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: 2017-11-15
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Romania, conflict of interest, corruption, independence of the judiciary, judicial reform, public contract, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.11.2017  SWD(2017) 701 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) 751 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 
CCJE:Council of Europe Consultative Council of European Judges  
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 
DLAF: Figth Against Fraud Department 
DNA: National Anti-Corruption Directorate 
ECHR: European Court of Human Rights 
ERDF: European Regional Development Funds 
ESF: European Social funds  
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  the Magistracy 

References  to  "CVM  reports"  refer  to  the  Commission  Progress  Reports  and  the  accompanying  Technical 
Reports. 

CVM report 2016: COM(2016) 41 and SWD(2016) 16 – report of progress in 2015 
CVM report 2017: COM(2017) 44 and SWD(2017) 25 – report of progress since 2007 and in 2016 

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

1 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
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 Cooperation 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 also meets with non-governmental organisations active in the area of judicial reform and 
anti-corruption projects, with judges and prosecutors unions. This report remains the responsibility of 
the Commission services. 

The  Commission  also  supports  the  efforts  of  Romania  in  achieving  the  CVM  objectives  through 
funding under the European Structural and Investment Funds and  the Internal Security Fund – Police.  
In  the  2014-2020  period,  the  Administrative  Capacity  Operational  Programme  (ESF)  will  provide 
funding  of  about  EUR  103  million  for  judicial  reform  projects,  including  35 million  specifically  for 
anti-corruption  (in  line  with  the  updated  anti-corruption  Strategy),  and  EUR  35  million  to  support 
reform  and  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 
can also be subject to the agreement of strategies and implementation of actions with the Commission 
(ex-ante  conditionalities  for  using  the  Funds).  Over  the  years,  Romania  has  also  benefited  from 
bilateral support from EU Member States. 

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  adopted,  there  have  been  major 
developments  in  ECHR  case-law,  international  standards  and  best  practices,5  and  comparative 
information  on  national  justice  systems  in  the  EU,6  which  also  help  to  give  an  objective  and 
comparable  measure  of  the  development  of  the  Romanian  judicial  system  and  the  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 and irreversibility. Each year since the entry into force of the Decision, the Commission 
has made recommendations with regard to each benchmark to reflect progress and how the progress 
might be sustained or extended, normally focusing on a time horizon of the coming year. 

2    In 2017, the Commission services had two fact-finding missions in Romania.  
3    In 2017, Commission representatives had meetings with the Ministers of Justice, officials from the Ministry 
of  Justice,  the National Agency for  Fiscal Administration  (ANAF),  the  Ministry of  Regional Development 
and Public Administration (MRDAP), 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  Integrity  Agency  (ANI),  the  National  Agency  for 
Public Procurement (ANAP), the President and members of the Chamber of Deputies, the Vice-President and 
members of the Senate, the Constitutional Court.  

4   The Commission has a CVM resident adviser in Bucharest. 
5    The most important being the developments in the European Court of Human Rights (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  the  European  Commission  for  the  Efficiency  of 
Justice (CEPEJ) indicators. 

6    The EU Justice Scoreboard http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/scoreboard/ 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  Commission  adopted  the  last  Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism  report  on  25  January 
2017,  presenting  a  positive  assessment  of  10  years'  progress  in  judicial  reform  and  the  fight  against 
corruption. This report used a long-term perspective to identify the key remaining steps to reach the 
goals  of  the  CVM.  Most  of  them  focus  on  the  responsibility  and  accountability  required  by  the 
Romanian  authorities  and  on  the  internal  safeguards  needed  to  ensure  that  progress  achieved  is 
irreversible. When these steps set out under a benchmark are taken, the respective benchmark will be 
considered  provisionally  completed.  When  this  applies  to  all  benchmarks,  the  CVM  will  be  closed. 
This  process  resulted  in  twelve  final  recommendations  set  out  in  the  January  2017  CVM  report. 
Complying  with  the  twelve  recommendations  can  therefore  be  considered  as  sufficient  to  meet  the 
CVM  goals  –  except  if  developments  were  to  clearly  reverse  the  course  of  progress  underlying  the 
baseline assessment of January 2017. 

This  technical  report  will  therefore  be  focused  on  the  progress  under  each  of  the  key  remaining 
recommendations.  Where  necessary,  the  assessment  also  reports  on  developments  which  could  put 
into question the previous positive assessment from the Commission on progress in judicial reform or 
the fight against corruption. 

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

At  the  same  time  a  number  of  key  issues  already  identified  in  earlier  reports  have  remained 
outstanding,  and  therefore  this  report  cannot  conclude  that  the  benchmarks  are  at  this  stage 
satisfactorily fulfilled. 

January 2017 CVM report, p. 14 

2. 

PROGRESS ON KEY REMAINING STEPS 

On the basis of the key remaining steps identified in the January 2017 CVM report, this section will 
describe the actions taken by the Romanian authorities to fulfil the recommendations. If necessary, it 
may also include other developments  which could have an incidence on current or past assessments 
from the Commission on progress in judicial reform or the fight against corruption. 

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 

Judicial independence 

Recommendation  1:  Put  in  place  a  robust  and  independent  system  of  appointing  top  prosecutors, 
based on clear and transparent criteria, drawing on the support of the Venice Commission.  

Overview of progress 

Successive  CVM  reports  have  highlighted  that  even  if  there  has  been  a  trend  towards  more  merit-
based  and  transparent  appointments,  the  law  on  appointments  of  top  prosecutors  and  its 
implementation is not sufficiently robust to guarantee against the impact of strong political discretion 
in the appointments. From past experience, this can result in doubts being cast on the independence of 
a candidate, create delays in appointments due to political deadlock, or even lead to the appointment of 
magistrates  who  may  later  prove  to  have  integrity  issues.  The  dismissal  process  mirrors  the 

3 

 
 
 
 
appointment process and has created important tensions this year, with calls from political figures for 
the Minister of Justice to initiate a procedure for dismissing the Chief Prosecutor of the National Anti-
Corruption Directorate (DNA) and the Prosecutor General.7 

At the end of August, the Minister of Justice tabled a proposal for the appointment procedure of top 
prosecutors  as  part  of  a  package  of  amendments  to  the  three  Justice  laws.8  The  three  Justice  laws, 
dating back to 2004, regulate the status of judges and prosecutors, the organisation and function of the 
courts and prosecution offices and the Superior Council of the Magistracy. 

The process of amending the three Justice laws is ongoing for more than two years. It was initiated by 
the Superior Council of the Magistracy (SCM) in 2015 to modernise a series of provisions regarding 
the career of magistrates (terms for promotion to a higher court, retirements, special sickness leaves, 
entry  into  profession)  and  to  change  the  appointment  procedure  for  top  prosecutors,  in  view  of 
depoliticising  the  selection  process.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  carried  out  an  extensive  consultation 
process in 2016 and finalised new drafts in December 2016 but eventually did not adopt them prior to 
the parliamentary election. 

In January 2017, the new Government decided to re-consult the SCM, as the Council had been newly 
elected.  The  SCM  launched  a  new  consultation  to  all  courts  and  prosecution  offices  and  proposed 
additional  changes  to  the  drafts  in  April  2017.  In  a  press  conference  on  23  August,  the  Minister  of 
Justice  presented  the  main  lines  of  the  new  drafts.  The  announcement  triggered  many  negative 
reactions.9 The draft includes a series of new provisions which, in that form, had not been part of prior 
consultations  and  are  not  accompanied  by  an  impact  assessment.  Criticisms  centred  on  the 
consequences for judicial independence, including in respect of the procedure on the appointments of 
top prosecutors. 

At  the  end  of  September,  after  consultation  of  all  courts  and  prosecution  offices,  the  SCM  gave  a 
negative  opinion  on  the  drafts.  In  its  motivation,  the  SCM  criticised  many  new  provisions  for  their 
potential  adverse  effect  on  judicial  independence  or  on  the  functioning  of  the  judicial  system.  The 
opinion  of  the  SCM  was  also  critical  on  the  proposal  of  the  Minister  regarding  the  appointment 
procedure for top prosecutors, a view echoed by several judicial institutions. In the SCM's view, the 
procedure proposed falls short of ensuring the adequate guarantees in terms of transparency, control 
and  checks-and-balances.  The  first  reaction  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  was  to  state  that  the  opinion 
from the SCM, which is non-binding, would not affect the draft.  Soon a petition was started by one of 
the judges associations, which to date has secured over 4000 signatories, representing more than half 
of the total number of magistrates in Romania, requesting the Minister of Justice to respect the SCM 
opinion and withdraw the draft laws, pointing to a lack of sound impact assessment  for the changes 
proposed.10 Several civil society organisations have also expressed their support for this petition and 
requested the Minister to withdraw the laws.11 It is to be noted that the Council of Europe Consultative 
Council  of European  Judges (CCJE) recommended in a recent  opinion  that “the judiciary should  be 

7    Following  a  Constitutional  Court  Decision  (68/2017),  which  had  ruled  that  there  is  a  legal  conflict  of  a 
constitutional  nature  between  the  Public  Ministry  –  The  Prosecutor's  Office  attached  to  the  High  Court  of 
Cassation and Justice – the National Anticorruption Directorate and the Government of Romania, in relation 
to  an  investigation  within  the  Ministry  of  Justice  following  a  complaint  on  irregularities  in  the  decision 
making of Government Emergency Ordinance (EOG) 13/2017 in January 2017.  

8      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   

9   Including from the President of Romania, the magistracy, the opposition, judges associations and NGOs 
10   On 17 October, more than 4000 magistrates had signed according to 

http://www.forumuljudecatorilor.ro/index.php/archives/2813 

11   http://adevarul.ro/news/eveniment/65-organizatii-cer-premierului-ministrului-justitiei-renunte-proiectul-lege-

privind-modificarea-legilor-justitiei-1_59e5afbd5ab6550cb8342bdd/index.html 

      http://www.nineoclock.ro/romania-100-platform-65-ngos-urge-govt-to-scrap-bill-amending-justice-

legislation/ 

4 

 
 
                                                            
 
consulted and play an active part in the preparation of any legislation concerning their status and the 
functioning of the judicial system”.12 

At  the  end  of  October  2017,  there  was  a  change  in  the  legislative  procedure.  On  25  October  a 
Parliamentary Committee took up the drafts of the Justice laws as a parliament own initiative.  These 
new drafts were not discussed  with the judiciary, nor adopted by the Government. The Government 
therefore took no further responsibility for the draft laws.  

The Parliament made public the new drafts, further amending the initial proposal from the Minister of 
Justice. On 9 November, the SCM gave a negative opinion on the drafts. (See also Recommendation 4 
and Political Report (COM (2017) 751) on the laws on Justice in general). 

The proposals for the appointments of top prosecutors in the drafts prepared by the Minister and in the 
Parliament drafts have been a key part of the debate on the justice laws.  It concerns the amendments 
to Article 54 of law 303/2004 on the appointment and dismissal procedures for the Prosecutor General, 
Chief Prosecutor of DNA, Chief Prosecutor of the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and 
Terrorism  (DIICOT),  of  their  deputies  and  of  the  heads  of  section  in  DNA  and  DIICOT.  An 
assessment  should  take  into  account  the  guidelines of  the  Venice  Commission  that  any  appointment 
procedure  for  the  Prosecutor  General  or  equivalent  post  needs  a  balance  "such  as  to  gain  the 
confidence  of  the  public  and  the  respect  of  the  judiciary  and  the  legal  profession."13  The  degree  of 
discretion for the Minister of Justice in the selection procedure and in the revocation procedure is one 
of the issues in the debate, as well as the role of the President. As in the law in force, the procedural 
aspects  linked  to  the  extent  of  political  influence  are  (1)  the  selection  process,  where  the  Minister 
alone  undertakes  the  first  selection  of  candidates  (2)  the  Minister  can  propose  the  renewal  of  an 
appointment  once.  The  term  of  appointment,  which  is  relatively  short  makes  the  position  more 
vulnerable  to  external  influence.  Some  of  these  issues  were  already  identified  in  previous  CVM 
reports  as  raising  questions  with  regard  to  respecting  the  guidelines  of  the  Venice  Commission.14 
Another  issue  concerns  the  lack  of  safeguards  involved  in  the  dismissal  procedure,  which  can  be 
initiated  by  the  Minister  of  Justice.  This  has  particular  importance  given  the  prevalence  of  conflicts 
between the executive/legislative power and the judiciary. 

In  its  proposal  of  April  2017,  with  agreement  of  the  judiciary  which  had  been  consulted  on  the 
proposal, the SCM had proposed a procedure in which top prosecutors are appointed by the President 
of Romania at the proposal of the Superior Council of Magistracy. 

The 2016 CVM report also recommended that a procedure which involves a political element should 
not be applied to lower management posts, deputies and heads of section (which would be left to the 
SCM and leadership of the organisations concerned). This recommendation has not been followed up 
with  the  amendments.  Further  amendments  (Article  55  of  law  303/2004)  propose  to  replicate  the 
above  procedure  with  strong  involvement  from  the  executive  for  all  management  posts  in  the 
Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, DNA and DIICOT. Currently 
these  are  appointed  by  the  SCM  following  a  competition  organised  by  the  SCM  and  the  National 
Institute of Magistracy. 

The Minister of Justice has justified these amendments in the explanatory memorandum by the "right 
and  obligation  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  to  monitor  the  way  in  which  the  prosecutor’s  offices  are 
managed: In this way, the special law assigns to the Minister of Justice a role in the procedure for the 
appointment  of  the  prosecutors  with  managerial  positions,  giving  substance  to  the  provisions  of 
Article  132  (1)  of  the  Constitution  which  reads  that  “prosecutors  shall  carry  out  their  activity  in 

12  The CCJE has stressed the importance of judges participating in debates concerning national judicial policy. 
In  addition,  the  judiciary  should  be  consulted  and  play  an  active  part  in  the  preparation  of  any  legislation 
concerning their status and the functioning of the judicial system. Consultative Council of European Judges, 
Opinion  No.18  (2015),  "The  position  of  the  judiciary  and  its  relation  with  the  other  powers  of  state  in  a 
modern democracy", 

13  Venice Commission report. Report on European standards as regards the independence of the judicial system 

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

14  CVM report 2017 and CVM technical report 2017 

5 

 
 
                                                            
accordance with the principle of legality, impartiality and hierarchical control, under the authority of 
the Minister of Justice”.15 In other amendments, Articles 1 and 62 of the same law, the authority of the 
Minister of Justice is strongly emphasised, also bringing the execution of tasks of the Public Ministry 
under  the  authority  of  the  Minister  of  Justice.  The  result  is  a  substantial  cumulative  list  of  changes 
which seem to increase the authority of the Minister of Justice on the prosecution services relevant to 
their operational and managerial independence. 

Different models with regard to the appointments to the position of Prosecutor General (or similar top 
prosecution  posts)  are  recognised  by  the  Venice  Commission.  Previous  CVM  reports  have  put  the 
emphasis on ensuring appropriate safeguards in terms of transparency, independence and checks and 
balances,  even  in  cases  where  the  final  appointment  decision  would  remain  with  the  political  level. 
This  is  why  the  Commission  has  recommended  that  Romania  asks  an  opinion  of  the  Venice 
Commission  on  the  new  drafts.  The  Minister  of  Justice  had  committed  to  consult  the  Venice 
Commission on this point before the introduction of the amendments directly into Parliament. Since 
then the Parliament has not yet made a commitment that it will consult the Venice Commission. 

In addition to the ongoing process led by the Minister of Justice, there is another parallel and similar 
proposal from the President of the Senate on the appointment of top prosecutors and of the President 
of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice.  This  proposal  is  being  discussed  in  Parliament  (in 
decisional chamber already).The Minister gave a positive opinion, whereas the SCM gave a negative 
opinion. This parallel approach has added a further element of uncertainty to the process. 

Recommendation 2:  Ensure that the Code of Conduct for parliamentarians now being developed in 
Parliament  includes  clear  provisions  on  mutual  respect  between  institutions  and  making  clear  that 
parliamentarians and the parliamentary process should respect the independence of the judiciary. A 
similar Code of Conduct could be adopted for Ministers. 

Overview of progress 

Past  CVM  reports  have  acknowledged  that  the  successful  prosecution  and  conviction  of  many 
prominent figures in Romania is a sign of judicial independence, showing that even high office holders 
and  prominent  personalities  are  not  beyond  the  law  if  they  have  committed  a  crime.  However,  they 
have also noted that this work has triggered a reaction in terms of public attacks aiming at discrediting 
individual  magistrates  or  the  judicial  institutions.  This  remains  the  case  in  2017,  with  risk  to  public 
confidence  in  the  judicial  system  as  a  whole,  as  well  as  the  impact  on  individual  magistrates.  The 
Venice  Commission  has  noted  that:  "Compliance  with  the  rule  of  law  cannot  be  restricted  to  the 
implementation of the explicit and formal provisions of the law and of the Constitution only",16 and 

15  In an opinion of 2014 on the Romanian Constitution, the Venice Commission stressed, that “only a few of the 
countries  belonging  to  the  Council  of  Europe  have  a  prosecutor’s  office  forming  part  of  the  executive 
authority and subordinate to the Ministry of Justice (e.g. Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands). The 
Commission notes that there is a widespread tendency to allow for a more independent prosecutor’s office, 
rather  than  one  subordinated  or  linked  to  the  executive.  […]  Also,  it  is  important  to  note  that  in  some 
countries, subordination of the prosecution service to the executive authority is more a question of principle 
than reality in the sense that the executive is in fact particularly careful not to intervene in individual cases. 
Even  in  such  systems,  however,  the  fundamental  problem  remains  as  there  may  be  no  formal  safeguards 
against such intervention. The appearance of intervention can be as damaging as real interference […].” The 
Venice  Commission  recalls  the  importance,  already  discussed  during  its  exchanges  with  the  Romanian 
authorities  and  the  representatives  of  the  associations  of  Romanian  magistrates,  of  a  unified  and  coherent 
regulation of the status of prosecutors, with clear, strong and efficient guarantees for their independence. It 
invites the Romanian authorities to review the system in place with a view to addressing the shortcomings 
noted in terms of coherence and available guarantees for its proper operation." 

16    Venice  Commission,  Opinion  no.  685  /  2012,  CDL-AD(2012)026,  Opinion  on  the  compatibility  with 
Constitutional  principles  and  the  Rule  of  Law  of  actions  taken  by  the  Government  and  the  Parliament  of 
Romania in respect of other State institutions and on the Government emergency ordinance on amendment to 
the  Law  N°  47/1992  regarding  the  organisation  and  functioning  of  the  Constitutional  Court  and  on  the 

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
the  Commission  recommendation  sought  to  encourage  the  putting  in  place  of  a  mechanism  which 
could create more of a sense of responsibility for public statements and their consequences. 

A  new  Code  of  Conduct  for  parliamentarians  was  prepared  in  May  2017  and  was  adopted  by  both 
Chambers  of  Parliament  on  11  October  2017.17  The  Code  of  Conduct  does  not  specifically  mention 
respect  for  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  but  includes  a  general  provision  on  the  respect  of 
separation  of  powers.  "Deputies  and  senators  shall  exercise  their  mandate  in  accordance  with  the 
principle of the separation and balance of powers — legislative, executive, and judicial — within the 
framework of constitutional democracy." The Code includes a process and sanctioning mechanism in 
case  of  breach  of  the  code.  However,  as  the  provision  on  respect  of  separation  of  powers  is  very 
general,  establishing  breaches  and  imposing  sanctions  for  excessive  criticism  of  the  judiciary  may 
require  practical  examples  and  guidelines.    GRECO  has  noted  how  further  practical  implementation 
steps can help the practical application of such a Code.18  A specific opportunity exists in the form of 
decisions  by  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  against  statements  of  a  Member  of  Parliament 
criticising a magistrate or the judicial system (see below), which could be used to automatically trigger 
follow-up in Parliament.  In the reporting period, no cases of application of the Code of Conduct for 
Members of parliament have been reported. 
In  July  2017,  the  Government  adopted  a  Code  of  Conduct  for  Ministers,19  which  also  includes  a 
general  provision  on  the  respect  of  separation  of  powers.  As  with  the  Code  of  Conduct  for 
parliamentarians, the regime for application and sanctions is not set out in detail and has not yet been 
tested. 

The Superior Council of Magistracy (SCM) is the guarantor of the independence of the judiciary. As 
in previous years, the SCM has acted to defend the independence of the judiciary against political and 
media attack. In the reporting period, the SCM took 2decisions that media or political statements have 
violated  the  independence  of  the  judicial  system  and  7  decisions  that  statements  have  affected  the 
independence or professional reputation of a magistrate.20  Overall the actions and the set of tools at 
the disposal of the SCM against political statements and media attacks endangering the independence 
of the judiciary appeared not to be effective in counteracting the level and intensity of criticism faced 
by the judicial system as a whole and by individual magistrates. In the reporting period, criticism of 
the  judicial  system  and  magistrates  in  the  media  has  been  particularly  strong  and  present.  The 
individual targets of these attacks appeared to be especially prosecutors and judges dealing with high-
level corruption cases. It has also extended to criticism directed at the judicial system as a whole.21 

The Superior Council of the Magistracy is also guarantor of the independence of the judiciary when it 
provides an opinion on relevant draft laws and this role should be recognised by all state powers. In 
January, February and September 2017, the SCM issued negative opinions on draft laws, also in some 

Government  emergency  ordinance  on  amending  and  completing  the  Law  N°  3/2000  regarding  the 
organisation of a referendum of Romania,  

17    https://www.juridice.ro/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Codul-de-conduită.pdf.  The  Code  of  Conduct  does  not 

appear to be advertised and linked on the website of the Parliament (respective chambers). 

18  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 

19  http://gov.ro/ro/guvernul/sedinte-guvern/cod-de-conduita-al-membrilor-guvernulu. The Code of Conduct does 

not appear to be advertised and linked on the website of the government.  

20    The  average  duration  from  the  request  till  the  decision  was  of  58  days.  In  the  same  time,  there  were  9 
decisions in which the request of defence of the reputation has been withdrawn (7 requests from prosecutors 
and 2 from judges) 

21   Statements quoted in the media included arguments that the whole judicial system is dysfunctional, that the 
prosecution  services  in  particular  "are  out  of  control",  and  therefore  the  "judicial  system  urgently  needs 
reform" that will bring "the situation back to normality". 

7 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
cases  criticising  the  decision-making  process,  when  it  felt  these  could  negatively  impact  the 
independence of the judiciary.22 

Judicial reform 

Recommendation  3:  The  current  phase  in  the  reform  of  Romania's  Criminal  Codes  should  be 
concluded,  with  Parliament  taking  forward  its  plans  to  adopt  the  amendments  presented  by  the 
government in 2016 after consultation with the judicial authorities. The Minister of Justice, the SCM 
and  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  should  finalise  an  action  plan  to  ensure  that  the  new 
deadline for the implementation of the remaining provisions of the Code of Civil Procedures can be 
respected. 

Overview of progress 

Criminal Code and Code of Criminal procedures 
The  new  Criminal  Code  and  Code  of  Criminal  Procedures  entered  into  force  on  1st  February  2014. 
Their  entry  into  force  was  a  successful  endeavour  from  both  the  Romanian  government  and  the 
magistracy. However, a number of developments have called into question the stability of the Codes, 
and  in  some  cases  urgent  amendments  have  been  required.  The  Governments  since  2014  have 
proposed a number of amendments to address shortcomings, which were consolidated in several draft 
laws in 2016 to ensure stability of the legal framework. These amendments have still to a large extent 
to be approved in Parliament.23 The Commission therefore recommended that the current phase of this 
reform  needed  to  be  concluded,  with  Parliament  taking  forward  its  plans  to  adopt  the  amendments 
presented by the government in 2016 after consultation with the judicial authorities. 

The  Commission  also  recommended  that  the  Government  and  Parliament  should  ensure  full 
transparency and take proper account of consultations with the relevant authorities and stakeholders in 
decision-making and legislative activity. (See also recommendation 4 below). 

In 2017 there have been a number of developments with regard to the Criminal Code and the Code of 
Criminal  Procedures.  While  some  of  these  developments  serve  the  objectives  underpinning  the 
Commission  recommendation,  others  raise  questions  about  both  the  stability  of  the  reform  and  the 
transparency and inclusiveness of the process. 

The Parliament did not adopt the draft amendments proposed by the government in 2016, which had 
been the result of broad consultations with the judiciary.24 

In parallel, from March to June, the Government has prepared a new draft law amending the Criminal 
Code  and  Code  of  Criminal  Procedures.  The  draft  aims  to  align  the  legislation  with  recent 
Constitutional Court (CCR) decisions; it has been consulted with the judiciary and civil society, and 
aimed at following strictly the decisions of the CCR. The draft was ready for adoption mid-June, but a 
new decision from the CCR on 6 June on the abuse of function halted consideration of the draft and a 
new consultation started on introducing a monetary threshold to determine whether abuse of function 
is a criminal offence. Eventually, the Minister of Justice split the package in two draft laws: one whose 
objective is compliance with the CCR decisions (ongoing) and another one regarding the transposition 
of provisions of two EU directives, on confiscation and presumption of innocence (the transposition 
deadlines are 4/10/15 and  1/04/18, respectively).  25  Regarding the compliance with CCR decisions, 

22   http://old.csm1909.ro/csm/linkuri/02_02_2017__86205_ro.pdf; 
http://old.csm1909.ro/csm/linkuri/25_01_2017__86049_ro.htm; 
https://www.csm1909.ro/PageDetails.aspx?PageId=299&FolderId=4535; 
http://old.csm1909.ro/csm/linkuri/03_10_2017__89465_ro.pdf 

23   CVM reports 2015, 2016, 2017 
24  The  progress  reports  from  the  Government  and  the  Parliament  do  not  mention  progress  on  these  pending 

proposals.  

25    Directive  2014/42/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  April  2014  on  the  freezing  and 
confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union as well as Directive 2016/343 

8 

 
 
                                                            
 
no  new  law  has  been  proposed  yet,  but  the  decision  of  the  Constitutional  Court  on  the  abuse  of 
function entered into effect in August, creating legal uncertainty for ongoing criminal files. 

In  May,  in  a  complementary  exercise,  the  Minister  of  Justice  opened  a  larger  consultation  with  the 
judiciary, legal practitioners and academia on improvements to the codes – in particular with regard to 
problems resulting from the application of the codes. The consultation will be concluded in November 
and may lead to additional amendments of the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedures in the 
near  future.  In  addition,  in  new  rulings  in  2017,  the  Constitutional  Court  ruled  as  unconstitutional  a 
number of provisions26 of the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedures, which could require 
further urgent amendments. 

Other amendments to the  Codes  more  specifically concern the legal  framework  for the fight against 
corruption  and  also  illustrate  shortcomings  in  terms  of  consultation  and  preparation.  On  31  January 
2017, the Government adopted an Emergency Ordinance (EOG 13/2017) amending the Criminal Code 
and the Code of Criminal procedures, together with a draft law on pardons,  with clear implications for 
corruption cases. The adoption of the Emergency Ordinance was eventually repealed before its entry 
into force.27,28 Further, in April,  while the Minister of  Justice  was  preparing  a draft law to align the 
provisions  on  conflict  of  interest  with  a  CCR  decision,  Parliament  adopted  a  law  largely 
decriminalising conflict of interest  as  a criminal offence, such that  3  out of 4  activities which  could 
constitute the crime have been removed.29, 30. Though challenged in the CCR, the Court upheld the law 
and it entered into force. The Office of the Prosecutor General estimates that 27 ongoing and 128 past 
cases of conflict of interest are potentially affected. 

Civil Code and Code for Civil Procedures 

The January CVM report included a recommendation that the Minister of Justice, the Superior Council 
of Magistracy (SCM) and the High Court of Cassation and Justice  (HCCJ) should finalise an action 
plan to ensure that the new deadline for the implementation of the remaining provisions of the Code of 
Civil Procedures can be respected. In December 2016, a new deadline of January 2019 was set for the 
entry into application of those provisions. There are four sets of provisions. 

The  first  concerns  proceedings  in  Council  Chambers.  The  entry  into  application  of  these  provisions 
requires that there are enough Council rooms in the courts concerned.  A working group on ensuring 
the proper infrastructure was set up by the Minister of Justice. The first phase to collect all the needs 
of  the  courts  in  terms  of  infrastructure  has  been  finalised  as  planned  and  the  working  group  has 
prepared an action plan for infrastructure arrangements  which will now be consulted with the relevant 
courts, and then adopted by the Government.31 

Another set of provisions concern the threshold to file a second appeal at the High Court of Cassation 
and  Justice  in  litigation  cases  with  a  financial  claim.  Both  the  law  currently  in  force  (dating  from 

of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the 
presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings. 

26    On  the  16  decisions  ruled  by  the  CCR  in  2017,  the  majority  referred  to  procedural  aspects,  such  as  the 
possibility  of  revision  of  courts  decisions,  including  acquittal  decisions  (CCR  decision  no  2/2017)  or 
procedures  of  cassation  (CCR  decision  of  17  October  2017),  possibility  of  challenging  a  solution  (CCR 
18/2017),  challenging  a  measure  of  technical  surveillance  (CCR  244/2017).  The  CCR  also  interpreted  the 
sense in which a provision could be constitutional, e.g. provisions on and similar to the abuse of office (CCR 
518/2017 and 392/2017). 

27    The  Parliament  adopted  on  24  February  the  Government  Emergency  Ordinance  repealing  the  Emergency 

Ordinance 13/2017 

28   The draft law on pardons is pending in the Chamber of Deputies, and was already adopted by the Senate. 
29   On 24.07.2017 promulgated and becomes Law no. 193/2017   
30  The 3 elements eliminated are: (1) elimination of liberal professions or of people exercising a public function 
from  the  scope  of  the  provision;  (2)  situations  where  the  public  official  took  part  in  the  decision  process 
through which a material benefit has been obtained directly to him or a close relative; (3) situations where the 
public official acts procures a profit to a person from whom he benefited of an advantage of all nature. 

31  When possible, additional infrastructure work should be included in already-planned court renovation works 

in partnership with the World Bank.. 

9 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
2013)  and  the  provisions  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedures  to  enter  into  force  in  January  2019  set  a 
minimum  threshold  to  the  value  of  the  claims  for  allowing  a  second  appeal  to  the  HCCJ.32  These 
provisions  are  part  of  the  judicial  reform  promoted  by  the  reform  of  the  four  codes  that  would 
diminish  the  workload  of  the  HCCJ  in  trying  individual  cases,  and  enable  the  HCCJ  to  focus  on 
cassation  and  interpretation  of  the  law.  Previous  CVM  reports  had  welcomed  this  evolution  and 
reported  evidence  that  the  goal  of  greater  efficiency  in  the  provision  of  justice  had  been  achieved.33 
However,  in  a  new  decision  the  Constitutional  Court  has  decided  that  the  setting  of  a  threshold  for 
second  appeals  is  unconstitutional.34  As  this  decision  risks  overwhelming  the  HCCJ  with  second 
appeal cases, the Minister of Justice is preparing a Government Emergency Ordinance, consulted with 
the HCCJ and the SCM, which would mitigate the impact of the CCR decision on the workload of the 
HCCJ.  Nevertheless,  it  is  unclear  whether  there  will  be  an  impact  on  reasonable  deadlines  to  reach 
final decisions and whether solutions will also need to be found for possible increase of workload in 
lower courts. 

In a similar exercise as for the Criminal codes, the Minister of Justice has launched a consultation of 
practitioners  and  academic  experts  on  issues  with  application  of  the  Civil  Code  and  Code  of  Civil 
Procedures. The consultation is ongoing and could lead to new amendments in the near future. 

Recommendation 4: In order to improve further the transparency and predictability of the legislative 
process,  and  strengthen  internal  safeguards  in  the  interest  of  irreversibility,    the  Government  and 
Parliament should ensure full transparency and take proper account of consultations with the relevant 
authorities  and  stakeholders  in  decision-making  and  legislative  activity  on  the  Criminal  Code  and 
Code  for  Criminal  Procedures,  on  corruption  laws,  on  integrity  laws  (incompatibilities,  conflicts  of 
interest, unjustified wealth), on the laws of justice (pertaining to the organisation of the justice system) 
and  on  the  Civil  Code  and  Code  for  Civil  Procedures,  taking  inspiration  from  the  transparency  in 
decision-making put in place by the Government in 2016. 

Overview of progress 

The  2017  CVM  report  had  highlighted  the  difficulties  with  certain  legislative  practices  allowing  for 
the  sudden  introduction  of  changes  through  Parliament,  with  a  lack  of  better  regulation  and 
consultation,  and  noted  that  this  made  it  harder  to  demonstrate  the  sustainability  of  the  legal 
framework.  This  recommendation  is  therefore  explicitly  aimed  at  strengthening  internal  safeguards 
against  abrupt  reversals  of  the  progress  made,  in  order  to  ensure  the  irreversibility  required  to 
satisfactorily  fulfil  the  CVM  benchmarks.  Openness  to  debate  and  consultation  is  also  a  mark  of  a 
general confidence that judicial reform is an agreed objective and that those responsible for proposing 
and making laws are confident of explaining their position. 

Throughout 2017 there have been a number of examples of legislative decisions lacking transparency 
and predictability, or consultation of the relevant authorities. 

A  few  days  after  the  January  2017  report,  the  Government  adopted  in  an  extraordinary  session  the 
Emergency  Ordinance  13/2017,  amending  the  Criminal  Code  and  Code  of  Criminal  Procedures 
without  prior  notice.  This  change  came  as  a  surprise  and  the  implications  for  the  fight  against 
corruption sparked massive street protests throughout the country, which led to the withdrawal of the 
Emergency Ordinance. After these events, the Government changed course and part of this involved a 
more  inclusive  and  transparent  process,  although  exceptions  remained.  As  mentioned  earlier,  the 
Minister of Justice is finalising amendments of the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedures to 
reflect  Constitutional  Court  decisions.  In  this  process  the  Minister  of  Justice  organised  four  public 
debates and there was a constructive consultation and discussion with the judiciary, NGOs and other 
stakeholders.  Such  a  transparent  and  inclusive  process  was  not  put  in  place  in  the  case  of  the 

32   At 1 million Lei and 500.000 Lei respectively 
33   CVM Report 2016 
34   Decision no 369/2017, published in the Romanian Official Gazette, Part I, no. 582 on 20th July 2017 

10 

 
 
 
                                                            
amendment of the Justice laws proposed in August.  The amendments of the Justice laws have been 
under  preparation  since  2015.  Previous  governments  have  consulted  broadly  on  the  project  and  the 
Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  and  the  judiciary  as  a  whole  had  been  strongly  involved  in  the 
process. In January 2017, the new Government decided to consult the new SCM on the drafts and the 
SCM finalised a proposal and transmitted it to the Minister of Justice in April.  In August, the Minister 
of  Justice  announced  totally  new  and  controversial  amendments  to  the  Justice  laws  via  a  media 
conference,  without  either  a  public  consultation  or  a  targeted  consultation  with  the  institutions 
involved. This may have contributed to the many negative reactions to the initiative, particularly with 
memories  of  the  process  around  Emergency  Ordinance  13/2017  still  fresh.  Many  institutions, 
magistrates  and  other  stakeholders  commented  unfavourably  on  the  amendments.  Eventually, 
following a negative opinion from the SCM, which the Minister has the legal obligation to request, the 
Minister  of  Justice  first  announced  that  new  version  of  the  draft  laws  would  take  some  of  the  SCM 
views into account. At the end of October 2017, there was a change in the legislative procedure. On 25 
October  a  Parliamentary  Committee  took  up  the  draft  Justice  laws  as  a  parliament  own  initiative. 
These  new  texts  were  neither  discussed  with  the  judiciary,  nor  adopted  by  the  Government.  The 
following day, the highest representatives of the judiciary in Romania, the President of the High Court 
of  Cassation  and  Justice,  the  Prosecutor  General  and  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy,  publicly 
questioned the sudden change in legislative process. Their position is that the process of legal drafting 
and impact analysis and the interinstitutional dialogue which should have been done at the level of the 
Government  have  now  been  skipped.35  The  President  of  the  Parliamentary  Committee  declared  that 
they would invite the judicial institutions and legal professions for discussions.  The Parliament on 1 
November asked the judiciary to submit their comments by 9 November. The SCM issued a negative 
opinion on the draft Justice laws in Parliament. However the calendar envisaged is very tight(adoption 
by the end of the year) while the Parliament has not yet made any commitment that it will await the 
opinion of the Venice commission on the key aspects of the revision  that may have a bearing  on to 
judicial independence. 

In the Parliament, there were a number of examples of decisions in the area of justice which were not 
subject to prior consultation of the affected institutions as highlighted in other sections of this report: 
the  Parliament  modified  the  incompatibility  regime  for  MPs,  decriminalised  several  conflict  of 
interests  offences,  and  even  proposed  the  possibility  of  reviewing  of  all  judgments  of  the  last  20 
years.36,37 Other amendments have been proposed and are up for debate in the decisional chamber, so 
these could potentially be adopted anytime. 

In  recognition  of  the  situation,  the  President  of  the  Legal  Committee  of  the  Senate  has  invited  the 
Minister  of  Justice  and  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  to  set  up  a  permanent  dialogue  between 
State institutions on amendments to the criminal codes and other important legislation, in order to set 
up  a  predictable  amendment  process,  ensuring  debate  and  public  consultation.  The  Parliament  has 
taken up the idea and has created a Special Parliamentary Committee on Systematization, Unification 
and  Ensuring  Legislative  Stability  in  the  Judiciary,  beginning  of  October.38    This  Committee  is 
expected to take up the pending proposals on the Criminal code and the code of Criminal procedures 

35   http://www.scj.ro/1376/5019/Comunicate-de-presa-2017/Comunicat-de-presa-cu-privire-la-procedura-de-
modificare-a-legilor-justitie; https://www.csm1909.ro/PageDetails.aspx?PageId=299&FolderId=4695; 
http://www.mpublic.ro/ro/content/c_26-10-2017-15-10;  

36    In  spring  2017,  Parliament  adopted  an  Emergency  Ordinance  from  2016  which  aligned  the  Codes  with  a 
Constitutional Court Decision and had been consulted when adopted by the Government. At the stage of the 
decision  making  chamber,  the  Parliament  however  amended  the  draft  to  include  provisions  allowing  the 
review  of  all  the  judicial  decisions  taken  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Romanian  Constitution.  This 
amendment was adopted without any prior consultation or analysis.  The law as adopted by Parliament was 
eventually referred to the Constitutional Court which annulled the amendments (CCR decision 377/2017) 
37    Other  examples  included  legislation  with  an  impact  on  the  justice  system  and  the  fight  against  corruption: 
such as the law on the status of local administrations, framework law on salaries of public personnel, and the 
law on financing of political parties. 

38  The President of this Committee is the Minister of Justice who had put forward the Government Emergency 

Ordinance 13/2017 in January. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
and ensure their adoption, in addition to the new ones under preparation. The Justice laws will also be 
taken up by this Committee. The operation and outcome of this committee will be directly relevant to 
the fulfilment of the recommendation. 

Recommendation 5: The Government should put in place an appropriate Action Plan to address the 
issue  of  implementation  of  court  decisions  and  application  of  jurisprudence  of  the  courts  by  public 
administration,  including  a  mechanism  to  provide  accurate  statistics  to  enable  future  monitoring.  It 
should also develop a system of internal monitoring involving the SCM and Court of Auditors in order 
to ensure proper implementation of the Action Plan. 

Overview of progress 

Respect  and  implementation  of  court  decisions  is  an  integral  part  of  the  efficiency  of  the  judicial 
system  as  set  out  in  Benchmark  One.39  This  recommendation  concerns  enforcement  of  decisions 
against the State, in which  a public institution  has to pay an amount of money or in which  a public 
institution has to fulfil an action.  Non-implementation or delayed implementation of court decisions 
by the administration erodes confidence in justice and wastes time and resources in follow-up cases or 
appeals on repetitive decisions.40 

As  already  mentioned  in  the  January  CVM  report,  following  condemnation  of  Romania  by  the 
European Court of Human Rights in a group of cases on non-enforcement or delayed enforcement, in 
December 2016 Romania proposed to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers an action plan to 
address  the  structural  problems  of  non-enforcement  of  court  decisions  against  the  State.41,42  This 
action plan and the additional measures required by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers is 
of direct relevance to addressing this recommendation. 

This action plan presented by Romania sets out the following actions: 

-    to  examine,  by  December  2017,  the  modification  of   the  mechanism  currently  in  place  for  the 
implementation of pecuniary awards against the state to ensure that it complies with the standards 
elaborated by the Court in its case law; 

-   to examine, by December 2017, (i) the creation of a judicial or administrative procedure to establish 
whether a failure to implement arises  from an  objective impossibility and to ascertain  alternative 
means  of  implementation  and  (ii)  the  reform  of  the  statutory  limitation  regime  in  respect  of 
enforcement  proceedings  to  preclude  the  state  from  relying  on  it  when  the  opposing  party  is  a 
private individual; 

-    to  define,  by  April  2018,  legislative  or  administrative  measures  enabling  the  State  to  assume  the 
debts  of  companies  under  its  responsibility,  when  such  companies  are  subject  to  bankruptcy 
proceedings or have already been wound-up; 

-     to carry out, by May 2018, an in-depth analysis of the necessity for and modalities of a mechanism 
at national level to monitor the implementation of court decisions by the State; in the meantime, it 
is envisaged to make it mandatory for all public authorities and institutions regularly to monitor the 
implementation of court decisions delivered against them. 

The  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  reviewed  the  action  plan  in  March  2017  and 
requested additional actions, in particular regarding implementation of decisions in which there is an 

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

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

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

41   COM(2017) 44 p.6  
42   Action plan of structural measures in relation to the Săcăleanu group of cases ( 73970/01) 

http://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{"EXECDocumentTypeCollection":["CEC"]} 

12 

 
 
 
                                                            
obligation for the State to perform a specific act (other than a pecuniary award), and remedies when 
there is no voluntary implementation: 

"The  authorities  should  therefore  define,  without  delay,  concrete  measures  to  be  adopted  in  the 
framework of the intended reforms and supplement the timetable provided with the deadlines foreseen 
for  the  adoption  of  these  measures.  […]  At  the  same  time,  additional  action  appears  required  to 
address all the concerns expressed by the Committee with regard to the safeguards under in domestic 
law for ensuring voluntary and timely implementation of court decisions by the state and the remedies 
available. […] The authorities already envisage reforming the mechanism in place for the payment of 
pecuniary awards to ensure that it meets this requirement. However, domestic law contains different 
procedures for the implementation of decisions imposing an obligation to perform a specific act, and 
the  safeguards  ensuring  timely  and  voluntary  compliance  with  these  types  of  decision  must  also  be 
reinforced.[...] Finally, having regard to the structural nature of this problem, the authorities' attention 
should again be called to the necessity for legal remedies. As the revised action plan is silent on this 
point,  it  is  necessary  to  reiterate  that  the  authorities  should  review  the  effectiveness  of  the  existing 
procedures in the light of the requirements of an effective remedy developed by the Court in this field  
and, if necessary, to put in place remedies meeting these requirements." 

At the end of August, Romania updated its action plan for the Council of Europe, addressing some of 
the  additional  requests.  However  information  on  effective  progress  in  implementing  these  actions 
remains to be provided. 

In parallel, the Ministry of Justice and the judicial institutions are modernising the IT system for the 
management  of  court  cases,  and  within  this  project  they  are  planning  to  produce  statistics  and 
monitoring  of  court  decisions  involving  public  institutions.  The  finalisation  of  this  project  will  take 
several years up to 2020 and will be financed by EU funds. This project is a positive development but 
would  usefully  be  accompanied  by  an  effective  monitoring  of  implementation  of  court  decisions  by 
public institutions at national and local level. 

Recommendation  6:  The  Strategic  Judicial  Management,  i.e.  the  Minister  of  Justice,  the  SCM,  the 
HCCJ  and  the  Prosecutor-General  should  ensure  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan as adopted 
and  put  in  place  regular  common  public  reporting  on  its  implementation,  including  solutions  to  the 
issues of shortages of court clerks, excessive workload and delays in motivation of decisions. 

Overview of progress 

The comprehensive Action Plan adopted in 201643 setting out the structural reform steps to be taken 
until  2020  is  now  under  way.  It  should  bring  major  benefits  to  the  users  of  the  justice  system,  and 
altogether improve public trust in the system. 

One of its first deliverables was the setting up of the Judicial Strategic Management Council to ensure 
a  necessary  and  smooth  cooperation  between  the  authorities  responsible  for  the  management  of  the 
justice system in their respective areas of competence, namely the Minister of Justice, the SCM, the 
HCCJ and the Prosecutor-General. The Judicial Strategic Management Council should also follow up 
the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  for  the  Development  of  the  Judiciary  2015-2020  and  its  action 
plan.  So  far,  institutions  have  individually  reported  measures  taken  to  implement  actions  from  the 
Action Plan, but the overview is yet to be compiled. 

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

the Government Decision no. 282/2016 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
                                                            
The Judicial Strategic Management Council met for the first time this year on 12 June.  In its second 
meeting  on  14  September,  the  Strategic  Judicial  Management  assigned  to  a  new  technical  Working 
Group  the  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy  and  the  Action  Plan,  with  quarterly 
reporting. This monitoring and reporting mechanism should facilitate a consolidated overview of the 
effective progress in implementing the Action Plan. 

The  implementation  of  the  action  plan  will  be  financed  also  through  EU  structural  funds.    The 
Superior  Council  of  Magistracy,  the  National  Institute  of  Magistracy,  the  National  School  of  Clerks 
and  the  Judicial  Inspection  are  involved  in  the  development  of  projects  within  a  call  for  projects 
launched in August 2017 under the specific objective 2.3 of the Administrative Capacity Operational 
Programme (financial allocation available - 260 million RON / EUR 57.7 million). 

Recommendation 7:  The new SCM should prepare a collective programme for its mandate, including 
measures to promote transparency and accountability. It should include a strategy on outreach, with 
regular  open  meetings  with  assemblies  of  judges  and  prosecutors  at  all  levels,  as  well  as  with  civil 
society  and  professional  organisations,  and  set  up  annual  reporting  to  be  discussed  in  courts'  and 
prosecutors' general assemblies. 

Overview of progress 
The  2016  and  2017  CVM  reports  underlined  the  importance  for  the  new  Superior  Council  of 
Magistracy (SCM) to maintain the momentum of reform, to articulate a clear collective philosophy on 
the basis of a new programme and to take measures for increased transparency and accountability. 

On 27th December 2016, the Senate validated the elections of the 14 members, judges and prosecutors 
of the SCM. On 6th January 2017, the new SCM started its activity. After several adjournments, the 
Senate appointed the two SCM members representing the civil society in early September.44 

At  the  end  of  February  2017,  the  SCM  set  out  its  priorities  for  its  entire  mandate  2017-2022,  and 
organised working groups on each priority. These include: 

1.  Independence-responsibility: Identify efficient leverages to reinforce the independence of the 

judiciary, correlated with increasing magistrates' responsibility; 

2.  Financial  independence  of  the  judiciary,  in  particular  salary  of  magistrates.  Ensuring  real 
independence of the judiciary through financial independence: intensifying actions in order for 
the HCCJ to take the court's budget, elaborating distinct draft law to reinforce the guarantees 
for independence regarding salaries of the magistrates. 

3.  Ensuring an optimum workload for courts and prosecutors' offices adapting human resources 
to the concrete needs. Making legal framework more flexible to ensure efficiency of judicial 
activity. 

4.  Improving  infrastructure  for  courts  and  prosecutor's  offices.  SCM  infrastructure.  Identifying 

viable solutions for courts buildings and development of IT infrastructure. 

5.  Communication,  elaboration  of  an  efficient  and  predictable  public  communication  strategy, 

promoting the principle of institutional transparency. 

The SCM has already taken some measures to promote transparency. A new SCM website is now up 
and  running,  and  appears  more  user-friendly.    Among  the  actions  for  increasing  transparency, 
representatives  of  courts,  magistrates'  professional  associations  or  NGOs  can  participate  in  Council 
meetings,  with  the  possibility  of  written  or  verbal  interventions.  The  SCM  is  also  organising 
permanent  consultation  of  courts  and  prosecutor’s  offices  and  centralising  their  points  of  view,  also 
publishing them on the web portal for magistrates. When the SCM has been consulted on new draft 
laws this year, it has sought the views of all courts and prosecutors’ offices and reflected them in its 

44   Mr. Victor Alistar and Mr. Romeu Chelariu 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
motivated  opinions.  The  SCM  has  also  expressed  the  intention  to  better  motivate  its  decisions  and 
ensure public communication on the reasons for its decisions. 

The  SCM  is  also  working  on  a  collective  programme  and  strategy  for  better  outreach.  A  draft 
Communication strategy is being discussed at working group level promoting measures for improving 
the  public  image  of  the  judiciary  and  its  relations  with  mass  media.  The  strategy  is  also  looking  at 
achieving  a  rapid  informative  flow  through  setting  up  a  mechanism  for  institutional  cooperation,  as 
well as at the cooperation with the Government and the Parliament. 

In its January report, the Commission had also recommended that the SCM should continue to report 
publicly on actions it has taken in defending the independence of justice and protection of reputation, 
independence and impartiality of magistrates. This  would be an important illustration of the priority 
given to this role. 

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 

Recommendation 8: Ensure the entry into operation of the PREVENT system. The National Integrity 
Agency  and  the  National  Public  Procurement  Agency  should  put  in  place  reporting  on  the  ex-ante 
checks of public procurement procedures and their follow-up, including ex post checks, as well as on 
cases of conflicts of interest or corruption discovered, and the organisation of public debates so that 
the government, local authorities, the judiciary and civil society are invited to respond. 

Overview of progress 

The PREVENT system is designed to prevent conflicts of interests in public procurement procedures 
by  setting  up  an  ex-ante  verification  mechanism  to  detect  situations  that  may  generate  conflicts  of 
interests in procurement procedures launched through the electronic procurement system, and to allow 
the contracting authorities to remedy these situations prior to the award of the contract. It is the result 
of  a  close  collaboration  between  the  National  Integrity  Agency  (ANI),  the  agency  for  public 
procurement  (ANAP)  and  the  Digital  Agenda  Agency,  as  well  as  the  Government.  It  entered  into 
operations end of June as planned. 45 

The PREVENT system involves the analysis of the data and information filled in an integrity form by 
staff of the contracting authority, by cross-checking this information with relevant databases (National 
Trade  Register  Office,  Directorate  for  Persons  Record  and  Databases  Management).    It  can 
automatically track relations that may exist between evaluation committee members and persons with 
decision-making powers in the contracting authority on the one hand, and relevant representatives of 
the tenderers in public procurement procedures on the other hand. The results of this cross-checking is 
verified  by  ANI  inspectors,  who,  if  there  appears  a  possible  conflict  of  interest  situation,    issue  an 
integrity  warning  to  the  contracting  authority.  The  contracting  authority  must  take  all  necessary 
measures for removing the possible conflicts of interests and inform ANI, in order to lift the warning 
and proceed with the contract award. 

In  the  first  three  months  of  operation,  June–September  2017,  ANI  has  used  PREVENT  to  analyse 
2995  public  procurement  procedures,  with  a  total  amount  of  6,1  billion  LEI  (approx.  EUR  1,3 
billion).46  ANI issued three integrity warnings regarding possible violations of the legislation on the 
conflicts  of  interests  in  public  procurement.  In  all  three  cases,  the  management  of  the  contracting 
authorities has taken measures to rectify the situation. In another seven situations, ANI has notified the 
National  Agency  for  Public  Procurement  (ANAP)  concerning  possible  irregularities  in  public 
procurement procedures, as a result of PREVENT’s analysis. 

45   https://www.integritate.eu/prevent.aspx  
46   10% of these procedures refer to EU funded contracts 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
More  broadly,  ANI's  track  record  remained  constant  on  investigations  of  incompatibilities  and 
administrative  conflicts  of  interests.  Between  1  January  and  13  October  2017,  ANI  finalised  1310 
cases (of incompatibility, wealth investigations and conflicts of interest) a comparable number to the 
same period of 2016. However, as noted in previous CVM reports, the legal framework for integrity 
remains under challenge. In April 2017, unexpected modifications of the law on incompatibilities for 
Members  of  Parliament47  were  adopted.  A  negative  opinion  had  been  issued  by  ANI  but  the 
amendment  went  ahead.  Furthermore,  legislative  proposals  which  would  take  away  the  three  year 
restriction to occupy an elected function after a final decision on incompatibility or conflict of interest 
are still pending in Parliament. CVM reports have also noted how such changes make it all the more 
difficult  to  consolidate  the  long-term  sustainability  of  the  integrity  framework  through  a  single 
codification.48 

ANI continued to develop its preventive work, including reaching out towards local authorities and the 
Parliament. ANI is also closely involved in some activities of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy. 
Despite the increase of activity, including PREVENT, the budget of ANI has been sharply reduced in 
2017. 

Recommendation 9: The Parliament should be transparent in its decision-making with regard to the 
follow-up to final and irrevocable decisions on incompatibilities, conflicts of interests and unjustified 
wealth against its members. 

Overview of progress 

The  January  2017  CVM  report  noted  that  there  has  been  substantial  progress  in  the  follow-up  of 
reports from the National Integrity Agency (ANI), but that the court proceedings remain very long and 
there are still exceptions to the applications of sanctions. In particular CVM reports had highlighted 
the  delay  and  the  inconsistency  in  the  application  of  sanctions  for  Members  of  Parliament  who  are 
found incompatible or in conflict of interest following a final court decision or a final ANI report. The 
Commission  had  therefore  recommended  that  the  Parliament  should  be  transparent  in  its  decision-
making with regard to the follow-up to final and irrevocable decisions on incompatibilities, conflicts 
of interests and unjustified wealth against its members. 

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,49  other  steps  are  needed  to  put  this  into 
effect. The President of the Chamber to which the member belongs has to take note of the termination 
of the mandate of the Deputy or the Senator, and to put the question to the vote of the plenary session 
of the Chamber by which the place of the Deputy or Senator shall become vacant.50 However there is 
no deadline for this step to take place. 

47  Law no.87 of 28 April 2017 modifying Law no. 161/2003 regarding some measure to ensure transparency in 

public functions, business environment and corruption sanctioning 

48   CVM report 2017 COM(2017) 44 
49  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 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. 

50   Act No 96 of 21 April 2006 on the Statute of Deputies and Senators – Article 7 (4). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In  cases  of  administrative  conflicts  of  interests,  Article  19  and  51  of  the  Statute  regulates  the 
applicable  sanction,  the  procedure  and  the  deadlines,  if  the  Member  of  Parliament  appeals  the 
sanction.  The  applicable  sanction  is  a  10  %  allowance  reduction  for  up  to  three  months.51  In  the 
reporting  period,  the  Commission  was  informed  that  debates  within  the  Legal  Committee  and  the 
Plenary Session of the Parliament are transmitted live and the video recording is available also after 
the session. This allows access to parliamentary debates though more detailed information would be 
necessary to assess how the Parliament has addressed the cases on which it receives information from 
ANI in 2017 in order to assess whether this would respond to recommendation 9.   ANI has sent six 
requests to the Parliament to take action concerning Members of Parliament with a final court decision 
against  them.    Three  cases  concern  final  court  decisions  reached  in  2017  (1  incompatibility,  2 
administrative  conflicts  of  interests)52,  for  which  ANI  requested  the  Parliament  to  apply  the 
corresponding  sanction  on  17  March,  7  April  and  September.  There  was  no  information  that  these 
cases have been yet taken forward to conclusion in Parliament. Three other cases concern election and 
validation in the new Parliament of persons under an interdiction to occupy a public office for a period 
of 3 years following a final court decision against them for incompatibility or administrative conflict 
of  interests.  53  ANI  signalled  these  cases  to  the  Parliament  in  February,  but  today  there  is  no 
information  that  the  Parliament  has  followed  up.  There  are  no  clear  precedents  for  such  cases; 
however  it  is  up  to  the  Parliament  to  find  a  solution  rapidly  in  these  cases  as  the  Parliament  has 
confirmed their mandate despite the interdiction. 

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

Recommendation  10:  Adopt  objective  criteria  for  deciding  on and  motivating  lifting  of  immunity  of 
Members  of  Parliament  to  help  ensure  that  immunity  is  not  used  to  avoid  investigation  and 
prosecution  of  corruption  crimes.  The  government  could  also  consider  modifying  the  law  to  limit 
immunity of ministers to time in office. These steps could be assisted by the Venice Commission and 
GRECO54.  The  Parliament  should  set  up  a  system  to  report  regularly  on  decisions  taken  by  its 
Chambers on requests for lifting immunities and could organise a public debate so that the Superior 
Council of Magistracy and civil society can respond. 

Overview of progress 

This recommendation concerns the accountability of the Parliament in its decisions on requests from 
the  prosecution  to  authorise  preventative  measures  such  as  searches  or  arrest  and  on  requests  to 
authorise the investigation of an MP when he/she also is or has been a Minister. This is a power under 
the Constitution, mirroring many parliamentary systems where immunities are designed to protect MP 
in the exercise of their elective mandate. However, the recommendation concerns not the fact that this 
power exists, but the way in which it is exercised. Previous CVM reports have highlighted that many 
such  decisions  had  been  taken  in  a  way  which  appeared  to  the  public  as  attempts  to  limit  or  avoid 
investigation and prosecution of corruption crimes. The perception that immunities can be abused to 
cover  corruption  crime  sometimes  sparked  public  protest.  Therefore  having  criteria  for  deciding  on 

51   Act No 96 of 21 April 2006 on the Statute of Deputies and Senators – Article 19 and Article 51. 
52  Case 1: Deputy, incompatibility, final court decision 30/03/2017; case 2: Senator, administrative conflict of 
interests;  final  court  decision  08/03/2017;  Case  3:  Senator,  administrative  conflict  of  interests;  final  court 
decision 07/06/2017. 

53  Case 1: Senator, incompatibility, final court decision 04/03/2015; Case 2: Deputy, incompatibility, final court 
decision 03/11/2016; Case 3: Deputy, administrative conflict of interest, final court decision 25/11/2015;. 
54    The  Group  of  States  against  Corruption  (GRECO)  was  established  in  1999  by  the  Council  of  Europe  to 

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

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
such requests from the prosecution is one way of being able to show that decisions have an objective 
basis.55 

Parliamentary  representatives  responded  to  the  Commission  recommendation  to  defining  objective 
criteria by suggesting that this was in principle not possible due to the practice of using secret voting 
for  these  decisions.  Nevertheless,  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  made  an  attempt  to  address 
recommendation 10 by putting in place a procedure such that the report of the Legal, Discipline and 
Immunities  Committee  advising  the  plenum  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  on  the  vote  shall  provide 
either the arguments in favour of accepting the request from the prosecution, if the Committee voted 
favourably, or the arguments in favour of rejecting the request, if the Commission voted negatively. In 
one case, this launched a debate, where the Committee was criticised for using arguments which some 
members  of  Parliament  considered  were  rather  in  the  prerogative  of  the  courts.  Defining  such 
important  dividing  lines  would  be  part  of  the  criteria-setting  approach  recommended  by  the 
Commission. 

As  for  the  subsidiary  recommendation  that  the  law  might  be  changed  to  clarify  that  Ministerial 
immunity related only to actions during their time in office, Parliamentary representatives argued that 
this would need a Constitutional change: the Commission’s recommendation related rather to whether 
such a change might not be possible through other means, possibly by amending the law of 1999 on 
ministerial  responsibilities,  such  as  to  increase  transparency  and  objectivity  in  decision-making  on 
requests  of  starting  criminal  prosecution  against  former  ministers,  in  order  to  safeguard  public 
perception on equality before the law.56 

In  the  reporting  period,  there  have  been  three  requests  from  the  prosecution  to  start  criminal 
prosecution concerning MPs who are also former or sitting ministers. Two have been rejected by the 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  one  in  March  and  one  in  October,  one  has  been  rejected  by  the  Senate  in 
September.57  In  the  same  period,  two  requests  for  starting  criminal  prosecution  of  former  ministers 
who are not MPs were accepted by the President of Romania. 

Regarding the second part of the recommendation, "to set up a system to report regularly on decisions 
taken  by  its  Chambers  on  requests  from  the  prosecution  to  authorise  preventative  measures  such  as 
searches or arrest or to authorise the investigation of an MP when he/she also is or has been a Minister, 
and  to  organise  a  public  debate  so  that  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  and  civil  society  can 
respond",    the  information  received  states  that  debates  in  Parliamentary  committees  and  plenum  are 
broadcasted and can also be viewed online after the session took place.  The fact that parliamentary 
debates  are  public  and  can  be  accessed  via  media  and  the  web  does  not  provide  the  dialogue  and 
accountability mechanisms that were the subject of this recommendation. 

More  broadly,  the  results  of  the  judicial  institutions  involved  in  fighting  high  level  corruption  have 
been maintained, although in difficult circumstances (see recommendation 2). In the reporting period, 
the National Anti-Corruption Directorate sent 573 defendants to trial in 209 cases (compared to 238 in 
2016). 209 final conviction decisions (compared to 214 in 2016) were issued against 439 defendants. 
Seizing measures were ordered for 59 million EUR and final confiscations amount to about 7,4 million 
EUR. In 2017, the High Court of Cassation and Justice solved 10 high level corruption cases at first 
instance and settled two high-level corruption cases by final decision. 

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

Recommendation  11:  Continue  to  implement  the  National  Anti-corruption  Strategy,  respecting  the 
deadlines  set  by  the  government  in  August  2016.  The  Minister  of  Justice  should  put  in  place  a 

55   Based on guidelines from the Venice Commission and GRECO 
56  Legea  nr.  115/1999-Lege  privind  responsabilitatea  ministerială,  republicată,  în  „Monitorul  Oficial  al 

României”, partea I, nr. 200 din 23 martie 2007. 

57   The report of the Legal Commission stated that by secret vote (7 to 4), it has been decided to propose the 

refusal of the request. 

18 

 
 
                                                            
reporting system on the effective implementation of the National Anti-corruption Strategy (including 
statistics  on  integrity  incidents  in  public  administration,  details  of  disciplinary  procedures  and 
sanctions and information on the structural measures applied in vulnerable areas). 

Overview of progress 

The January report highlighted the potential of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy (NAS) presented 
by  the  Government  in  August  2016  to  be  an  effective  corruption  prevention  policy,  if  it  is  properly 
implemented and followed up on the ground, including at local level. EU funds can have a major part 
to play in supporting this work. 

Although  the  implementation  of  the  anti-corruption  strategy  has  kicked-off  at  technical  level,  the 
Commission has been given no evidence of strong visible political support from key Ministers such as 
those  responsible  for  central  and  public  administration  or  for  historic  risk  areas  such  as  health  or 
education.  In  June,  the  Minister  of  Justice  invited  the  two  Chambers  of  Parliament  to  sign  a  joint 
statement supporting the NAS 2016-2020. This has not yet taken place. 

At  working  level,  the  NAS  Technical  Secretariat  within  the  Ministry  of  Justice  has  pursued  the 
implementation  of  the  actions  in  the  NAS.  In  the  first  months  of  2017,  the  Secretariat  focused  its 
efforts  on  ensuring  that  the  public  institutions  willing  to  adhere  to  the  strategy  took  all  formal  steps 
within  the  set  deadline58:  assessing  the  corruption  risks,  defining  an  integrity  plan  and  adopting  the 
declaration of adherence to the fundamental values, the principles and NAS objectives 2016-2020.59 A 
high  number  of  public  institutions  have  decided  to  participate  to  the  NAS.  The  Secretariat  received 
1610  accession  declarations  and  746  integrity  plans  from  central  and  local  level  public  institutions.  
All  central  public  administrations  have  adhered  to  the  NAS.  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  participation 
has also now spread  to State Owned Enterprises (77  so far),  Regulatory agencies60 and the National 
Health  Insurance  House.  All  judicial  institutions  have  also  adhered  to  the  fundamental  values, 
principles, objectives and monitoring mechanism of the NAS. 

In  May,  the  NAS  Technical  Secretariat  organised  cooperation  platforms  meetings  with  the  main 
stakeholders  of  the  NAS.61  During  the  meetings,  the  members  of  the  platforms  presented  the  latest 
developments  in  the  implementation  of  NAS  and  institutional  approaches  to  the  strategic  document, 
and  agreed  on  the  themes  of  the  thematic  evaluation  missions  to  be  carried  out  during  2017.62  The 
evaluation  missions  are  carried  out  by  teams  of  experts,  designated  by  platform  members,  to  assess 
how  integrity-enhancing  measures  are  taken  and  corruption-related  vulnerabilities  are  reduced.63  In 
June,  an  interinstitutional  working  group  was  set  up  for  defining  the  methodology  for  assessing 
corruption  risks  at  central  level;  and  in  September  another  working  group  was  set  up  for  ex-post 
evaluation of integrity incidents and also includes all anticorruption law enforcement authorities. 

58   Six months after the adoption of the Strategy 
59    The  main  actions  include:  adopting  the  declaration  of  adherence  to  the  fundamental  values,  the  principles, 
objectives  and  the  monitoring  mechanism  of  the  NAS,  including  the  list  of  subordinate  /  coordinated 
structures  under  the  authority;  consulting  employees  in  the  process  of  developing  the  integrity  plan; 
identifying  the  risks  and  vulnerabilities  specific  to  the  institution;  identifying  measures  to  address  the 
institution-specific  vulnerabilities,  as  well  as  implementing  the  managerial  internal  control  standards; 
approval and distribution within the institution of the plan and declaration of membership of the NAS; annual 
assessment of the implementation of the plan; participating in the coordination and monitoring activities of 
the strategy.  

60   National Regulatory Authority for Energy and the National Mineral Resources Agency 
61   May 16th - meetings of the cooperation platforms of central public authorities and independent authorities and 
anti-corruption institutions; May 17th - Meeting of the Business Cooperation Platform; May 18th - meeting 
of the civil society cooperation platform 

62   Declaration of gifts, whistleblowers’ protection, and sensitive functions 
63    The  institutions  to be  assessed  in 2017: the National  Integrity Agency,  the  Romanian Ombudsman  and  the 
National  Council  for  Solving  Complaints,  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  the  General  Secretariat  of  the 
Government,  the  Ministry  of  Health,  and  possibly  the  Ministry  for  the  Business,  Commerce  and 
Entrepreneurship. Missions took place in October and November 2017. 

19 

 
 
                                                            
The NAS Technical secretariat has also set up a new portal64 to ensure information flow and enable 
electronic reporting for all institutions participating in the NAS. 

Regarding  other  developments  in  the  implementation  of  the  NAS  2016-2020,  a  methodology  for 
monitoring implementation was approved and will result in the first reporting on the implementation 
of  the  measures  at  the  beginning  of  2018.  A  few  elements  can  be  reported  already.  The  specific 
objective "Continuing progress in impartial investigation and court resolution of high-level corruption 
at local level" is being pursued by the judicial institutions. Regarding the objective of "Developing a 
culture  of  transparency  for  open  government  at  central  and  local  level"  the  Unique  Register  of 
Transparency  of  Interests  -65  which  was  set  up  in  2016  is  being  continued.  It  includes  a  calendar  of 
public  events  and  meetings  for  members  of  the  Government,  as  well  as  a  register  for  companies, 
organisations  and  interests  groups.  The  first  report  of  January  2018  will  be  important  to  review  the 
methodology and check whether the measures planned are effectively implemented. 

At  the  level  of  the  prosecution  offices,  the  results  of  the  fight  against  low-level  corruption    are  as 
follows: 1379 cases were solved and 304 defendants sent to court, while 152 court decisions remained 
final convicting 220 defendants for corruption crimes (for 12 acquittals) in the January-August 2017 
period. 

The  Ministry  of  Justice  obtained  funding  through  the  European  Structural  funds  for  the  project 
"Strengthening  the  Administrative  Capacity  of  the  Technical  Secretariat  of  the  National  Anti-
Corruption  Strategy  2016-2020",  to  support  the  implementation  of    the  anti-corruption  measures.66 
Other projects in amount of about EUR 12 million should start soon. 

Recommendation 12: Ensure that the National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets is fully 
and  effectively  operational  so  that  it  can  issue  a  first  annual  report  with  reliable  statistical 
information  on  confiscation  of  criminal  assets.  The  Agency  should  put  in  place  a  system  to  report 
regularly  on  development  of  administrative  capacity,  results  in  confiscation  and  managing  criminal 
assets. 

Overview of progress 

The January 2017 CVM report noted that the National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets 
(ANABI) has been set up and that the next step was to demonstrate it could function properly, provide 
transparent data on the confiscation of criminal assets and eventually increase the proportion of assets 
effectively recovered. 

The Agency became operational on 27 December 2016. ANABI has its own building, administrative 
departments in charge with financial and human resources, and has a staff of about 25 people, which is 
already half of the planned staff for full operations. The staff has been recruited through competitive 
procedures and detachments from relevant institutions.  Beyond the founding legal instrument for the 
agency, the legal framework for its operations is nearly complete. The proposal to transpose the EU 
Directive 2014/42/EU on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in 

64   www.sna.just.ro 
65   www.ruti.gov.ro 
66   The project includes: Organizing and conducting ‘peer review’ missions within central public institutions and 
authorities;  Developing  and  disseminating  a  general  model  of  good  practices  to  implement  institutional 
transparency and corruption prevention measures in public administration, and which will include working 
tools for their effective implementation at national and local level; Performing an intermediate audit on the 
implementation of NAS 2016-2020; Evaluation of the legislation on the protection of whistleblowers and the 
migration  of  public  sector  employees  to  the  private  sector;  Organizing  two  anti-corruption  conferences; 
Generating an Index type score of institutional integrity for the vulnerable sectors identified in the strategy; 
Carrying  out  2  criminological  studies  and  2  sociological  researches  on  the  phenomenon  of  corruption  in 
Romania;  Public  information  campaign  to  raise  awareness  and  increase  the  level  of  anti-corruption 
knowledge  among  staff  in  central  public  institutions  and  authorities  and  citizens;  Organizing  training 
sessions. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                            
the European Union adopted by the Government in August 2017 will also ensure that ANABI shall be 
the national authority responsible for collecting statistical data and will be able to provide information 
on delays in the enforcement of confiscation orders. 

The  Coordination  Council  overviewing  the  activity  of  the  agency  started  meeting  in  June  2016  and 
includes  representatives  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  the  Ministry of  Finance  and  Ministry of  Interior, 
the  Superior  council  of  the  Magistracy  and  the  prosecution  services.  The  Council  is  now  fully 
operational  and  has  met  four  times  this  year  and  approved  the  first  Annual  Report  of  ANABI.  The 
website  of  ANABI  provides  clear,  up-to-date  and  transparent  information  on  the  activity  of  the 
Agency and the Coordination Council.67 
ANABI published its first annual report in February 2017.68 The report included an inventory of the 
seizures ordered by the Prosecutor’s Offices in 2016 and the sums of money resulting from the selling 
of  confiscated  assets  –  20.536.268  lei.  ANABI  continues  its  close  cooperation  and  complementarity 
with ANAF, responsible for executing the final confiscation orders. According to the law, these sums 
of money should be redistributed to the beneficial institutions for social and public re-use. Part of this 
should be allocated to funding civil society projects69 such as legal education, criminality prevention, 
assistance  to  victims  and  other  projects  of  public  interest.    Because  of  insufficient  administrative 
capacity, the agency was so far unable to launch a call for proposals this year. However preparations 
for a call of proposals in 2018 are ongoing and should be finalized by the end of 2017. The agency 
filed a request for administrative capacity support through EU structural funds. 

Since  March,  the  agency  has  started  carrying  out  its  activities  of  temporarily  storing  and  managing 
seized  movable  assets.    The  agency  finalised  also  a  national  identification  of  storage  lands  and 
buildings for keeping seized movable assets. The agency organised also several sales of seized assets 
though public auctions. 

In June, ANABI's unique bank account became operational. It provides a unique central bank account 
for managing and tracking all sums of money subject to seizure in ongoing investigations and trials, 
the sums of money resulting from sales of perishable goods and from interlocutory sales. According to 
ANABI, the transition of the current decentralized and non-uniform system towards using the unique 
bank account will greatly facilitate the work of the prosecutors and the agency through standardized 
procedure. 

Regarding  the  execution  of  final  court  decisions,  for  2016  and  first  semester  2017,  the  National 
Agency for Fiscal Administration  (ANAF) reported  that the courts transmitted 903  final judgements 
for enforcements and the following amounts of money resulting from the sale of assets confiscated by 
court decisions in criminal matters: 20 million RON for 2016 and 7,7 million RON for the first half of 
2017. 

However,  data  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  execution  of  all  relevant  court  decisions  remains  an  open 
issue.  To  address  this,  ANABI  is  launching  a  registry  which  will  keep  track  of  all  relevant  court 
decisions in relation to confiscation of criminal assets, and will be linked with the execution database 
of  the  fiscal  administration  ANAF.    The  project  will  develop  an  IT  system  which  will  allow  at  a 
central  level  to  monitor  the  stage  of  execution  of  all  relevant  final  court  decisions.  This  will  allow 
ANABI to report on the precise and complete situation over the entire process of asset recovery, and 
inform relevant institutions on problems or delays with the execution. The definition and specification 
of  the  IT  project  are  ongoing.  The  Agency  expects  the  IT  registry  to  be  operational  second  half  of 
2018. In the meanwhile ANABI has requested from the courts, with the help of the Minister of Justice 
and  the  support  of  the  SCM,  an  inventory  of  all  court  relevant  decisions,  which  will  allow  a  first 
analysis of the effective execution of court decisions including confiscation of criminal assets. 

67   anabi.just.ro 
68   6.960 seizures ordered in 1.061 criminal files by 160 Prosecutor’s Offices 
69   According to art.37 of ANABI Law 318/2015 

21 

 
 
                                                            
ANABI reports good cooperation with the judicial institutions,70 including prosecution services such 
as  DNA  and  DIICOT,  which  provide  constructive  feedback  and  support.  ANABI  has  organised 
training  sessions  related  to  best  practices  in  the  investigations  techniques  and  the  use  of  analytical 
software  applications,  and  developed  an  operational  guide  for  practitioners  to  conduct  financial 
investigation in transnational cases with an asset recovery component. Together with the Office of the 
Prosecutor  General,  ANABI  is  also  planning  to  organise  regional  and  national  competitions  for 
prosecutors in asset recovery cases.71 
ANABI also exercises the competence of the Asset Recovery Office.  From January 2017 until the 15th 
of  June,  the  Romanian  Asset  Recovery  Office  dealt  with  86  incoming  requests  and  21  outgoing 
requests.  The  Member  States  most  frequently  requesting  information  were  France,  the  United 
Kingdom, Italy, Germany and Spain and ANABI sent the largest number of requests to Hungary, Italy, 
Austria and France. ANABI also dealt with several international confiscation orders. 

70  A member of the Superior Council of Magistracy sits in the Coordination Council  
71  Part of it will be funded by EU funds   

22