  Convicted  judges  and  prosecutors  have  systematically  received 
severe  sentences.    DNA  statistics  show  an  increase  of  the  length  of  penalties:  until  2013  more  than 
70% of sentences were under 3 years, from 2014, 50% of sentences are below 3 years. In 2015, 31% 
of sentences are between 3 and 5 years and 17% are above 5 years. 

Overall the proportion of sentences with execution in DNA cases increased from one quarter to one 
third of cases in 2014 and has remained about that level since. This means that there are approximately 
two-thirds  of  convictions for  corruption  where  the sentences  are  suspended.166  As  noted  in  the  2014 
CVM report, the overall level of suspended sentences seems to be higher in corruption cases than in 
other crimes.167  

162 The approval of the Superior Council of Magistracy is necessary for search and arrest: it has been granted in 

all cases. 

163  343  punishments  with  execution  (39%),  505  punishments  with  suspension  of  execution  (57%),  31 

punishments with the postponing of enforcement of the punishment during the surveillance term (3%). 

164 Since several years, there seems to be a high number of police officers indicted and sentenced for corruption, 

also visible in the cases brought to trial by the non-specialised prosecution. (See section 5.5). 

165  CVM report 2014 
166  Only  around  a  quarter  of  sentences  given  in  2007-09  were  served  in  prison,  while  this  rose  to  40%  of 
penalties  in  2010-2011.  In  2015,  36  %  of  cases  were  ruled  with  execution  and  64%  were  ruled  with 
suspension  of  execution  (either  -  conditioned  suspension  of  execution,  or  suspension  of  execution  with 
surveillance, or postponing of enforcement during surveillance term).In 2016, 39% of cases were ruled with 
execution and 57% were ruled with suspension of execution (either conditioned suspension of execution, or 
suspension of execution with surveillance, or postponing of enforcement during surveillance term). 

167  SWD(2014) 37 

36 

 
 
                                                            
The  law  foresees  that,  except  for  Members  of  Parliament  in  line  with  the  Constitution,  a  convicted 
person  loses  his/her  public  function  irrespective  of  whether  the  sentence  is  suspended.  Discussions 
with magistrates suggest that they consider this a severe punishment in itself. Parliament passed a law 
in  March  2016  which  would  have  allowed  local  elected  officials  (mayors  and  county  Presidents)  to 
keep  their  mandate  in  case  of  a  suspended  sentence,  but  the  amendment  was  annulled  by  the 
Constitutional  Court  following  a  referral  by  the  President  of  Romania.168  Prosecutors  have  an 
important role in launching an appeal when they believe that the sentence is not consistent with other 
cases or is too lenient. This practice is well established in DNA. In the Public Ministry, prosecutors 
receive guidance on whether to launch an appeal based on case-law in their respective Court of Appeal 
or from the Prosecution Office attached to the HCCJ. 

An  explanation  of sentencing  is included  in the motivation of judges' decisions. The ability of these 
motivations to  reassure that the decision  is consistent or to help the prosecutor to decide whether to 
appeal the sentence is weakened by the lapse in time between a decision and the motivation. 

Another  question  is  the  use  of  additional  penalties  of  deprivation  of  the  right  to  be  elected  or  hold 
certain  functions  in  serious  corruption  cases.  When  politicians  are  convicted  but  receive  suspended 
sentences,  they  have  been  able  to  be  re-elected  in  Parliament.  This  limits  the  deterrent  effect  of  the 
sentence. However, this situation will change under the new Criminal Code. Under the old Code – still 
applicable  to  most  ongoing  high-level  corruption  cases  (by  application  of  the  most  favourable  law 
principle)  – if judges decide on a suspended prison sentence, they are obliged to also suspend  other 
measures affecting the right to hold a public office. Under the new Code,  the law stipulates the ban to 
exercise the right to hold a public office as a penalty for certain corruption offences, and a suspended 
sentence  does  not  prevent  the  application  of  additional  penalties  affecting  the  right  to  be  elected  or 
hold a public office.  

4.6. 

Parliament and the fight against high-level corruption 

The  parliamentary  procedures  for  the  lifting  of  immunity  with  respect  to  starting  investigations, 
search, arrest and detention measure has been an issue raised in CVM reports since 2009.169  

As  in  previous  years,  2016  also  saw  examples  of  apparent  inconsistencies  in  the  response  given  to 
requests from the prosecution to lift the immunities of MPs. During 2016, DNA prosecutors made six 
requests  to  the  Parliament  for  pre-trial  detention  on  corruption  grounds  (regarding  six  Deputies  and 
one  Senator)  and  half  of  them  were  rejected.170  Six  requests  were  also  made  for  approval  to  start 
investigations on corruption grounds, concerning MPs who are also Ministers or former Ministers and 
one was rejected.171 In one case, the refusal of lifting of immunity sparked demonstrations from civil 
society outside Parliament and the Senator concerned decided to resign. In contrast, all requests for the 
approval to start investigation on former ministers who are not MPs were admitted by the President of 
Romania. 

The  criteria  on  which  requests  are  accepted  or  rejected  by  Parliament  remain  unclear  and  are  not 
communicated  to  the  public  or  the  prosecution.  In  the  January  2016  report  the  Commission 
recommended  that  the  Parliament  should  adopt  objective  criteria  for  deciding  on  and  motivating 
lifting  of  immunity  of  members  of  parliament  and  ensure  that  immunity  is  not  used  to  avoid 
investigation and prosecution of corruption crimes.  

There  were  no  concrete  proposals  from  the  Parliament  on  this  recommendation.  This  has  however 
been  the  subject  of  reflection  in  Parliament.  Parliamentarians  have  pointed  to  divergent  opinions  on 
having objective criteria, or whether it is possible to find objective criteria.172 One avenue they have 

168  Decision number 536 of 6 July 2016 
169  COM(2015)38 final, COM(2014) 37 final, COM(2013) 47 final, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009 
170  3  were  admitted  (1  by  the  Senate,  2  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies);  3  were  denied  (3  by  the  Chamber  of 

Deputies). 

171  3 were admitted (1 by the Chamber of Deputies, 2 by the Senate); 1 was denied by the Senate and 1 request 

became void after the resignation of the Senator. 1 request at the Chamber of deputies is still pending. 

172  In discussions with Commission services. 

37 

 
 
                                                            
considered is to remove the "inviolability" of MPs altogether from the Constitution.173 Another point 
discussed  is  whether  decisions  could  be  motivated,  given  that  the  procedure  is  a  secret  vote.  The 
recommendation of the Commission is based on the recommendations from the Venice Commission 
report  on  the  scope  and  lifting  of  parliamentary  immunities,174  stating  that  (1)  if  the  request  to  lift 
immunity  is  based  on  sincere  and  serious  grounds,  and  if  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect  fumus 
persecutionis, then there should be a strong presumption in favour of lifting inviolability; (2) rules on 
parliamentary inviolability should always include procedures prescribing how this may be lifted. Such 
procedures should be comprehensive, clear and predictable, and the procedure should be transparent 
and known to the public. At the same time, such procedures should not be made to resemble judicial 
proceedings,  and  under  no  circumstances  should  they  assess  the  question  of  guilt,  which  is  for  the 
courts alone to decide. 

The  Venice  Commission  report  recommends  specific  criteria  for  lifting  or  maintaining  inviolability 
which would make the procedures more clear and predictable.  

A  second  issue  concerns  the  immunity  of  MPs  who  are  former  ministers.  The  Venice  Commission 
report recommends that inviolability is strictly limited in time, and does not extend beyond a person's 
mandate.  The  fact  that  in  Romania  former,  as  well  as  current,  ministers  keep  a  strong  functional 
immunity protecting them from being prosecuted in respect of offences committed while they were in 
office creates situations where people appear above the law.175 The requests for starting investigation 
of  former  ministers  who  are  not  MPs  are  granted  by  the  President  of  Romania.  All  Presidents  have 
accepted all requests since 2007. However, the requests for starting investigation of former ministers 
who are MPs are granted by the chamber of parliament to whom they belong.  One third of the latter 
requests have been refused.176 The result is that offences committed while in ministerial office have in 
practice had a different treatment according to whether the individuals are subsequently elected MPs – 
as well as the fact that in some cases, it has not been possible to prosecute the MPs concerned whilst 
other defendants in the same corruption case have been sentenced to prison.   

A third issue that has been raised previously is that a parliamentarian convicted of corruption, but with 
a suspended sentence, can continue to sit in Parliament as before.177 In the aftermath of the Presidential 
elections of 2014, there were proposals from two main political parties in spring 2015 to modify the 
party  status  sanctioning  members  that  are  involved  in  corruption  proceedings.  But  this  remains  an 
issue of internal party practice rather than the law.   

5. 

TACKLING CORRUPTION AT ALL LEVELS 

Benchmark 4: Take further measures to prevent and fight against corruption, in particular within the 
local government 

The  fourth  CVM  benchmark  concerns  further  measures  by  the  Romanian  authorities  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.178  It  affects  everyday  life  of  all  social  classes,  with 

173  A Venice Commission report on the scope and lifting of parliamentary immunities CDL-AD(2014)011 of 14 
May 2014  distinguishes between  two  main  categories  of  parliamentary immunity:  “non-liability”,  meaning 
immunity  against  any  judicial  proceedings  for  votes,  opinions  and  remarks  related  to  the  exercise  of 
parliamentary  office;  “inviolability”,  meaning  special  legal  protection  for  parliamentarians  accused  of 
breaking the law, typically against arrest, detention and prosecution, without the consent of the chamber to 
which they belong. 

174  Ibid 35 
175 This is regulated in the Law on Ministerial Responsibility of 1999.  In 20XX the Constitutional Court ruled 

that the Constitutional provisions on liability of ministers would also apply to former ministers. 

176  Since  2007,  DNA  made  38  requests  for  starting  criminal  investigations.  14  requests  to  the  President  of 

Romania were all admitted. 21 requests to the Parliament, 6 were denied. 

177 COM(2015) 35 final, p10; SWD(2015) 8 final, p26; COM(2012) 
178 Trends from Eurobarometer polling on corruption from 2005 until 2015  show that while general perceptions 
on corruption in Romania remain very high with above 90% of  respondents considering that corruption is a 

38 

 
 
                                                            
 
clear consequences for Romania's economic and social development. Some cases are on a large scale, 
both  financially  (but  without necessarily  involving high  ranking  politicians  or office  holders)  and  in 
terms of the numbers of those affected. Corruption represents a reputational risk for the country and, 
as other forms of corruption, acts as a deterrent for foreign investment.  

As mentioned in earlier CVM reports, there is also an increasing recognition by public institutions of 
the negative consequences of corruption. There are sectors in public procurement where corruption is 
generalised,  and  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  has  drawn  attention  to  the  trend  that  the 
same  crimes  are  committed  from  one  year  to  the  next,  indicating  that  loopholes  are  not  closed  and 
preventive  measures  not  efficient  enough.179  As  set  out  in  previous  CVM  reports,  the  fight  against 
general corruption relies on a mix of robust prevention measures, education to change the perception 
that bribes or "informal payments" are the only way to obtain a service, and effective controls, as well 
as dissuasive and enforced sanctions.  

The fight against corruption and implementation of preventive measures were major priorities of the 
government in power during 2016. Previously, CVM reports had noted an absence of political will to 
address low-level corruption, but a number of steps were taken in 2016. These included the application 
and promotion of transparency rules in State and public institutions, and the adoption of an ambitious 
and comprehensive corruption prevention strategy. 

5.1. 

Overview of developments under the CVM 

CVM reports have consistently noted that progress in corruption prevention has been less marked than 
in terms of law enforcement.  In July 2012, the CVM report concluded "Looking back over the past 
years  at  the  actual  impact  of  the  overall  anti-corruption  measures  taken,  there  is  a  clear  imbalance 
between  repressive  and  preventive  measures.  The  main  focus  of  the  anti-corruption  drive  so  far  has 
been on law enforcement. While the criminal law side is crucial in setting a clear regime which will 
help to encourage a change of  mentality, a successful anti-corruption policy cannot succeed without 
effective and coherent preventive mechanisms. In this context, in the last five years the progress made 
in  the  effectiveness  of  internal  control  mechanisms  is  rather  limited  and  inconsistent,  with 
considerable variations in the results reached from one sector to the other and major gaps in internal 
control bodies and procedures." 

The  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  (NAS)  is  the  core  instrument  of  corruption  prevention  by 
public  administration  at  national  and  local  level.  Since  2005,  the  anti-corruption  efforts  of  the 
Romanian  authorities  have  been  guided  by  national  anti-corruption  strategies.  According  to  an 
independent  study  which  reported  in  2011  on  the  impact  of  the  2005-2007  and  the  2008-2010  anti-
corruption strategies, these strategies had been implemented to a large extent, but with questions about 
the real impact.180  

In 2012, Romania adopted a new national anti-corruption strategy 2012-2015, which was preceded by 
a wide consultation process involving civil society, as well as drawing on the recommendations of the 
independent assessment of the previous strategies. The NAS 2012-2015, coordinated by the Ministry 
of  Justice,  continued  to  develop  through  activities  related  to  monitoring  implementation,  notably 
through  peer  reviews  also  involving  NGOs.181  By  2013,  a  mixed  picture  could  be  seen.  On  the  one 
hand, there were no common approach to risk assessment, different rules and standards applied in the 
different  institutions  and  uncooperative  institutions  were  not  sanctioned.  On  the  other  hand, 
participation  of  local  authorities  had  progressed  and  a  round  of  thematic  evaluations  conducted  at 
central  and  local  level  in  2014  showed  that  municipalities  had  developed  good  practices.182  An 
evaluation  and  general  review  of  NAS  2012-2015  in  2015  showed  that  it  had  started  to  produce 

major problem or widespread in Romania,  the personal experience of corruption (were you asked to pay a 
bribe in the last 12 months?) diminished significantly.      

179 DNA annual report. 
180 CVM report 2012 
181 CVM report 2014. 
182 CVM report 2015 

39 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
positive  results  but  that  progress  was  slow  and  the  application  of  prevention  measures  ineffective, 
while  overall  political  will  from  the  top  of  the  institutions  to  implement  corruption  prevention 
measures  was  insufficient.  At  the  beginning  of  2016,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  launched  inter-
institutional  consultations  and  public  debates  to  assess  the  impact  of  the  NAS  and  an  external 
evaluation took place using experts selected by the OECD. The experts' findings echoed those of the 
Commission in January 2016, and the experts could not conclude that there was already evidence that 
corruption is decreasing. On this basis, in August 2016the Government adopted a new anti-corruption 
strategy for 2016–2020.   

General  corruption  cases  are  investigated  both  by  the  National  Anti-corruption  Directorate  (DNA) 
(medium-level) and by the General Prosecution (low-level).183 There is not always a clear separation 
between high-level, medium-level and low-level corruption. Isolated cases of small bribes may appear 
as low level corruption but, taken together with other similar cases in the same administration, might 
bring  up  patterns  of  well-organised  schemes  feeding  into  high-level  corruption.  The  General 
Prosecution  and  the  DNA  collaborate,  so  that  cases  initiated  as  low-level  corruption  are  later 
transferred to DNA if it appears during the investigation that these fall within DNA competence. In a 
considerable  number  of  those  cases,  the  DNA  competence  only  became  clear  appeared  after  the 
prosecutors had already taken the investigation a long way.  

According to the statistics of the Office of the Prosecutor General, in the last ten years, the number of 
corruption  cases  resolved  by  the  Public  Ministry  cases  has  not  significantly  grown,  although  the 
number of notifications has increased steadily. Since 2007, there has been a general decrease to 2011. 
From  2012,  the  number  of  cases  solved  gradually  increased  again.  However,  the  number  of  persons 
indicted  for  corruption  offences  increased  significantly,  from  248  in  2007  to  812  in  2015.  Between 
2007 and 2011, the incrimination of conflict of interest by the Public Ministry proved to be ineffective. 
In 2013, measures similar to those used for corruption cases were applied to conflicts of interest, while 
cases that had been closed were reviewed. The number of cases solved and persons indicted improved 
significantly.   

The  progress  in  prosecution  of  corruption  by  the  Public  Ministry  can  be  attributed  in  part  to 
management changes introduced by the Prosecutor General. These included the establishment in 2008 
of a network of prosecutors specialised on corruption cases, as well as anti-corruption strategies in all 
offices.  The  Public  Ministry  also  conducted  an  assessment  of  the  indictments  issued  in  corruption 
cases.184  To  underline  the  priority  given  to  the  fight  against  corruption,  since  2010,  the  Prosecutor-
General  has  organised  every  year  regional  and  national  competitions  concerning  the  fight  against 
corruption,  gathering  prosecutors  from  courts  around  the  country,  at  which  relevant  cases  and  good 
practices are presented. The priority given to the fight against corruption has been maintained across 
the mandate of different Prosecutors General.  

The  CVM  report  of  July  2012  noted  the  pioneering  role  of  the  General  Anti-Corruption  Directorate 
(DGA)  within  the  Ministry  of  Administration  and  Interior  in  applying  anti-corruption  measures  at 
regional and local level. DGA is competent to apply both preventive and, as judicial police, repressive 
measures  against  corruption  within  the  police,  as  well  as  other  structures  within  the  Ministry  of 
Interior.  The  report  further  noted  increasing  results  in  investigating  prosecution  cases  within  the 
Ministry  of  Interior.185  Subsequent  CVM  reports  have  mentioned  continued  results  for  DGA  and  its 
collaboration  with  the  Public  Ministry  in  the  fight  against  corruption.  Aside  from  their  corruption 
investigations, DGA has also been developing preventive activities such as awareness raising, training 
activities  and  cooperation  with  NGOs.  DGA  has  also  developed  risk  assessments  and  analysis  of 

183  See previous section for DNA's competence. 
184  CVM report 2012. 
185  Between 2007 and 2011, GDA submitted 1,047 notifications to the DNA. This represents approximately 20% 
of  the  overall  notifications  received  by  DNA  from  law  enforcement,  prosecutors’  offices  and  public 
institutions. As a result of GAD notifications, DNA have issued indictments in 222 cases, whilst GAD also 
submitted 6,388 files to the public prosecutors’ offices (other than DNA), leading to 836 indictments. In the 
courts GAD investigations have led to 538 final decisions against 717 defendants. 

40 

 
 
                                                            
corruption cases to identify patterns and structural corrective measures in vulnerable areas, which were 
also disseminated in the Public Ministry. The high number of cases of corruption in the police at all 
levels reported by the Public Ministry and DNA in the last three years nevertheless raise questions on 
whether  the  structural  prevention  measures  within  the  Ministry  of  Interior  and  local  police  are 
sufficiently effective.  

Effective  confiscation  and  asset  recovery  is  a  key  element  in  the  dissuasion  of  corruption  and  in 
illustrating an effective anti-corruption regime to the public. The improvement of the confiscation and 
asset recovery is therefore a long standing recommendation in CVM reports. 

In the period 2007-2011, the General Prosecutor’s Office reported seizing assets worth approximately 
EUR 587 million, with EUR 234 million frozen in 2011 alone, nearly seven times more than in 2007. 
The improvement in the seizing of assets by the prosecution services resulted from measures taken by 
the  General  Prosecutor  to  encourage  a  more  proactive  approach  in  financial  investigations.  
Prosecution services developed expertise in financial investigations while a Fiscal Antifraud General 
Directorate (FAGD) was set up within ANAF to provide specialised technical support to prosecutors 
in  carrying  out  criminal  investigations,  in  cases  concerning  economic  and  financial  crimes.186 
However,  these  seizures  did  not  translate  into  a  convincing  track  record  of  confiscations:  in  2011 
courts  ruled  the  confiscation  of  just  EUR  4.75  million,  of  which  only  EUR  340,000  was  actually 
confiscated.  New  legal  provisions  were  adopted  to  improve  the  management  of  seized  assets  and  a 
new  law  on  extended  confiscation  was  approved  by  Parliament  in  2012.  After  2012,  DNA  statistics 
show  a  significant  increase  of  seizures  by  prosecution,  but  also  in  compensations  and  confiscations 
ruled  in  final  court  decisions.  In  2015  alone,  DNA  seized  EUR  493  million,  and  the  courts  ruled 
compensation  amounting  to  EUR  190  million  and  confiscation  of  EUR  30  million.  However,  CVM 
reports in 2015 and 2016 continued to note that the estimates of the effective recovery rate to ensure 
that decisions of the courts accrue to the public purse remain very low, about 10%.187  

The  Government  tabled  a  draft  law  in  June  2015  to  set  up  an  agency  to  manage  seized  assets,  to 
improve effective recovery, as well as to redistribute part of the sums for social re-use. The law was 
approved by the Parliament and promulgated in December 2015, and the Agency (ANABI) should be 
operational  by  end  2016  (see  below).  It  will  also  take  over  the  competencies  of  the  Asset  Recovery 
Office  (ARO)  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice.188  ARO  was  established  in  2011  to  be  responsible  for 
operative  exchange  of  data  with  other  asset  recovery  authorities  in  the  EU  and  CARIN189  Member 
States, the identification and dissemination of good practices and the promotion of public policies in 
the criminal field.  

Since  2010,  CVM  reports  have  detailed  persistent  shortcomings  in  public  procurement,  notably 
relating  to  the  capacity  and  the  degree  of  expertise  of  staff  dealing  with  public  procurement 
procedures,  at  both  national  and  local  level,  the  lack  of  stability  and  fragmentation  of  the  legal 
framework, the institutional structures in place and the quality of competition in public procurement. 
The  combination  of  these  factors  makes  the  system  vulnerable  to  corruption  and  conflicts  of 
interest.190 The 2012 CVM report further noted that the control mechanism do not work properly, as 
evidenced  by  very  low  number  of  notifications  from  the  responsible  institutions  to  the  prosecution. 
Together with the Commission, several evaluations and action plans have been carried out since 2011, 

186 CVM reports 2014, 2012 
187 A comprehensive report on the recovery of damages and confiscation of the proceeds of crime during 2013-
2015  was  carried  out  by  civil  society  in  2016.  http://www.justitiecurata.ro/portfolio-view/recuperarea-
prejudiciului-si-confiscarea-bunurilor-dobandite-prin-infractiuni/,  which  covered  the  2013-2015  timeframe. 
The report focused on 3 key aspects: (1) analysis of the capacity of the criminal prosecution bodies to impose 
efficient precautionary measures; (2) analysis of the practice of courts of law, including their use of new legal 
institutions like extended confiscation; and (3) assessment of issues encountered during the enforcement of 
confiscation orders and the interest shown by institutions in bringing civil proceedings and recovering assets. 

188 CVM report 2016 
189 Camden Asset Recovery Inter-Agency Network, Established in 2004 and including States which are not in 

EU. 

190 CVM report 2016, 2015, 2013 

41 

 
 
                                                            
but  with  limited  results.  191  The  2016  CVM  report  noted  that  in  2015,  a  strategy  and  action  plan  to 
structurally improve the public procurement system and adapt it to the new EU rules was adopted, as 
well  as  setting  up  a  new  agency  for  ex-ante  controls.  The  strategy  –  initially  planned  to  be 
implemented by the end of 2016 but seriously delayed, as some of the actions will not be completed 
until 2019  – includes addressing the risks of integrity and corruption. Its implementation would be a 
significant step towards tackling public procurement as a major risk area for corruption.192   

CVM  reports  have  consistently  recognised  the  importance  of  civil  society  in  documenting  and 
highlighting  corruption  problems  and  in  providing  support  and  expertise  to  concrete  anti-corruption 
projects. NGOs such as Expert Forum, Freedom House, Funky Citizens and the Romanian Centre for 
European Policies (CRPE) have played a key role in taking forward policy and implementing change 
in areas including corruption prevention, as well as in analysing problems like public procurement or 
the  low  level  of  asset  recovery.  The  impact  has  been  particularly  effective  when  government 
authorities have engaged with civil society.  

5.2. 

National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2016-2020 

In  January  2016,  the  Commission  recommended  to  use  EU  funds  to  the  full  in  spreading  effective 
prevention measures against low-level corruption, through the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and 
through general reforms to public administration. 

The National Anti-Corruption Strategy (NAS) 2016-2020 was adopted on 10 August 2016. The new 
strategy builds upon the results achieved in the implementation of the NAS 2012-2015, while aiming 
to  improve  underperforming  areas.  The  new  strategic  document  also  relies  on  the  conclusions  and 
recommendations of the independent impact assessment of the NAS 2012-2015 carried out by a team 
of international experts selected by the OECD. 

The  NAS  2016  -2020  drew  on  an  extensive  and  lengthy  consultation  process,  public  debates  and 
technical  meetings.  In  drafting  the  document,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  held  a  series  of  meetings  with 
representatives of central and local public institutions, of independent authorities and anti-corruption 
institutions,  of  business  organisations  and  civil  society  (February-July  2016).  These  meetings  were 
attended  by  approximately  90  public 
institutions,  non-governmental  organizations,  business 
associations,  as  well  as  state-owned  and  private  companies.  The  general  public  was  also  invited  to 
present ideas for anti-corruption measures through an online platform.  

The main goal of the new strategy is to set in place a better corruption prevention policy and promote 
integrity in the public sector through transparency of decision-making and budget allocation, emphasis 
on  managerial  responsibility  for  instilling  and  maintaining  a  culture  of  integrity  within  public 
organisations based on a strict legal and institutional framework to prevent and combat corruption in 
Romania.  As  such  it  plays  an  important  role  in  general  administrative  reform  of  central  and  local 
public institutions.193  

The main priorities of the NAS 2016-2020 are:  

-  Developing  a  culture  of  transparency  of  decision  making,  including  transparency  and 

predictability of budgetary allocations, and including local public administration;  

- 

Increasing institutional integrity: strengthening preventive mechanisms such as ethics counsellors, 
the  accountability  of 
post-employment  prohibitions  and  whistle-blower  protection,  and 
management for integrity failures; 

191  CVM report 2012, 2013, 2014 
192  CVM report 2016 
193  The government has been attentive that the NAS correlates with complementary sectoral strategies such as 
the  Strategy  for  Public  Service  Reform,  the  Strategy  for  Strengthening  Public  Administration,  the  Strategy 
for  the  Development  of  Justice  as  a  Public  Service,  the  National  Strategy  for  Public  Procurement,  the 
National Strategy for Competitiveness and the National Strategy for the Digital Agenda. 

42 

 
 
                                                            
-  Strengthening  integrity  and  reducing  corruption  risks  in  priority  sectors  such  as  healthcare, 
education, politics (MPs and parties), judiciary, public procurement, business, local governments; 

- 

Increasing  awareness  and  understanding  of  the  integrity  standards  by  public  service  employees 
and beneficiaries of public services; 

-  Consolidating  performance  in  combating  corruption  through  criminal  and  administrative  means 

(notably DNA and ANI); 

- 

Increasing the recovery of proceeds of crime. 

The  NAS  2016-2020  continues  the  decentralised  approach  of  the  previous  strategy:  each  institution 
has  to  develop  its  own  integrity  plan  and  policies,  including  state-owned  companies.  A  Technical 
Secretariat  in  the  Ministry  of  Justice  provides  expertise,  guidance  and  methodological  support.  For 
local  authorities,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  will  continue  its  partnership  with  the  Ministry  of  Regional 
Development and Public Administration. 

The Minister of Justice is responsible for the implementation and coordination of the strategy, with an 
annual implementation report to Parliament. The five cooperation platforms developed under the NAS 
2012-2015 will be maintained to support the monitoring process: covering independent authorities and 
anti-corruption  institutions;  central  public  administration;  local  public  administration;  business;  and 
civil  society.  The  platforms  will  be  convened  every  six  months  or  more  frequently  if  required.  The 
capacity  of  the  Technical  Secretariat  has  been  increased,  with  10  new  posts  (17  in  total),  and  re-
organised as a Directorate for crime prevention. The Technical Secretariat will have an essential role 
in maintaining the momentum of the NAS, but its place within the government also puts the onus on 
political will, and on monitoring by civil society. The budget  for implementing new measures in the 
strategy is estimated at EUR 100 million partially funded through EU funds.194 

The  implementation  of  the  strategy  started  shortly  after  adoption;  the  integrity  plans  should  be 
finalised in the first six month after the adoption of the strategy. The public institutions at central and 
local level have also initiated the formal procedures to adhere to the strategy. A particular  novelty is 
the inclusion of state-owned companies and the National Health Insurance body in the NAS. 

The  strategy  has  a  comprehensive  monitoring  mechanism,  including  creation  of  an  index  of 
institutional integrity for vulnerable sectors, based on integrity incidents and self-assessments, as well 
as thematic peer-review missions. All institutions report twice a year to the Ministry of Justice, which 
itself issues an annual report. The Ministry of Justice will start by establishing a baseline situation for 
each  indicator  in  2017  (based  on  period  September  2016  –  August  2017).  The  strategy  also  defines 
output indicators and risks; but it is not clear whether there is also a regular analysis of the effective 
impact in terms of increasing transparency or reducing corruption. At the end of the strategy, Romania 
will carry out an external evaluation.  

Civil society has been closely associated in the preparations of the NAS 2016-2020 and is also actively 
participating  in  implementation.  For  example,  the  Centre  for  Legal  Resources  (CRJ)  has  worked  on 
the statute of the ethic counsellors, and Expert Forum, Freedom House and the Romanian Centre for 
European Policy are running a project focused on corruption and state-owned enterprises.195 Other EU-
funded projects have reported on corruption in the public sector, including in public procurement.196 

194  In  addition,  the  implementation  of  the  transparency  and  anti-corruption  measures  also  require  that  every 
public  institution  with  an  average  number  of  employees  of  50  allocates,  on  average,  an  annual  budget  of 
about 900,000 RON per institution (about 200,000 euro).  

195 The project concerns Romania, Bulgaria, Italy and the Czech Republic. Its aim is to provide a strategic and 
comparative analysis of ˝clientelism˝ and corruption in state-owned enterprises It includes looking at better 
safeguards against conflicts of interest and integrity criteria in the evaluations of managers. This work is part 
of a multinational consortium. 

196  Examples  are:  NGO    Freedom  House  project  on  corruption  in  public  procurement    that  brings  together 
judges, prosecutors and civil servants and collaborates with the media to empowering local media to report 

43 

 
 
                                                            
 
Amongst the initiatives under the umbrella of the NAS 2016-2020 is the work of the Anti-Corruption 
General Directorate within the Ministry of Internal Affairs. A project in partnership with the National 
Institute of Magistracy seeks to bring together over 30 Institutions to see how better inter-institutional 
cooperation  can  increase  the  efficiency  of  measures  to  prevent  and  counter  corruption  in  public 
administration,  including  public  procurement  and  management  of  EU  funded  projects.197  Another 
project  is  organising  awareness  raising  and  education  campaigns  about  corruption  for  students  and 
pupils.  

The  effectiveness  of  the  implementation  of  the  NAS  2016-2020  is  also  heavily  dependent  on  the 
implementation  of  broader  reforms,  in  particular  reform  of  the  public  administration  in  terms  of 
transparency,  integrity  and  the  depoliticisation  of  appointments.  Training  on  ethics  and  integrity  for 
public servants and ethic counsellors is ongoing. However it appears that the implementation of other 
reforms and the adoption of the new laws required have been slower than expected.  

5.3. 

Prosecution and trials of low-level corruption in 2016 

In 2016, the General Prosecution finalised more than 2333 cases of low-level corruption.  366 cases, 
involving 662 defendants, were sent to court (302 bills of indictment and 64 plea bargains) for alleged 
crimes of bribe-taking, bribe-giving, influence peddling and buying influence.198 The defendants sent 
to trial included 105 police workers, 17 doctors, 14 professors, 27 mayors and a number of local public 
servants. Provisional arrest measures were taken in relation to 79 defendants (109 in 2015), 41 of them 
for  bribe-taking,  18  for  bribe-giving,  and  17  for  influence  peddling.  In  the  same  period,  197  final 
decisions  were  ruled  in  court  for  cases  of  corruption  and  conflict  of  interest,  sentencing  242 
defendants, compared to 242 final decisions in the same period of 2015.In April 2016, the Control and 
Guidance  Service  of  the  Prosecution  finalised  a  control  report  assessing  the  verification  of  the 
implementation of the local anticorruption strategies, the activity carried out by prosecutors in cases 
dealing with offenses of corruption, and conflict of interests and the activity of professional training of 
specialized prosecutors. The control had a far-reaching character and looked at all prosecution units. 
Several  management  measures  were  taken  so  as  to  make  the  activity  of  the  prosecution  units  more 
efficient. 

Corruption is an important priority in the Prosecution's institutional strategy for 2016-2020, including 
strengthening  the  fight  against  corruption  in  public  administration  and  speeding  up  investigation  of 
corruption offenses, conflict of interests, and other crimes with a deep impact on public resources and 
standards of living. The results on conflict of interest cases are presented in section 2.3.  

In  the  course  of  2016,  the  Control  and  Guidance  Service  of  the  Prosecution  disseminated  to  all 
prosecutors an analysis of cases dealing with offenses of conflict of interests, providing an analysis of 
the  criminal  methods  used  to  defraud  public  procurement  procedures,  and  recommendations  for 
improving  prosecution  and  asset  freezing  in  conflict  of  interest  cases.  The  Prosecution  were  also 
involved with the development of the new Agency for asset forfeiture in order to assist prosecutors in 
identifying  and  seizing  the  assets,  improve  monitoring  and  analysis,  conduct  targeted  controls,  and 
complete an inventory of all movable and immovable assets subject to provisional measures.  

This year, the Prosecution also undertook a number of important developments to improve managerial 
efficiency. It signed a protocol with the Mediation Council to develop better collaboration and inform 
litigants on possibilities to use mediation.  

on local prcurement problems;  www.Anticorrp.eu, a project financed by EU through the seventh framework 
programme. 

197  Financed through the Internal Security Fund of the European Union. Training will be offered to the personnel 

involved in public procurement and the management of EU funds 

198 By comparison, in the same period of 2015, 2321 cases were completed, 344 of them by bills of indictment 

and plea bargains, the court being notified in relation to 903 defendants 

44 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
5.4. 

Confiscation  of  criminal  assets  and  set-up  of  the  National  Agency  for  the 
management of seized assets (ANABI) 

In January 2016, the Commission had recommended ensuring that the new Asset Recovery Agency is 
set up with strong leadership, sufficient resources and the support of all other institutions to improve 
effective recovery. Other parts of the public administration should be clearly accountable for failure to 
pursue these issues. 

Results in Confiscation and asset recovery in 2016 

The amounts seized by final court orders in DNA cases are about EUR 30 million. The Commission 
did not receive information form the Public Ministry on the amounts seized during the investigations 
or the amounts confiscated by final court decisions, nor information on the sums effectively recovered 
by the State. The information of seizing and confiscation is now collected by the National Agency for 
the Management of seized assets (ANABI) and first results will be presented in its annual report due in 
February 2017. 

The  National  Agency  of  Fiscal  Administration  (ANAF)  is  responsible  for  final  recovery  and  is 
collaborating closely with ANABI to improve collection and statistics of the situation.  

Whereas  ANAF  is  doubling  efforts  to  make  an  inventory  and  recover  the  confiscated  assets,  with  a 
new  directorate  general  in  charge  of  recovering  confiscated  assets,  their  action  is  not  always  well 
perceived by the State authorities themselves. For example in January 2016,  ANAF's attempt to apply 
a  final  court decision  to  evacuate  and  sell  a  building  following  a  confiscation  order  over  18  months 
earlier  sparked  strong  political  and  media  reactions,  as  the  building  was  still  being  used  by  TV 
stations.  Some  argued  that  press  freedom  was  being  endangered,  with  doubts  also  voiced  by  senior 
political figures. The Superior Council of the Magistracy concluded that such statements endangered 
the  independence  of  justice  while  the  DNA  Chief  Prosecutor  reiterated  the  principle  that  any  final 
court  decision  must  be  enforced,  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  rule  of  law.  ANAF  was  also 
supported by the national trade union of civil servants. 

Developments on the National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets (ANABI) 

ANABI  will  be  responsible  for  managing  frozen  assets  and  for  cooperation  between  institutions  to 
ensure  the  effective  recovery  by  the  State  of  the  confiscated  assets  decided  by  the  courts.  The  law 
setting up the Agency was promulgated in December 2015. It should be fully operational within one 
year from its establishment, so throughout 2016, the government and the Minister of Justice adopted 
various  decisions  covering  its  institutional  set-up,  internal  functioning  and  inter-institutional 
collaboration,  as  well  as  on  how  to  undertake  its  responsibilities  concerning  the  social  re-use  of  the 
amounts  recovered  from  selling  confiscated  assets.  The  director  of  ANABI  was  appointed  and  the 
Coordination Council supervising the Agency became operational. The Council elected as President of 
the Council the representative of the Superior Council of the Magistracy. The recruitment of personnel 
is ongoing (35 positions in 2016), with 15 additional posts attributed to the Agency for 2017. 

The ongoing activities of the Agency are the completion of a national inventory of spaces for storing 
seized assets and a national inventory of seized assets. In November 2016, the Ministry of justice and 
ANABI launched  the project "Support for achieving the National Anticorruption Strategy  objectives 
by  increasing  the  efficiency  of  the  asset  recovery  and  management".  The  project’s  objective  is  the 
creation, within the Agency, of a national integrated electronic system of criminal assets. This would 
be  a  centralised  database  to  help  the  institutions  concerned  with  criminal  assets,  by  including 
information  on  the  assets  in  respect  of  which  measures  were  ordered  by  the  prosecution,  courts  and 
enforcement bodies. The project, implemented in partnership with the Basel Institute on Governance, 
should be finalised in 2018. 

ANABI will publish its first annual report in February 2017. The report should provide data from all 
institutions involved in the seizing and confiscation of assets: the Public Ministry, courts, ANAF and 
other competent institutions.  

ANABI also took over the activity of the Asset Recovery Office (ARO) related to exchange of data 
and  information  at  the  EU  and  international  levels.  In  October  2016,  the  Minister  of  Justice  and 

45 

 
 
ANABI organised with the support of the European Commission the regular Platform meeting of asset 
recovery offices, back to back with the 6th Pan-European high level conference on asset recovery. The 
event brought together up to 100 experts in the field of recovery of the proceeds of crime, from the 28 
EU  Member  States  as  well  as  from  Albania,  Switzerland,  Luxembourg,  Ukraine,  Serbia.  During  the 
event, the work and expertise of the Romanian institutions could be presented.  

5.5. 

Tackling corruption in different sectors  

Healthcare 

Corruption in the Romanian health care system has been recognised as a particular problem and one 
faced  by  many  Romanian  citizens.  The  main  problems  relate  to  public  procurement  in  hospitals, 
insurance fraud and false reimbursements, bribery for issuance of medical certificates giving access to 
special  benefits  and  the  widespread  practice  of  informal  payments  to  medical  professionals. 
Corruption in the health care system came in the spotlight this year with several scandals relating to 
public procurement practices in public hospitals or schemes of fake sickness or retirement certificates. 
The level of corruption in the healthcare has a direct impact on the quality of public health services 
and directly affects access to healthcare in Romania, and in some cases patients have died as a result. 
One  particular  dramatic  case  which  came  to  light  following  reports  by  independent  investigation 
journalists199 concerned a relatively small company, which was awarded numerous public contracts to 
supply disinfectants to more than 350 hospitals across Romania, including two of Bucharest’s biggest 
emergency hospitals. The disinfectant sold was heavily overpriced and diluted, causing patients to die 
from  nosocomial  infections.  There  is  also  an  investigation  under  way  concerning  the  allegation  that 
hospital  directors  received  kickbacks  from  the  company  for  the  contracts  awarded,  a  practice  some 
consider to be widespread in the Romanian health sector.200 

In December, the Minister of Health and the President of the National Agency for Public Procurement 
(ANAP) estimated that about 25%-30% of the public procurement contracts made by direct purchase 
in Romanian hospitals are suspicious, as a common practice of fraud is the "salami slicing" approach, 
with a large contract being divided into smaller contracts, in order to avoid open calls for tender.201 

Following the disinfectants scandal, DNA initiated a number of other cases against hospital managers 
for bribe-taking in the award of procurement contracts.202 Corruption in healthcare is also a priority for 
the  Public  Ministry.  Previous  CVM  reports  mentioned  prosecutions  for  issuing  fake  sickness 
certificates. The dissemination of best practices in conducting investigations into such cases inside the 
Public  Ministry,  in  particular  through  the  regional  and  national  anti-corruption  competitions  for 
prosecutors, was a starting point for other similar prosecutions.  In 2016, a case203 from Bihor County 
denouncing a scheme of early retirements on medical grounds obtained the first prize at the national 
anti-corruption competition. As a result of this case, the public budget saved 9 million EUR per year204 
on pensions. Other cases involved fictive confinements in psychiatric hospitals, in order for patients to 

199  www.Tolo.ro  
200  DNA Chief Prosecutor declared that the amount of bribes in this sector is higher than in others, e.g. when 
usually the bribe amounts to 10% of the contract , in Healthcare it is about 20%. This bribe usually goes to 
public procurement's decision-makers within the awarding authority. Speech at the Annual DNA report on 25 
February 2016 and in May 23rd – 24th 2016, at the Working Group on “Corruption in the healthcare system 
– prevention and investigation. Experience, good practices and challenges” 

201  Declaration of Minister of Health “Every week, since I have been Health minister, I have Okayed sending a 
potential corruption case to the prosecutor’s office, DNA or other investigation body. I discovered a system 
strangled by groups of interests, a cobweb choking the country, while on the web, here and there, the feudal 
spiders  are  making  a  business  out  of  the  patients’  life  and  their  health.  In  order  to  clean  the  system,  we 
turned on the light to bring transparency at all levels. 

202 DNA carried out investigations in 26 cases of corruption in the healthcare system in 2016 
203  This a typical example, as mentioned in the past CVM report, of successful cases started by the Prosecutor 

general's offices and transferred afterwards to the DNA. 

204  60  million  are  allocated  yearly  from  the  State  Budget  in  Bihor  County  to  the  payment  of  medical  based 

retirements. 

46 

 
 
                                                            
obtain  free  medicines  and  early  retirement  decisions205  and  forged  clinical  trials,  the  latter  part  of  a 
cross-border case with impact on several EU Member States. 

In order to address the multifaceted issue of corruption in healthcare, the Ministry of Health has taken 
a series of measures to better monitor the budget and expenses of hospitals, improve transparency and 
strengthen internal controls, with more targeted verifications leading in 2016 to a series of cases being 
sent  to  prosecution  services.    A  comprehensive  set  of  measures  are  detailed  in  the  National  Anti-
Corruption  Strategy  (NAS),  such  as  creating  a  mechanism  with  clear  criteria  to  prioritise  budgetary 
allocations and assess the decisions of the Health Ministry and of the National Health Insurance Fund 
(NHIF),  instilling  more  transparency  and  publicity    (e.g.  on  expenses  and  on  public  procurement 
contracts but also sponsorships and asset and interests declarations),  increasing the accountability of 
hospital  managers  and  ensuring  they  are  recruited  through  open  competition206  and  changes  to  the 
hospital  ethics  councils  law.  The  Government  had  adopted  an  emergency  ordinance  in  November 
(79/2016)  which  modifies  the  selection  of  hospital  managers  to  ensure  they  are  selected  by  open 
competition and extends the coverage of conflict of interest provisions for a wider category of hospital 
management staff. This ordinance was rejected in the Senate in January 2017, but still needs to pass 
through the Chamber of Deputies. 

In  addition,  a  cooperation  Protocol  has  been  signed  between  the  Ministry  of  Health,  Ministry  of 
Interior  Affairs,  the  General  Prosecution  and  DNA  targeting  preventive  measures  against  corruption 
acts  in  the  health  system.  The  Health  Minister  launched  in  December  2016  a  special  telephone  line 
where  patients,  doctors  or  witnesses  of  corruption  cases  in  any  medical  unit  can  report  potential 
breaches,  including  public  procurement  suspicions.207  The  system  is  managed  by  the  General  Anti-
Corruption  Directorate  (DGA)208  and  receives  also  the  patients’  notifications  registered  through  the 
new monitoring mechanism of the patients’ satisfaction. DGA will provide data analysis and reports, 
case studies and other relevant material to the Ministry of Health.   

The  use  of  the  electronic  health  card  that  registers  all  consultations  and  prescriptions  has  become 
mandatory  since  end  of  2015.  This  tool  should  reduce  the  opportunities  for  social  insurance  fraud. 
Technical  failures  which  held  up  its  use  were  reported  throughout  2016,  but  appeared  to  have  been 
solved by the end of the year.  

As part of the measures to support the health system, a salary increase of 25% for the staff within the 
National Health Insurance Body was approved end of December 2016.  

Education 

The reputation of the Romanian education system continued to be affected in 2016 by corruption cases 
involving  University  professors209  and  scandals  affecting  plagiarism  in  PhD  theses  of  high-level 
officials, raising questions about the way diplomas had been obtained (procedures and duly performed 
verifications).  Romania  curata210  made  public  a  list  of  10  Universities  not  complying  with  the 
obligation to publish asset declarations for academic and management staff.  

Education is another priority area of the New NAS 2016-2020. Measures planned include reorganising 
the National Council of Ethics and the Ethics and University Management Council; adopting a code of 

205  Medicines  that  were  sold  afterwards  for  money  and  without prescription.    This  was  the  example  of  a  case 

from Valcea County, Drăgășani Psychiatric Hospital. 

206  Including special commissions selected according to objective criteria. 
207  On 9 December 2016, "Any Romanian will be able to notify corruption cases in the healthcare system on the 
phone” said Health Minister Vlad Voiculescu. "There are 150 corruption cases pending at the DNA, but we 
cannot rely only on prosecutors to solve all our problems. That’s why we are also counting on the patients 
and on the medical staff to help us keep the light on and to signal corruption cases”. 

208  This is the same Green free line used by the DGA for all corruption reports, 0800 806 806. Citizens can also 
disclose corruption cases in the healthcare system directly to the Health Ministry by email at presa@ms.ro  
209  DNA cases concerning Dean, Rector  and other  management Faculty function at Iasi, Oradea University and 

academic staff in Constanta University 

210 http://www.romaniacurata.ro/ce-universitati-incalca-legea-1762010-si-ascund-declaratiile-de-avere-ale-

rectorilor/  

47 

 
 
                                                            
ethics for pre-university education; adopting a national  transparent framework based on performance 
criteria, to ensure the integrity of job competitions for inspectors and principals; and a deterrent system 
to  curb  plagiarism.  As  a  first  measure,  the  rules  for  appointing  school  principals  were  amended  in 
2016  to  take  away  politicisation  of  the  appointments.  The  first  open  competition  was  organised  in 
autumn 2016 and 7,000 candidates took part. However a ministerial decision of January 2017 issued a 
derogation  for  sitting  principals  who  failed  the  exam  or  did  not  participate  to  be  nominated.  The 
education sector also benefited from a 15% salary increase. 

The  NGO  Romanian  Academic  Society,  in  partnership  with  the  National  Alliance  of  Students 
Organisations  and  Swiss  Students  Federation  launched  the  ˝Public  Romanian  Universities  Integrity 
programme ˝ in November 2016 and assesses integrity of universities in Romania.  

Police 

Integrity in the police has been a constant preoccupation. In the last years both DNA and the Public 
Ministry results constantly report a high number of cases of corruption in the police at all levels;211 a 
situation which is particularly problematic as the Public Ministry and DIICOT have to rely heavily on 
the police for investigations (DNA has a dedicated judicial police within its organisation).  A priority 
for both DIICOT and the Prosecutor General is to develop an internal judicial police. In 2016, DNA 
indicted  52  police  officers,  and  final  conviction  court  decisions  were  pronounced  against  81  police 
officers (including a Deputy General Director of the Bucharest Municipality Police); while the Public 
Ministry indicted 105 police workers. If the largest share concerns traffic police,212 several cases have 
revealed complex networks and corruption practices.213,214 

Within  the  Ministry  of  Interior,  the  General  Anti-corruption  Directorate  is  responsible  for 
investigation of corruption suspicions and for developing structural measures to prevent repetition of 
the  same  cases.  In  autumn  2016,  the  Minister  of  Interior  took  a  series  of  measures  to  reform  the 
intelligence and protection service within the Ministry.  Part of the personnel will be re-allocated  to 
the  DGA  to  work  on  corruption  issues.  One  of  the  weaknesses  remains  the  politicisation  of  the 
appointments within the management of the police. 

Public procurement 

In  January  2016,  the  Commission  recommended  implementation  of  the  new  public  procurement 
strategy and action plan, to ensure a robust anti-corruption framework in terms of the legal framework, 
institutional  arrangements,  and  administrative  capacity,  as  well  as  applying  the  measures  to  prevent 
and detect conflicts of interests, and showing that transgressions are followed up in full. 

The  integrity  of  the  public  procurement  system  is  one  of  the  priorities  of  the  public  procurement 
strategy, and the measures to tackle corruption entail a combination of institutional capacity building, 
streamlining of legislation, and actions to enhance competition and transparency in all phases of the 

211  See DNA and Public Ministry results over several years.  
212  DNA indicted or investigated Chief Police Inspectors from Suceava,Vaslui, Prahova,Neamț (where 14,- half 
of the Traffic Bureau of Piatra –Neamt city have been arrested) , Teleorman and Bihor counties for repetives 
deeds and in Bucharest in November 2016 several police officers for hiding their own fellow traffic accident; 
In  2015,  42  police  officers  from  the  whole  country  were  indicted  by  DNA  ;  In  addition,  several  cases 
concerning  bribe taken by police officers conducted by DGA judiciary police working under the authority of  
Prosecutors attached to Mures, Giurgiu and Prahova. 

213  Other fruitful cases involving police officers revealed networks where perpetrators were often helped by the 
police to steal goods from public or private storing or forests (Harbour of Constanta (in 2015 a case involving 
steal of gasoline and in 2016 steal of iron ), In Brasov county, stealing of wood in a proportion of 15m3/day. 
214  In 2011, a first case regarding bribe for driving licences was concluded in 44 indictments of police officers 
together  with  auto-instructors.  However,  since,  the  practice  did  not  disappear,  only  the  modus  operandi 
became more sophisticated, with additional precautionary measures. In 2016, a case discovered that the new 
practice  established  implied  the  payment  of  the  bribe  by  the  student  through  the  instructor,  to  a  different 
specific instructor who acted as a ˝collector˝. Some intermediaries were former police officers. In July 2016, 
the  indictment  act  covered  42  persons,  with  the  plea  bargain  was  used  in  20  cases.    This  complex  case 
required the work of 13 Prosecutors, as well as undercover agents. 

48 

 
 
                                                            
procedure.  The  implementation  of  the  public  procurement  strategy  and  action  plan  progressed  in 
2016.215  In  May  2016  the  new  public  procurement  laws  transposing  the  EU  Directives  entered  into 
force  and  all  necessary  secondary  legislation  was  adopted  by  the  end  of  2016.  The  previous 
fragmentation  of  the  legal  framework  had  left  important  space  for  corruption  practices  and  the  new 
more stable and predictable legal framework should limit the possibility for corruption. The web-based 
guidelines which should help the contracting authorities step by step during the procurement process 
are however still under development and should be fully completed by 2019.  

In  addition  to  the  legislative  actions,  the  creation  of  the  National  Agency  for  Public  Procurement 
(ANAP)  in  2015  as  single  institution  responsible  for  public  procurement  is  seen  as  providing  more 
robust  and  efficient  corruption  control  and  preventive  institutional  mechanisms.  As  part  of  the 
institutional  reform,  an  Inter-Ministerial  Committee  for  Public  Procurement  was  set  up  in  2016, 
aiming at ensuring the overall coherence of the public procurement system. The Committee's role is to 
validate public procurement policies developed at Government level and to provide strategic systemic 
guidance.  Fighting  corruption  in  public  procurement  is  expected  to  be  high  on  the  agenda  of  the 
committee and cooperation with institutions such as DNA, ANI, and DLAF would play an important 
role. 

With  regard  to  concrete  measures  aiming  to  prevent  conflicts  of  interest  and  corruption  in  public 
procurement,  several  actions  were  taken  forward,  notably  the  law  on  the  PREVENT  system  for  ex-
ante checks of conflicts of interests (See section 3.5). However several measures are still outstanding, 
such as: 

-  The  reinforcement  of  internal  control  systems,  the  independence  of  preventive  financial 
controllers  in  the  exercise  of  their  functions  and  the  capacity  to  detect  conflicts  of  interest  of 
contracting authorities. New Government rules need to be adopted. A project with the European 
Investment Bank for technical assistance has recently been signed; 

-  The development of detailed web-based guidelines, help-desk, professionalization of procurement 
officers, development of centralised purchasing bodies and consortia of contracting authorities are 
meant to reinforce  the administrative capacity of the contracting authorities and their capacity to 
withstand corruption and tackle conflicts of interests; 

-  Establishing  effective  cooperation  and 

information  exchange  mechanisms  between 

the 

investigation bodies; 

-  Building on the 2014 Directives to provide for a new, more comprehensive definition of conflict 

of interests; 

-  Roll-out of the randomised risk-based ex-ante control of public procurement procedures; 

-  Systematic publication in the e-procurement system of all contract modifications;  

-  Use of "integrity pacts". 

The last three measures are also part of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy, illustrating the effective 
articulation between the measures of the public procurement strategy and the National Anticorruption 
Strategy. 
At the end of November, a seminar216 on public procurement case law was organised by the National 
Council  for  Solving  Complaints  (CNSC)  217  and  the  Bucharest  Court  of  Appeal  bringing  together 
judges, representatives from public key institutions, Ministries and the Public Ministry.  

215  The  analysis  of  the  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  public  procurement  Strategy  is  part  of  a  wider 
Commission exercise in relation to ex-ante conditions for the implementation of EFSI funds in the 2014-2020 
period. Here the emphasis is on anti-corruption measures. 

216  With the support of the National Institute of Magistracy (NIM); A similar seminar good practices and public 

procurement case law was held in Pitesti in early November 2016 

49 

 
 
                                                            
Civil society is regularly involved in projects to support corruption prevention in public procurement. 
NGO Freedom House Romania ran such a project including training218  and real-time monitoring of 
public procurement procedures with a dedicated group of journalists throughout the country.219  

Management of EU funds 

Fraud against EU funds lays in the remit of the DNA. Statistics from DNA show a steady increase in 
the number of cases and the amount of damages identified.  

2006 
11 

2007 
26 

2008 
32 

2009 
23 

2010 
29 

2011 
45 

2012 
54 

2013 
57 

2014 
52 

2015 
65 

18 

51 

77 

46 

62 

95 

124 

131 

149 

146 

1.7 

1.6 

3.2 

7.5 

8.7 

22.6 

71 

239 

70 

112 

Cases sent 
to trial 
Persons 
sent to trial 
Damages 
(million lei) 

This increased effectiveness is also confirmed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), with more 
effective  follow-up  on  OLAF  judicial  recommendations.  The  cooperation  between  OLAF  and  DNA 
have  allowed  complex  investigations  linked  to  EU  co-financed  programmes  to  be  concluded 
successfully. 

In  cooperation  with  Transparency  International  and  funded  by  EU  funds,  integrity  pacts  have  been 
launched in June 2016, to safeguard EU funds against fraud and corruption, and as a tool to increase 
transparency and accountability, enhance trust in authorities and government contracting, contribute to 
a good reputation of contracting authorities, bring cost savings and improve competition through better 
procurement. However, the implementation of the pilots for the selected integrity pacts pilots has been 
delayed due to a slow start of preparation and implementation of the projects. 

217  CNSC is an administrative judicial body dealing with complaints in public procurement. The CNSC portal 
was  continuously  developed  in  the  last  three  years    and  is  now  recognised  as  a  useful  tool  for  public 
procurement practitioners http://portal.cnsc.ro/  

218  Through  5  multidisciplinary  trainings,  a  debate  and  two  workshops  regarding  the  new  procurement  laws, 
aimed at civil servants, as well as judges and prosecutors from Romania and Bulgaria, and contributing to the 
clarification of certain conflicting or ambiguous aspects of the public procurement law 

219  This  monitoring  resulted  in  a  number  of  journalistic  investigations  focused  on  Romanian  public  spending, 
Justice 
the 

Initiative 

Clean 

for 

of 

a 

published 
the 
(http://www.justitiecurata.ro/category/investigatii/ ). 

website 

on 

50