COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Romania, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 724 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report      Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report      The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

Since  accession  to  the  EU  in  2007,  Romanian  reforms  in  the  areas  of  justice  and  anti-
corruption have been followed by the Commission through the Cooperation and Verification 
Mechanism  (CVM),  as  an  important  framework  for  progress  in  these  areas.  The  CVM 
continues in parallel to the rule of law mechanism, of which Romania is an integral part – as 
any other Member State until all benchmarks are satisfactorily met. 

The  Government  is  proposing  reforms  aimed  at  addressing  the  concerns  raised  by  the 
amendments of the justice laws of 2017-2019, which drew criticism for their negative impact 
on independence, quality and efficiency of justice. In a preliminary ruling of 18 May 2021, 
the Court of Justice of the EU has examined several aspects of these reforms and confirmed 
those concerns, in particular in relation to the Section for the Investigation of Offences in the 
Judiciary. A draft law to dismantle this Section is being examined in Parliament. A legislative 
procedure has been initiated to amend the justice laws. Human resources shortages have been 
accentuated by the lack of recruitment of new magistrates, combined with the retirement of a 
significant number of magistrates. These shortages have added more pressure on magistrates, 
with implications for the quality and efficiency of justice. 

The institutional framework to combat corruption is comprehensive, but its effectiveness will 
require sustained political will as committed by the Government. The adoption of a new Anti-
corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 is a key priority. The effectiveness of the investigation and 
sanctioning  of  medium  and  high-level  corruption  has  improved,  confirming  the  previous 
track-record.  The  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  has  achieved  better  results,  though 
the 2017-2019 amendments to the justice laws continue representing a major impediment to 
its good functioning. Amendments to the criminal codes remain necessary. In the absence of 
solid  legislative  and  policy  solutions  to  Constitutional  Court  decisions,  there  are  increased 
obstacles  and  legal  uncertainty  for  the  fight  against  corruption.  Increased  institutional 
cooperation in the context of the elections in 2020 could mark a change of approach on the 
integrity for elected officials. The Agency for the Management of Seized Assets remains fully 
operational and the PREVENT electronic system on conflict of interests is effective. 

Legal safeguards concerning media  freedom and pluralism are in place. However, concerns 
remain  in  relation  to  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  existing  legislative 
framework, particularly  regarding  access  to  information.  The National  Audiovisual Council 
still  lacks  the  resources  to  fully  perform  its  tasks,  and  its  activity  has  been  affected  by  the 
expiry of several mandates of its members. Transparency of media ownership continues to be 
incomplete. Media can be prone to political pressure, especially when their revenues depend 
on state advertising. Lawsuits against investigative journalists for defamation continue to be 
reported.  In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, media received support through funds 
allocated for governmental media campaigns aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19. 

Concerns  remain  on  the  stability  and  predictability  of  legislation,  as  legislation  is  changed 
often and the resulting laws can be contradictory, and on a limited use of impact assessments. 
Following  the  May  2019  referendum,  no  significant  Government  Emergency  Ordinances 
were adopted in the field of justice. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, a state of alert 
is in place, with increased parliamentary scrutiny. Following the ruling of the Court of Justice 
of  the  EU  of  18  May  2021  on  several  aspects  of  the  justice  laws,  the  Constitutional  Court 
gave a judgment on 8 June 2021, which raises serious concerns, as it questions the principle 
of primacy of EU law. The legislation on associations and foundations was amended in 2020 
to lower the bureaucratic burden for NGOs. 

1 

 
The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was established at the accession to the 
European Union in 2007 as a transitional measure to facilitate Romania’s continued efforts to 
reform its judiciary and step up the fight against corruption1. In line with the decision setting 
up the mechanism and as underlined by the Council, the CVM ends when all the benchmarks 
applying to  Romania are satisfactorily met.  In its reports of January 2017, the Commission 
adopted a comprehensive assessment of Romania’s progress over the ten years of the CVM. 
It  also  set  out  a  path  towards  the  conclusion  of  the  Mechanism  based  on  12  final  key 
recommendations that, if complied with, would be sufficient to meet the goals of the CVM, if 
developments were not such as to reverse the course of progress. The November 2018 report 
concluded  that  developments  had  reversed  or  called  into  question  the  irreversibility  of 
progress,  and  that  eight  additional  recommendations  had  to  be  made.  The  Commission’s 
latest  CVM  report,  adopted  in  June  2021,  assessed  progress  on  the  12  recommendations  of 
January  2017  and  the  eight  additional  recommendations  of  November  2018.  That  report 
concluded that since the last CVM report in 2019, the situation within the parameters of the 
CVM  benchmarks  has  seen  a  clear  positive  trend,  and  welcomed  the  fact  that  a  strong 
renewed impetus has been given in 2021 to reform and to repair the backtracking of the 2017-
2019  period.  The  result  is  that  there  is  progress  across  all  the  remaining  CVM 
recommendations and many are on the path to being fulfilled if progress remains steady2. 

I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The Romanian judicial system is structured in four instances, both civil and military: the first 
instance  county  courts,  the  ordinary  and  specialised  tribunals,  the  courts of  appeal3  and  the 
High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice.  The  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  judges  first 
instance and appeal criminal cases for certain categories of persons4, as well as appeal cases 
for certain civil  and  administrative cases. A  fundamental  role of this Court is  to  ensure the 
uniform interpretation and application of the law by the other courts. The Superior Council of 
Magistracy, tasked with guaranteeing judicial independence, is divided into two sections, the 
section for judges and the section for prosecutors. Each section has exclusive competence for 
the  recruitment  and  management  of  the  career  of  judges  and  prosecutors  respectively,  and 
acts as a disciplinary court in disciplinary matters. The prosecution service is headed by the 
Prosecutor General of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation 
and  Justice.  The  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  includes  specialised  structures  with  special 
jurisdiction  and  organisation,  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  (DNA)  and  the 
Directorate for Investigation and Combating Organised Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT), led 
by  chief  prosecutors,  and,  since  2018,  the  Prosecutorial  Section  for  the  Investigation  of 
Offences in the Judiciary (SIIJ)5. There are also military prosecutorial offices. The Prosecutor 
General  and  the  Chief  Prosecutors  of  the  specialised  structures,  DNA  and  DIICOT,  are 

1   Following  the  conclusions  of  the  Council  of  Ministers,  17  October  2006  (13339/06),  the  Mechanism  had 

been established by a Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 (C(2006)928). 

2   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 

Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, COM(2021) 370 final. 

3   Courts of appeal judge at both first instance (more complex cases) and second instance, in appeals against 

decisions handed down by the lower courts. 

4   The  Criminal  Section  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  hears,  as  a  court  of  first  instance,  cases 
involving offences committed by senators, deputies, and Romanian members of the European Parliament, by 
members of the Government, by judges of the Constitutional Court, by members of the Superior Council of 
Magistracy,  by  judges  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice,  and  by  prosecutors  of  the  Prosecutor's 
Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 

5   Prosecutors’ offices attached to the courts of appeal are headed by general prosecutors, and the ones attached 

to the tribunals and county courts are led by first prosecutors. 

2 

 
                                                 
appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  upon  a  proposal  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  and 
after having received a non-binding opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy6. Romania 
participates  in  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office.  The  Romanian  National  Union  of 
Bar Associations is a legal entity of public interest, comprising all 41 bars in Romania. The 
Constitutional  Court  is  responsible  for  the  constitutionality  check  of  laws  and  for  settling 
conflicts of constitutional nature between public authorities. 

Independence  

The  perception  of  judicial  independence  is  average,  having  improved  significantly  as 
compared  to  previous  years  among  the  general  public.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial 
independence  among  the  general  public  is  now  average  (51%),  up  from  37%  in  20207. 
Among  the  companies,  the  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  average  (45%),  a 
decrease  of  8  percentage  points  as  compared  to  20208.  Whereas  the  reason  most  often 
invoked  by  the  general  public  for  the  perceived  lack  of  judicial  independence  remains 
interference  or  pressure  from  the  Government  and  politicians,  the  first  source  of  concern 
among companies is interference or pressure from economic or other specific interests9. 

The 2017-2019 amendments of the justice laws are being reviewed.  The Justice laws, as 
amended between 2017  and 2019, define the status  of magistrates and organise the judicial 
system and the Superior Council of Magistracy10. These laws are central for the independence 
of magistrates and the good functioning of the judiciary. The amendments to the justice laws, 
still in force, had a serious impact on the independence, quality and efficiency of the justice 
system11.  Major  issues  were  identified  in  particular  with  the  creation  of  a  Section  for  the 
Investigation  of  Offences  in  the  Judiciary  (SIIJ),  the  system  of  civil  liability  of  judges  and 
prosecutors, early retirement schemes, entry into profession, and the status and appointment 
of high ranking prosecutors12. As mentioned in the 2020 Rule of Law Report and in the CVM 
2021 Report13, the implementation of the amended laws soon confirmed concerns, and new 
issues  have  emerged  in  the  intervening  years.  With  the  amended  laws  still  in  force,  the 
concerns  related  to  the  adverse  impact  on  the  functioning  of  the  justice  system  remain.  In 
particular,  the  SIIJ  is  still  operational,  and  serious  concerns  regarding  its  functioning 

6   The  chief  prosecutor  of  the  section  to  investigate  crimes  within  the  judiciary  is  appointed  by  a  special 

procedure involving only members of the Superior Council of Magistracy. 

7   Figure  48,  2021  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  categorised  as 
follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); 
low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

8   Figure 50, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
9   Figures 49 and 51, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
10   Law no. 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors, Law no. 304/2004 on judicial organization, and 

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

11   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 
Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism,  COM(2021)  370  final;  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country 
Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 3 noted that the prolonged implementation of the 2018-
2019  justice  laws  creates  increased  and  lasting  uncertainty  for  the  functioning  of  the  justice  system  as  a 
whole, and for individual magistrates with regard to their independence, statute and career in particular. 
12   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 5. Report from the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the Cooperation and 
Verification Mechanism, COM(2021) 370 final. 

13   Ibid., p. 3. 

3 

 
                                                 
remain14, although it has been less active over the last year. On 30 September 2020, the then 
Minister  of  Justice  presented  for  a  six-month  public  consultation  draft  texts  for 
comprehensive  amendment  of  the  justice  laws15.  According  to  the  Minister  of  Justice,  the 
draft  laws  were  elaborated  following  an  analysis  of  the  requirements  of  the  European 
Commission's CVM Report, GRECO reports and Venice Commission's opinions. The stated 
objective of the draft laws is to remedy the negative effects of the 2017-2019 amendments, 
and propose solutions to many issues identified in CVM reports, in particular as concerns the 
dismantling of the SIIJ, increasing the degree of professional independence of prosecutors by 
repealing the legislative provisions as modified in 2018, the civil liability of magistrates, the 
restrictions  on  the  freedom  of  expression  of  magistrates,  and  the  procedures  for  revocation 
and appointments of prosecutors in management positions. In January 2021, the Government 
adopted  a  memorandum  reflecting  the  political  commitment  to  address  all  pending  CVM 
recommendations.  The plans set  out  in  the memorandum  include a draft  law abolishing the 
Section for investigating criminal offences within the judiciary (SIIJ) and amendments to the 
justice  laws,  both  directly  connected  to  CVM  recommendations.  At  the  end  of  the  public 
consultation and following several rounds of debates with the judiciary, on 29 March 2021, 
the current Minister of Justice sent the three draft amended laws to the Superior Council of 
Magistracy for an opinion. The Minister of Justice committed to sending the draft laws to the 
Venice Commission for an opinion, at the same time as these would be sent to the Parliament. 
It is important that these legislative changes safeguard judicial independence, in line with EU 
law and 
important 
development  is  the judgment  of the CJEU of 18 May 2021, which  considered  a number of 
provisions  of  the  justice  laws  in  the  light  of  Articles  2  and  19(1)  TEU  and  of  the  CVM 
decision,  in  particular  as  regards  the  SIIJ  and  the  ad  interim  appointments  to  management 
positions within the Judicial Inspectorate, as well as the personal liability of judges as a result 
of judicial error16. The CJEU also recalled that a Member State cannot amend its legislation, 
particularly as regards the organisation of justice, in such a way as to bring about a reduction 
in the protection of the value of the rule of law17. 

into  account  Council  of  Europe recommendations.  One 

taking 

A  separate  draft  law  aimed  at  dismantling  the  prosecutorial  Section  for  the 
Investigation  of  Offences  in  the  Judiciary  (SIIJ)  is  being  discussed  in  Parliament.  The 
draft  law  was  published  on  the  website  the  Ministry  of  Justice  on  4  February  2021.  On  11 
February  2021,  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  issued  a  negative  opinion  on  the  draft 
law,  arguing  that  additional  guarantees  to  protect  magistrates  from  potentially  abusive 
corruption investigation are needed18. The Government adopted the draft law unchanged on 
18 February and sent the draft to Parliament. On 24 March 2021, the Chamber of Deputies 
adopted  the  draft  law,  but  added  provisions  which  in  its  view  are  necessary  to  protect 
magistrates against abusive corruption investigations proposing that a request for approval of 

14   In particular with regards to the chilling effect on judges and prosecutors (Judgment of the Court of Justice 
of 18 May 2021, Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor Din România’ and Others,  in joined cases C-83/19, C-
127/19, C-195/19, C-294/19, C-355/19 and C-379/19 , para. 219). 

15   See footnote 10. 
16   Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul  Judecătorilor  Din  România’  and 
Others, in joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-294/19, C-355/19 and C-379/19, paras 179-241. 
17   Ibid., para. 162. See also Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 April 2021, Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru, 

Case C-896/19, para. 64. 

18   The SCM states that the proposed solution is not accompanied by guarantees to give effect to the principle of 
judicial independence, by ensuring adequate protection of judges and prosecutors against pressure, and notes 
the  general  obligation  of  the  legislator  to  provide  appropriate  guarantees  to  ensure  actual  judicial 
independence when legislating on the judiciary. 

4 

 
                                                 
sending to court should first pass through the Superior Council of Magistracy for corruption-
related offences19. This proposal was met with strong criticism from civil society, a large part 
of  the  judiciary  as  well  as  from  within  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy20  since  it  was 
considered that it could have the effect of limiting the accountability of magistrates. The draft 
law  is  now  under  discussion  in  the  Senate  as  decisional  chamber.  On  29  March  2021,  the 
Minister  of  Justice  requested  the  Venice  Commission  an  opinion  on  the  draft  law,  and  in 
particular  on  the  additional  guarantees,  to  ensure  consistency  with  Council  of  Europe 
standards.  In  its  opinion  of  5  July  2021,  the  Venice  Commission  welcomes  Romania’s 
intention  to  dismantle  the  SIIJ  and  restore  the  competence  of  the  specialised  prosecutors’ 
offices  such  as  the  DNA  and  DIICOT,  but  recommends  to  remove  the  amendments  of  the 
Chamber of Deputies21. In its judgment of 18 May 2021, in relation to the SIIJ, the Court of 
Justice  ruled  that  the  legislation  creating  such  a  specialised  section  must  be  justified  by 
objective  and  verifiable  requirements  relating  to  the  sound  administration  of  justice,  ensure 
that  that  section  cannot  be  used  as  an  instrument  of  political  control  over  the  activity  of 
judges and prosecutors and that the section exercises its competence in compliance with the 
requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union22. In a judgment 
of 7 June 2021, the Pitești Court of Appeal was the first referring court to apply the ruling of 
the  Court  of  Justice,  declaring  that  the  SIIJ’s  existence  is  not  justified  by  objective  and 
verifiable requirements relating to the sound administration of justice and that it is therefore 
not competent to investigate a case brought before it23. It is important that the ongoing legal 
reform  in  the  sense  of  dismantling  the  SIIJ  and  restoring  the  material  competence  of  the 
specialised prosecutors’ offices for the ongoing cases is  carried out  in  line with  EU law, in 
particular  with  the  ruling  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  EU24,  and  taking  into  account 
European standards.  

The Court of Justice of the EU issued a preliminary ruling regarding the civil liability of 
the judges and prosecutors.  The 2020 Rule of Law Report25 mentioned concerns with the 
regime of civil liability introduced in the 2017-2019 justice laws, in particular as regards the 

19   Under the proposed amendment,  magistrates could only be indicted for offences against the administration 
of justice, corruption offences, abuse of office or offenses assimilated to corruption with the prior approval 
of the Section for Judges or the Section for Prosecutors of the Superior Council of Magistracy. 

20   There  are  diverging  opinions  within  the  SCM  on  abolishing  the  SIIJ,  on  the  need  for  guarantees  and  on 

whether the guarantees proposed by the Chamber of Deputies are appropriate. 

21   The Venice Commission points out that this set of amendments “introduces a new type of inviolability for 
judges and prosecutors  within the framework of a highly sensitive field (criminal prosecution) which goes 
far  beyond  functional  immunity”  and  that  “[c]riminal  proceedings  that  fall  outside  the  remit  of  functional 
immunity should not fall within the competence of the SCM and should be brought directly before the courts 
of law without the SCM’s prior screening”. Venice Commission Opinion (CDL-AD(2021)019), p. 14. 

22   The Court added that practical examples taken from the activities of the SIIJ confirm the materialization of 
the  risk that that section is akin to an instrument of political pressure and exercises its  powers to alter the 
course  of  certain  criminal  investigations  or  judicial  proceedings  concerning,  inter  alia,  acts  of  high-level 
corruption in a manner which raises doubts as to its objectivity (Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 May 
2021,  Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor Din România’ and Others, in joined cases  C-83/19, C-127/19, C-
195/19, C-294/19, C-355/19 and C-379/19 , paras. 219 and 223). 

23   On 23 June 2021, the Judicial Inspection started a disciplinary investigation against the judge of the Pitești 
Court of Appeal who rendered the aforementioned judgment, on the grounds that he committed bad faith or 
gross negligence in the exercise of his duties in relying on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU to 
assess the competence of the prosecution section. 

24   Ibid. 
25   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 3. 

5 

 
                                                 
power assigned to  the Ministry of Finance in  this context26, as the rules entitle the latter to 
assess  whether  a  judicial  error  was  committed  in  bad  faith  or  by  gross  negligence  and, 
subsequently,  to  initiate  recovery  actions  against  judges  for  the  damage  caused  by  their 
judgments.  The  Council  of  Europe  noted  the  potential  chilling  effect  that  this  new  regime 
could have on judges and prosecutors, especially in conjunction with the creation of the new 
Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary27. In its judgment of 18 May 2021, 
the Court of Justice of the EU ruled on the regime of civil liability of judges28, indicating that 
it  must  provide  clearly  and  precisely  the  necessary  guarantees  ensuring  that  neither  the 
investigation nor the action for indemnity may be converted into an instrument of pressure on 
judicial activity29. The new draft justice laws of March 2021 on which the Minister of Justice 
requested the opinion of the SCM propose amendments to the provisions on civil liability of 
judges and prosecutors. It is important that the proposed amendments duly reflect the ruling 
of the Court of Justice of the EU, and take into account the relevant European standards30.  

The  draft  justice  laws  include  changes  to  the  rules  governing  the  appointment  and 
accountability of the Judicial Inspection management. The Court of Justice examined the 
compatibility with  Articles 2 and 19(1) TEU of the power for the Government to  carry out 
interim  appointments  to  management  positions  within  the  Judicial  Inspection,  which  is 
responsible  for  conducting  disciplinary  proceedings  against  judges  and  prosecutors.  In  its 
judgment  of  18  May  2021,  the  Court  found  that,  since  the  persons  occupying  managerial 
positions  within  the  Judicial  Inspection  are  likely  to  exercise  a  decisive  influence  on  the 
latter’s activity, the rules governing their appointment must be designed so that they cannot 
give rise to any legitimate doubt as to the use of the prerogatives and functions of that body 
as  an  instrument  of  pressure  on  judicial  activity  or  of  political  control  of  that  activity31.  In 
recent  years,  judicial  institutions,  including  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  itself, 
highlighted concerns with the lack of accountability of the Judicial Inspection, citing the high 
proportion of cases brought by the Inspection eventually rejected in court, the concentration 
of all decision making with the Chief Inspector32 and the limits to the oversight powers of the 
Superior  Council  of  Magistracy33.  The  new  draft  justice  laws  of  March  2021  on  which  the 

26   See, in particular, Venice Commission Opinion (CDL-AD(2018)017); GRECO Ad hoc Report on Romania 
(Rule  34)  AdHocRep(2018)2);  CCJE,  Opinion  of  the  CCJE  Bureau  following  a  request  by  the  Romanian 
Judges Forum Association as regards the situation on the independence of the judiciary in Romania; CCPE, 
Opinion of the CCPE Bureau following a request by the Romanian Movement for Defending the Status of 
Prosecutors as regards the situation on the independence of prosecutors in Romania. 

27   Venice Commission Opinion (CDL-AD(2018)017), paras. 117 and 164. 
28   Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021, Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor Din România’  and 

Others, in joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-294/19, C-355/19 and C-379/19. 

29   The Court added that the rights of defense of judges should be fully respected and that a court should rule on 
the  personal  liability  of  judges  (Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul 
Judecătorilor Din România’ and Others, in joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-294/19, C-355/19 
and C-379/19, para. 241). 

30   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, paras. 66-71. 
31   The  Court  further  held  that  that  national  legislation  is  likely  to  give  rise  to  such  doubts  where,  even 
temporarily,  it  has  the  effect  of  allowing  the  government  of  the  Member  State  concerned  to  make 
appointments to the management positions of the body responsible for conducting disciplinary investigations 
and  bringing  disciplinary  proceedings  against  judges  and  prosecutors,  by  disregarding  the  ordinary 
appointment  procedure  laid  down  by  national  law  (Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021, 
Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor Din România’ and Others, in joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, 
C-294/19, C-355/19 and C-379/19, para. 207). 

32   The Chief Inspector can only be subject to an external audit which is ordered by the Inspection itself, and 

then the audit report is examined only by a selected handful of members in the Council. 

33   Until 2018, under law 317/2004, both the Chief Inspector and the deputy Chief Inspector were selected by 
the SCM Plenum through by a competition including a written test, an interview and the presentation of the 

6 

 
                                                 
 
Minister of Justice requested the opinion of the SCM, proposes amendments to the provisions 
on  the  appointment  of  the  Chief  and  deputy  Chief  Inspectors,  as  well  as  the  control 
mechanisms regarding the activity of the Judicial Inspection. 

The procedure for appointment of high-ranking prosecutors is  being reviewed as  part 
of the amendments to the justice laws.  As highlighted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report34, 
CVM  reports35  and  several  opinions  of  the  Venice  Commission36,  there  continue  to  be 
concerns  with  the  current  law  regarding  the  balance  between  the  influence  of  different 
institutions on the appointment process and the concentration of power with the Minister of 
Justice.  In  2020,  two  out  of  the  three  high-ranking  prosecutors  were  appointed  despite  a 
negative opinion of the Superior Council of Magistracy37. In the new draft justice laws under 
preparation, the Minister of Justice aims to address these concerns by proposing changes to 
the appointment procedure. In particular, the new draft laws proposes the strengthening of the 
role  of  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy,  by  introducing  the  requirement  of  a  binding 
opinion  of  the  section  for  prosecutors  of  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  on  the 
appointment  proposed,  and  that  the  President  could  reject  the  appointment  any  number  of 
times instead of once, in accordance with recommendations from the Venice Commission38. 

The dismissal procedure of top prosecutors is to be amended following a ruling by the 
European  Court  of  Human  Rights  (ECtHR).  On  5  May  2020,  the  ECtHR  held  that  the 
former chief prosecutor had not been able to effectively challenge in court the reasons for her 
removal  from  the  position39.  In  the  draft  amendments  of  the  justice  laws40,  a  review 
procedure before an administrative court has been added to the procedure for dismissal of top 
prosecutors41. The Government presented its action plan for the execution of the judgment in 

management  project.  Under  the  current  law,  only  the  Chief  Inspector  is  appointed  by  the  SCM  after  an 
interview before a commission with three judges, one prosecutor and one member of civil society. The SCM 
plenum formally appoints the candidate but can only object on the grounds that the rules were not respected. 
The  deputy  Chief  Inspector  and  the  Directors  of  respective  Sections  are  selected  by  the  Chief  Inspector, 
whose powers to organise the inspection have also been increased.  

34   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 5. 
35   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 
Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism,  COM(2021)  370  final.  The  CVM  reports  recommended  to 
relaunch a process to appoint a Chief prosecutor and to respect negative opinions from the Superior Council 
on  appointments  or  dismissals  of  prosecutors  at  managerial  posts,  until  such  time  as  a  new  legislative 
framework is in place in accordance with recommendation 1 from January 2017. 

36   In particular the Venice Commission recommended “to develop an appointment scheme, which would give 
the  Prosecutors’  Section  of  the  SCM  a  key  and  pro-active  role  in  the  process  of  the  appointment  of 
candidates  to  any  top  position  in  the  prosecution  system’.  Venice  Commission  Opinion  (CDL-
AD(2019)014-e), para. 38. 

37   One of these was the Chief prosecutor for the Directorate for investigation of organised crime and terrorism 

(DIICOT). Following her resignation in September 2020, this institution has an ad interim chief. 

38   Venice Commission Opinion (CDL-AD(2018)017), para. 52. 
39   Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 5 May 2020,  Kövesi v. Romania, 3594/19, para 157. 
Romania was found in violation of Articles 6(1) (‘Right to a fair trial’) and 10 (‘Freedom of expression’) of 
the European Convention of Human Rights in the context of the dismissal of the former chief prosecutor of 
the  Anti-Corruption  Directorate.  The  ECtHR  drew  attention  to  the  growing  importance  attached  to  the 
intervention of an authority independent of the executive and the legislature in respect of decisions affecting 
the  appointment  and  dismissal  of  prosecutors.  With  regard  to  the  freedom  of  expression,  the  ECtHR 
underlined  also  that  the  dismissal  could  have  a  chilling  effect,  discouraging  other  prosecutors  and  judges 
from  participating  in  public  debate  on  legislative  reforms  affecting  the  judiciary  and  more  generally  on 
issues concerning the independence of the judiciary. 

40   See footnote 36. 
41   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 

Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, COM(2021) 370 final, p. 9. 

7 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
February  2021,  and  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  assessed  its 
implementation in June 202142.  

Quality  

The deficit of human resources in the justice system remains a concern. As of December 
2020,  almost  10%  of  the  judges’  positions  and  close  to  16%  of  the  prosecutors’  positions 
were still vacant43, which has also an impact on the efficiency of the justice system. Although 
the early retirement scheme for magistrates introduced in 2018, which allowed the possibility 
of retirement after 20 years of service, was repealed by Parliament in March 2021 following 
recommendations from both the Venice Commission and GRECO, close to 300 magistrates 
retired  in  202044  and  close  to  150  during  the  first  quarter  of  202145,  further  increasing  this 
deficit.  The  judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  declaring  unconstitutional  the  provision 
requiring  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  to  approve  the  regulation  on  the  organisation 
and conduct of the competition for admission to the judiciary46 created a legal void, which led 
to no competition to recruit new magistrates being organised in 2020. In order to bridge this 
legislative  gap,  on  22  June  2020,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  submitted  to  public  debate  a  draft 
law  on  the  admission  to  the  National  Institute  of  Magistracy,  which  was  adopted  by  the 
Senate on 3 February 2021. However, upon ex ante referral by a group of parliamentarians, 
the  Constitutional  Court  declared  the  law  in  question  unconstitutional47.  As  a  result,  the 
legislation  in  force  did  not  allow  for  the  organisation  of  competitions  for  admission  to  the 
judiciary, leading to further delays in new recruitments and to an increase in the caseload of 
judges and prosecutors, adding pressure on judges and prosecutors with implications for the 
quality  and  efficiency  of  justice48.    A  new  law,  adopted  by  Parliament  on  28  June  2021, 
addressed  the  abovementioned  legal  void  and  will  allow  competitions  for  admission  to  the 
judiciary  to  take  place  in  2021  and  2022.  By  Decision  of  14  July  2021,  the  Constitutional 
Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of that law which would have decreased from 
ten  to  seven  years  the  seniority  required  for  taking  part  in  the  competitions  for  the 
appointment of DNA and DIICOT prosecutors. 

The Strategic Judicial Management has not been able to operate effectively. It was set up 
in  2017  to  address  major  strategic  questions  for  the  judicial  system,  bringing  together  the 
main  institutions  with  responsibility  for  the  functioning  of  the  judicial  system49.  The  2021 

42   In its decision of 9 June 2021, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe  invited the Romanian 
authorities to keep the Committee duly informed about the developments in the legislative process and any 
changes  which  may  yet  be  brought  to  the  relevant  draft  provisions,  in  particular  those  laying  down  the 
safeguards 
procedure 
(CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-21). 

high-ranking 

prosecutors 

attending 

removal 

and 

the 

the 

for 

43   A slight decrease in relation to 2019 (2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 

of 

in Romania, p. 7). 

44   In  2020,  the  section  for  judges  of  the  SCM  granted  168  requests  for  retirement,  whereas  the  section  for 

prosecutors granted 126 such requests. See old.csm1909.ro/csm/index.php?cmd=0301&tc=s.  

45   During  the  first  three  months  of  2021,  a  total  of  145  magistrates  retired,  including  106  judges  and  39 

prosecutors, showing an ascending trend. 

46   Decision no. 121/2020 of 9 June 2020 regarding the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. 

106 lit. a) and d) of Law no. 303/2004 on the status of judges and prosecutors. 

47   Decision of the Constitutional Court of 17 March 2021. 
48   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of  Ministers of the Council of Europe, para 35: ‘[a] 
sufficient number of judges and appropriately qualified support staff should be allocated to the courts’. 
49   It is composed of the Minister of Justice, the President of the Superior Council of Magistracy, the President 
of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Prosecutor-General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to 
the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 

8 

 
                                                 
CVM Report confirmed earlier findings that the Strategic Judicial Management had not been 
operating  as  intended  and  that  the  action  plan  remained  largely  unimplemented50.  While 
several  meetings  of  the  Strategic  Judicial  Management  took  place  in  late  2019,  and  the 
professional  institutional  cooperation  could  resume,  no  tangible  results  were  achieved.  In 
early  2021,  the  Minister  of  Justice  started  reconvening  meetings,  and  first  discussions  took 
place on the  functioning of the Strategic Judicial  Management  and on the human resources 
strategy for 2021-2022. 

The  Constitutional  Court  declared  that  judgments  in  criminal  matters  must  be 
reasoned  in  fact  and  in  law  at  the  time  of  their  delivery.  Provisions  of  the  Code  of 
Criminal Procedure allowed such judgments to be drawn up no later than 30 days after their 
delivery, which gave rise to situations where a final judgment had to  be executed while the 
convicted  person  was  still  not  aware  of  the  reasons  for  the  sentence.  On  7  April  2021,  the 
Constitutional Court held that the drafting of a criminal judgment subsequent to its delivery 
deprives  the  convicted  person  of  the  right  of  access  to  justice  and  the  right  to  a  fair  trial51. 
This  time  discrepancy  between  decision  and  reasoning  had  already  been  highlighted  as  a 
long-standing issue52. On 12 May 2021, a new law entered into force, which requires that the 
delivery and the publication of the reasoning of a judgment in criminal cases should happen 
at the same time within a given deadline after the end of the hearing. 

Data  show  that,  overall,  there  is  a  good  level  of  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system.  In 
2020,  a  large  amount  of  information  about  the  judicial  system  is  provided  online  for  the 
general  public53.  Digital  technology  such  as  the  electronic  management  case  system,  the 
electronic  case  allocation  and  distance  communication  technology,  is  broadly  used  by 
courts54.  Arrangements  for  producing  machine-readable 
in  civil, 
commercial  and  administrative  cases  are  also  in  place55.  However,  stakeholders  report  that 
improvements are still necessary56. 

judicial  decisions 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  led  to  an  increase  in  the  use  of  digital  tools  in  the  justice 
system.  During  2020,  the  number  of  videoconferencing  systems  in  courts  increased,  which 
led  to  a  higher  number  of  videoconference  hearings57.  However,  stakeholders  report  that 
remote hearings  remain  limited, as judges still favour holding the hearings in  person  rather 
than  by  videoconferencing58.  In  September  2020,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  announced  a  draft 

50   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 

Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, COM(2021) 370 final, p. 13-14. 

51   See Constitutional Court of Romania, Decision no. 233 of 7 April 2021. The National Bar Union has raised 

the delay in motivations as a major issue.  

52   COM(2017) 33 and Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in 
Romania under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism (SWD(2017) 25), p.20 “The time discrepancy 
between  the  decision  and  the  motivation  can  also  impact  negatively  on  the  coherence  and  the  quality  of 
decisions, and can fuel speculation about the reasons for the decision and distrust or criticism of the judicial 
institutions.” A remaining CVM recommendation recommends that the Strategic judicial Management finds 
solutions to delays in motivation of decisions; Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and 
the  Council on Progress in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, COM(2021) 370 
final, p. 13. 

53   Figure 38, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
54   Figure 40, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
55   Figure 46, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
56   Contribution from Funky Citizens for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 13; Contribution from Expert Forum 

for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 2. 

57   Input from Romania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 19. 
58   Contribution from APADOR – Helsinki Committee for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 9. 

9 

 
                                                 
law  regarding  remote  justice  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  that  would  extend  the 
possibility to hold videoconference hearings59. In criminal matters, the draft law provides the 
possibility  for  persons  deprived  of  liberty60  to  be  heard  by  videoconference  at  the  place  of 
detention without their consent, if the court considers that this means is without prejudice to 
the proper conduct of the proceedings and to the rights and interests of the parties. The draft 
law also provides for the possibility for persons, other than those deprived of their liberty, to 
be  heard  by  videoconference,  but  only  with  their  consent.  The  draft  law  was  adopted  by 
Parliament on 28 April 202161.  

Efficiency 

The  overall  efficiency  in  civil,  administrative  and  commercial  cases  remains  stable.  In 
2019, the length of proceedings at first instance courts in civil and commercial cases slightly 
decreased  in  comparison  to  201862,  while  it  somewhat  increased  for  administrative  cases63. 
The  clearance  rate  for  resolving  civil,  commercial,  administrative  at  first  instance  cases 
decreased to some extent64 and is now at 100%. The length of proceedings regarding specific 
areas  of  EU  law  remains  low65,  except  for  money  laundering  cases,  where  it  considerably 
increased66.  The  challenges  in  terms  of  workload  are  however  uneven  among  courts.  For 
instance,  lower  courts  in  civil  matters  have  reported  a  particularly  high  caseload67,  and  the 
suspension of the activity of the courts during the state of emergency worsened the situation. 
Romania remains under enhanced supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council 
of  Europe  concerning  the  execution  of  measures  to  address  the  excessive  length  of 
proceedings following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights68. The Committee 
of  Ministers  has  noted  that  the  reform  of  the  civil  and  criminal  procedure  was,  by  all 
accounts, successfully completed, but an impact assessment still has to be made to evaluate 
the effect of those measures. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

is 

in  place  since  2016  and  coordination  of 

Romania  has  a  legislative  and  institutional  anti-corruption  framework  broadly  in  place.  A 
National  Anticorruption  Strategy 
its 
implementation  is  ensured  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice.  The  institutional  anti-corruption 
framework  remained  unchanged.  The  specialised  anti-corruption  prosecution,  the  National 
Anti-corruption Directorate (DNA) has the competence to investigate medium and high-level 
corruption cases, while the Prosecutor General’s office investigates all other corruption cases. 
DNA also investigates offences committed against the financial interests of the EU, as well as 
certain categories of serious offences of economical-financial criminality. A specialised anti-
corruption  directorate  exists  in  the  Ministry  of  Interior  (DGA),  competent  for  integrity  and 

59   See Ministry of Justice, Draft law on some measures in the field of justice in the context of the COVID-19 

pandemic. 

60   Pre-trial detention, serving a custodial sentence or an educational measure of deprivation of liberty. 
61   Law no. 114/2021 on measures in the field of justice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
62   Figure 6, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
63   Figure 8, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
64   Figure 10, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
65   Figures 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
66   Figure 21, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
67   Information received in the context of the country visit to Romania. 
68   As regards for instance the execution of the judgment of 26 November 2013,  Vlad v. Romania (application 
No. 40756/06), a leading case regarding excessive length  of civil and criminal proceedings and lack of an 
effective remedy. 

10 

 
                                                 
corruption  issues  within  the  staff  employed  by  the  Ministry,  including  the  police.  The 
National Integrity Agency (ANI) carries out administrative investigations regarding conflicts 
of  interests,  incompatibilities  and  unjustified  wealth,  and  is  responsible  for  the  monitoring 
and  verification  of  declarations  of  assets,  including  of  all  elected  officials.  The  National 
Agency  for  the  Management  of  Seized  Assets  (ANABI)  ensures  the  management  of  seized 
and confiscated criminal assets and facilitates the tracing and identification of proceeds. 

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the public sector remains high. In the 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency 
International,  Romania  scores  44/100  and  ranks  19th  in  the  European  Union  and  69th 
globally69. This perception has been relatively stable70 over the past five years71. 

Adoption of a new National Anti-corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 is a priority for the 
Government. Progress on the National Anti-Corruption Strategy is a key national priority on 
the  political  agenda  of  the  Government.  The  2016-2020  National  Anticorruption  Strategy 
came  to  an  end  in  2020.  An  internal  evaluation  and  an  external  audit,  performed  by  the 
OECD,  are  currently  ongoing,  in  view  to  inform  the  preparation  of  the  new  National  Anti-
Corruption Strategy (2021-2025). The Ministry of Justice, coordinating the Strategy, reports 
that  it  achieved  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  2016-2020  strategy  in  many  of  the 
participating administrations and public bodies, although it has been uneven, in particular in 
high  risk  areas  such  as  health,  education  or  public  procurement.  The  progress  included 
improved  procedures  to  deal  with  sensitive  issues,  a  significant  decrease  of  integrity 
incidents,  increased  transparency  and  an  improved  service  to  citizens,  including  through 
digitalisation. Key features of this strategy are considered best practice among participating 
institutions  and  will  be  carried  forward  into  the  next  strategy,  notably  the  peer-review 
monitoring  mechanism  and  the  participatory  decision-making  process  through  five  anti-
corruption  platforms  (regrouping  stakeholders).  The  Ministry  of  Justice  has  nevertheless 
pointed out that next to the dedicated implementation, the effectiveness of the strategy relies 
in particular on the political will to give impetus for the implementation of the measures in all 
participating administrations and public institutions, including at local level. The evaluations 
are being finalised, and the Ministry of Justice organised a public consultation with the five 
anti-corruption  platforms  regrouping  stakeholders  on  the  new  Strategy,  and  expects  to 
propose the adoption of the new national Anti-corruption Strategy by the end of 2021.  

The  effectiveness  of  the  investigation  and  sanctioning  of  medium  and  high-level 
corruption has improved. The appointment of a new Chief Prosecutor of the National Anti-
corruption Directorate and of further staff in management positions in 2020 has brought new 
impetus and institutional stability. This has led to increasing the quality of the investigations 
and  the  files  brought  to  court.  In  2020,  DNA  achieved  better  results  than  in  2019,  with  an 

69   Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2020, pp. 2-3. The level of perceived corruption is 
categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public  sector 
corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-50), 
high (scores below 50). 

70   In 2015 the score was 46, while, in 2020, the score is 44. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

71   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

11 

 
                                                 
increase  in  the  number  of  high-level  indictments  and  a  reduction  in  the  backlog  of  cases72. 
There  was  also  progress  at  the  level  of  the  courts  with  an  increase  in  court  decisions73.  In 
2020, the number of complaints from citizens and ex-officio complaints on alleged corruption 
deeds have increased marking a change of the decreasing trend since 2015. The DNA sees it 
as a sign of renewed confidence from the public in this institution and role, which had been 
seriously  affected  by  the  attacks  it  suffered  in  the  2017-2019  period.  The  communication 
policy  of  the  DNA  was  also  changed  in  2020,  so  that  names  of  the  suspects  are  no  longer 
mentioned  in  press  releases  when  investigations  are  opened,  limiting  public  exposure  for 
suspects.  

The 2017-2019 amendments to the justice laws represented a major impediment for the 
good functioning of the DNA, which will continue for as long as they are in force74. The 
general  problems  faced  by  the  judicial  system  have  been  particularly  difficult  for  DNA75. 
DNA has faced a human resources deficit76, adding more pressure on prosecutors at  a time 
when DNA faced the extra challenge of developing its own technical capacity to implement 
court  orders  using  special  investigation  techniques77.  In  addition,  the  effective  treatment  of 
some  high-level  corruption  cases  continues  to  be  adversely  affected  by  the  Section  to 
Investigate  Offences  within  the  Judiciary  (SIIJ),  which  continues  to  intervene  in  ongoing 
high-level corruption files investigated by the DNA. The problematic practice of withdrawal 
of appeals in high-level corruption cases was stopped after the Constitutional Court ruled in 
July  2020  that  the  transfer  of  appeals  to  the  SIIJ  was  unconstitutional78.  There  is  also  an 
increased  risk  of  impunity  in  high-level  corruption  files  that  the  SIIJ  deals  with,  notably 
because of its slow handling of cases79. The SIIJ handling of complaints against prosecutors 
from  persons  convicted  for  corruption  has  also  been  seen  as  putting  pressure  on  DNA 
prosecutors. The ongoing amendments of the justice laws, including to abolish the SIIJ, will 
be important steps to ensure that the good functioning of the DNA be sustainable. 

Continued  uncertainty  as  regards  amendments  to  the  criminal  code  and  criminal 
procedure  code  remains  an  important  challenge  in  the  fight  against  corruption.  As 

72   National  Anti-corruption  Directorate  (DNA),  2020  Activity  Report.  In  2020,  the  files  mainly  dealt  with 
public  procurement,  bribery,  EU  funds  fraud.  DNA  also  registered  105  files  of  corruption  in  relation  to 
combatting the COVID-19 pandemic. 

73   The increase reflects the results of all courts dealing with DNA cases. For 2020, the High Court of cassation 
and Justice reports that less cases have been solved, that a number of cases are suspended, and that less cases 
have been registered. DNA also reports a lower proportion of acquittals in 2020, though the number in 2019 
was inflated due to the decriminalisation of offences. 

74   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 10-11. 
75   General  issues  regarding  human  resources  for  the  judiciary  also  affecting  DNA  include  restrictions  to 
delegations,  important  number  of  retirements.  Specific  issues  for  DNA  include  that  the  seniority 
requirements  for  working  in  the  DNA  abruptly  changed  to  10  years,  and  the  oral  examination  for  non-
management posts before the SCM is broadcast (contrary to other prosecution departments), which acts as a 
deterrent for candidates. The seniority requirement for heads of section is 15 years. 

76   In March 2021, DNA reports that only 75% of posts were filled (131 nominated and 14 delegated out of 145 
positions),  and  that  2  leadership  positions  were  vacant.  On  9  June  2021,  a  call  for  applications  for  42 
positions of prosecutors both in the central office and in the territorial ones has been launched by DNA. 

77   A Government Decision supplemented the DNA with 90 police officers.  
78   Decision of the Constitutional Court of 7 July 2020. 
79   SIIJ Activity Report: The efficiency of the SIIJ is another concern with 6600 cases pending and few cases 
finalized in 2020 (500 closed and 2 sent to court). The low efficiency is an additional risk factor of impunity 
in high-level corruption cases. 

12 

 
                                                 
highlighted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report and in the 2021 CVM report80, another important 
challenge in the fight against corruption is the absence of policy  and legislative solutions to 
the rapid succession of far reaching Constitutional Court decisions annulling or interpreting 
provisions  of  the  criminal  code  and  criminal  procedure  code  since  201481.  Amendments  to 
the criminal code and criminal procedure code  remain necessary82. This situation has led to 
increased  obstacles  and  legal  uncertainty  regarding  the  investigation,  prosecution  and 
sanctioning  of  high-level  corruption  cases83.  This  has  led  to  cases  failing  in  court,  legal 
uncertainty  on  the  admissibility  of  evidence,  as  well  as  to  the  restart  of  investigations  or 
trials84. The impact on ongoing high-level corruption cases of the Constitutional Court rulings 
regarding  the  compositions  of  the  three-judges  panels  for  high-level  corruption  cases  and 
five-judges final appeal panels at the High Court of Cassation and Justice has yet to unfold85. 
In its recent judgment, the Court of Justice of the EU held that the principle of primacy of EU 
law precludes national legislation with constitutional status, which deprives a lower court of 
the  right  to  disapply  of  its  own  motion  a  national  provision  falling  within  the  scope  of  the 
CVM framework and which is contrary to EU law. Where it is proved that the EU Treaty or 
the CVM Decision has been infringed, the principle of the primacy of EU law will require the 
referring  court  to  disapply  the  provisions  at  issue,  whether  they  are  of  a  legislative  or 
constitutional  origin86.  An  important  policy  step  was  taken  in  February  2021  when  the 
Parliament definitely rejected problematic amendments to the codes put forward during 2018-
2019 which were found unconstitutional in their entirety by the Constitutional Court.  

The Chamber of Deputies has set criteria to decide on requests for lifting parliamentary 
immunities  but  the  Senate  has  not  yet  followed  through.  In  June  2019,  the  Chamber  of 
Deputies amended its rules of procedure and made specific reference to the criteria set out in 
the Venice Commission’s report on the purpose and waiver of parliamentary immunity87. The 
Senate has not adopted such rules yet.  

80   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 

Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (COM(2021) 370 final). 

81   Ibid. 
82   Ibid., p. 10. 
83   DNA estimates that in 2020, at least 45 suspects were acquitted as a consequence of the Constitutional Court 

decisions.  

84   A  recent  CCR  Decision  of  6  April  2021  further  impacts  at  least  67  ongoing  DNA  investigations,  as 

investigations will need to be restarted. 

85   Although the decisions of the Constitutional Court do not apply to past cases where a final judgement has 
been rendered, they can have consequences for ongoing cases. The 5-judges panel decision has allowed for 
extraordinary appeals of final cases in certain conditions, while the 3-judges panel decision could entail the 
restart of trial with a new designated panel. DNA reports that 8 cases involving 41 defendants are currently 
suspended at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, that 10 cases involving 107 defendants have restarted 
at  first  instance,  and  5  cases  with  90  defendants  are  restarted  from  the  preliminary  chamber.  Preliminary 
ruling requests are pending at the Court of Justice. 

86   Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul  Judecătorilor  Din  România’  and 
Others, in joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-294/19, C-355/19 and C-379/19, paras 251-252. 
87   Venice  Commission  Opinion  (CDL-AD(2014)011).  This  follows  CVM  and  GRECO  recommendations.  In 
its report of March 2021, GRECO notes that an informal requirement for prosecutorial bodies to submit  the 
whole  file  when  prosecuting  a  minister  or  a  former  minister  who  is  also  a  Member  of  Parliament  has 
apparently  been  lifted.  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  interim  compliance  report  including 
Follow-up to the ad hoc (rule 34) Report. 

13 

 
                                                 
The National Integrity Agency (ANI) continues to investigate incompatibilities, conflicts 
of interest and unjustified wealth88. ANI’s work should also be facilitated by a July 2020 
amendment  allowing  for  electronic  submissions  of  assets  and  interest  disclosures89,  which 
became operational in May 2021. ANI reports that its 2020 budget was sufficient to carry out 
its tasks, as the initially reduced budget was supplemented later in the year90. ANI faces some 
uncertainty  over  its  leadership  positions.  The  position  of  President  has  been  vacant  since 
December  2019  and  the  mandate  of  the  Vice-President  expires  later  this  year91.  Selection 
procedures were eventually initiated in April 2021.  

The  legal  framework  on  integrity  remains  fragmented.  The  2020  Rule  of  Law  report 
highlighted  continued  challenges  to  the  legal  framework  for  integrity  and  the  need  for 
stability,  clarity  and  a  robust  framework.  A  series  of  amendments  modifying  the  integrity 
laws, notably in 2017-2019, had the effect of weakening the ability of the ANI to carry out its 
work,  as  well  as  exacerbating  an  already  fragmented  legal  landscape.  In  particular,  two 
proposals  that  entered  into  force  in  2019  further  increased  legal  uncertainty  as  regards  the 
applicable  integrity  regime  and  the  application  of  sanctions92.  In  2020  and  2021,  the  High 
Court of Cassation and Justice clarified the interpretation of the law. The Court ruled that the 
sanction  applies,  even  if  the  incompatibility  concerns  a  previous  mandate,  and  that  a 
limitation period of three years should refer to the need for ANI to finalise an investigation 
within three years of the facts that determine the existence of a state of conflict of interest or 
incompatibility  (rather  than  that  the  sanction  does  not  apply  after  three  years)93.  ANI  has 
welcomed  these  decisions,  which  restore  clarity  and  certainty  in  the  possibility  to  impose 
sanctions  after  a  final  court  decision.  A  consolidation  of  the  laws  on  integrity, 
incompatibilities  and  conflicts  of  interest  would  allow  case-law  and  corruption  prevention 
policies to be taken into account and provide a stable basis for the future.  

During  local  and  national  elections  in  2020,  ANI  increased  its  awareness-raising  on 
integrity rules for candidates and has shared information with the relevant authorities 
on  candidates  who  are  under  interdiction  to  hold  a  public  office.  Before  the  local 
elections of 20 September 2020, ANI reached out to central and local electoral authorities to 
inform on candidates who could be under a ban to hold a public office following a sanction 
for incompatibility or conflict  of interests in  the  previous mandate94. Furthermore,  after the 

88   In  2020,  the  National  Integrity  Agency  finalised  1.143  cases  and  175  cases  have  remained  definitive  and 
irrevocable. The same year, 204 administrative fines were applied, for failure to submit assets and interest 
disclosures  in  legal  terms,  for  non-disciplinary  sanctions  applied  after  the  ascertaining  act  remained  final, 
and for failure to comply with the legal provisions. 

89   Amendment to the Law no. 176/2010 regarding integrity in exercising the public offices and dignities. From 

2022 onwards, electronic submission will be compulsory.  

90   Initial budget was 34.802.000 RON, while the final budget was 37.432.000 RON.  
91   No competition was organized in 2020 as the National Integrity Council (CNI), the body that supervises the 
activity  of  ANI  and  has  the  competence  to  organise  the  competition  for  selecting  the  president  and  vice-
president, could not reach a quorum The Senate had not nominated new members since 2018. Eventually, in 
March 2020, the Senate nominated 10 members of the CNI and the first meeting took place immediately. 
92   The first amendment set a prescription deadline of three years from the facts that determine the existence of 
a state of conflict of interest or incompatibility, and resulted in the closure of a high number of ongoing cases 
and doubts on the possibility to impose sanctions. The second amendment introduced a lowered sanctioning 
regime  regarding  conflict  of  interests  for  local  elected  officials,  which  ANI  considered  does  not  allow  for 
dissuasive sanctions. 

93   Decisions 74/2020 of 16 November 2020 and HCCJ Decision 1/2021 of 18 January 2021. 
94   Over  500  persons  were  concerned  by  an  interdiction;  National  Integrity  Agency  (ANI),  Communicate  on 
prevention  and  consignation  measures  adopted  by  the  National  Integrity  Agency  in  the  context  of  the 
organisation of local elections 2020.  

14 

 
                                                 
elections, ANI sent to the Courts, who have the competence to validate the mandates of the 
newly elected officials, a nominal list of candidates under the interdiction to occupy a public 
office for three years. While a number of candidates were prevented from running for office, 
and others have been denied office, the courts ruled in about half of the candidates who were 
under interdiction that they are allowed to hold the elected office95. As regards the national 
elections, as part of the validation process following the elections, the Validation Committee 
of  the  Romanian  Senate  asked  ANI  to  communicate  definitive  and  irrevocable  decisions 
issued by  Courts regarding incompatibilities or conflict  of interests of the elected Senators. 
ANI found that none of the elected Senators were under the interdiction to occupy an office. 
The Chamber of Deputies has requested ANI’s point of view regarding the disclosure made 
by a series of deputies, with respect to their potential incompatibilities96. 

The PREVENT electronic system to prevent conflicts of interests in public procurement 
is effective, as the number of detected conflicts of interest has significantly reduced.  In 
2020,  the  PREVENT  system  analysed  19  140  procurement  procedures,  in  order  to  identify 
possible conflicts of interest.  In 2020, the integrity inspectors issued ten integrity warnings, 
amounting to approximately EUR 11.1 million. During the State of Emergency in the context 
of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  public  authorities  and  legal  entities,  in  which  the  state  is  the 
major  shareholder,  were  allowed  to  make  direct  purchases  of  materials  and  equipment  to 
combat the pandemic, without publishing into the Public Procurement Electronic System) and 
exceeding the value threshold (which is around EUR 27,000) for publication in the electronic 
system.  This  meant  that  these  direct  purchases  were  not  run  through  the  electronic  system, 
and  thus  have  not  been  scrutinized  by  the  PREVENT  System.  To  address  the  issue  of 
scrutinizing  the  procedures  carried  out  through  direct  procurement,  ANI  has  developed  a 
mechanism meant to analyse, based on information available from public sources, data  sets 
on these procedures. The goal of this mechanism is to identify consumed conflicts of interest 
in  these  procurement  procedures  that  bypassed  PREVENT  scrutiny.  By  the  end  of  January 
2021,  with  the  help  of  a  risk  matrix,  ANI  has  verified  580  direct  procurement  procedures 
carried  out  in  the  first  semester  of  2020  and  has  identified  64  potential  integrity  incidents 
(11%  of  the  procedures),  which  will  be  further  analysed  and  the  ex-officio  procedure  of 
evaluating these cases could be triggered. 

The  National  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Seized  Assets  (ANABI)  remains  fully 
operational.  The  mission  of  ANABI  is  to  ensure  an  effective  execution  rate  of  the 
confiscation  orders  issued  in  criminal  matters  through  an  efficient  management  of  seized 
assets that are distributed to the Agency by prosecutors and judges. In 2021, ANABI entered 
into  its  fifth  year  of  activity  and  is  further  developing  its  activity.  Based  on  the  lessons 
learned,  the  Agency  with  support  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  opened  a  public  debate  to 
promote a National Strategy for Strengthening the Asset Recovery System. This strategy and 
action  plan  covers  2021-2025  and  includes  objectives  regarding  increased  capacities  for 
tracing assets both nationally and internationally, enhanced cooperation mechanisms among 
all  stakeholders  involved,  as  well  as  provisions  regarding  setting  up  a  National  Fund  for 

95   From the total of 103 candidates to the local elections under interdiction: 65 candidates have been elected, 
according to information available from official sources: 15 elected officials have been  denied to hold the 
elected office, while 49 elected officials have been allowed to hold the elected office. 

96   The  Statute  of  Deputies  and  Senators  stipulates  that  a  Member  of  Parliament  has  a  term  of  15  days  to 
disclose their state of incompatibility and another 30 days to resign from one of the offices that generated the 
incompatibility. 

15 

 
                                                 
Crime Prevention. This fund shall support measures for victim protection, crime prevention 
and education97. 

Limited provisions on revolving doors exist for public servants in Law 161/200360 and 
in  the  successive  National  Anticorruption  Strategies.  The  public  servants  who,  in 
exercising their function, have carried out monitoring and control activities over State Owned 
Enterprises  (SOE),  cannot  be  employed  or  provide  specialised  consultancy  to  these 
companies for three years after leaving the public service. However, there are no regulations 
concerning cooling-off periods for key decision-makers.  

The  enforcement  of  Code  of  conduct  and  the  absence  of  rules  on  lobbying  for 
parliamentarians  remain  a  challenge.  As  regards  codes  of  conduct  for  members  of  the 
Parliament, the lack of enforcement of the rules has been recently highlighted by GRECO, as 
well  as  the  lack  of  rules  on  how  members  of  Parliament  engage  with  lobbyists,  along  with 
clearly defined restrictions concerning gifts, hospitality, favours and other benefits98. In order 
to compensate for the disparate legal regime concerning revolving doors, a model procedure, 
which can be applied by all relevant public institutions, was developed in the framework of 
an EU-funded project99. 

In Romania,  there has been a law on whistleblower protection  since 2004, however its 
implementation in practice is relatively limited. The Ministry of Justice announced at the 
end of 2020 that a draft of the law transposing the directive on whistleblowers’ protection is 
being prepared. On 5 March, 2021, the draft law and its explanatory memorandum have been 
submitted to public debate on the Ministry of Justice website. 

Despite  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  prosecution  of  corruption  remained  effective.  The 
general prosecution services and the DNA were particularly attentive to  possible corruption 
related  problems  with  regard  to  public  procurement  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  The 
patterns  identified  in  DNA  concern  cases  on  the  breach  of  public  tendering  rules,  bribery 
offered  to  public  officials  involved  in  tendering  procedures,  as  well  as  purchase  of 
counterfeited products. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

The right to freedom of expression as well as the right of access to any information of public 
interest is enshrined in the Constitution. The mission and composition of the media regulator 

97   Similar  provisions  were  in  place  before  December  2018  but  were  repealed  via  Emergency  Ordinance  no 
114/2018. The action plan attached to the strategy includes legislative measures for expanding the Agency’s 
mandate as well as provisions for new tools necessary for police and prosecutors in order to better conduct 
financial investigations. These measures are backed with an investment plan for new storage capacities for 
judiciary and ANABI as well as training programs and transparency measures. The legislative package for 
implementing the main provisions of the Strategy is expected to be presented publicly in the second half of 
2021. 

98   GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  interim  compliance  report  including  Follow-up  to  the  ad  hoc 

(rule 34) Report. 

99   This  model  was  uploaded  on  the  website  of  the  National  Anticorruption  Strategy  on  18  March  2021. The 

implementation of this model by the public institutions will be assessed in 2022. 

16 

 
                                                 
are set out in the Audiovisual Law. The authorities are considering changes to this law in the 
context of the transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive100.  

Concerns  about  the  functioning  and  budget  for  the  National  Audiovisual  Council 
persist101.  The  National  Audiovisual  Council  (CNA)  is  the  authority  tasked  to  safeguard 
public  interest  in  the  field  of  audiovisual  programmes,  and  is  established  by  law  as 
autonomous public authority under parliamentary control. The activity of the CNA has been 
interrupted  from  February  2021,  when  the  mandates  of  four  out  of  eleven  members 
expired102, until the 11th of May, when the new members were voted by the Parliament103. It 
appears that the budgetary issues, referred to  in  the 2020 Rule of Law Report, persist104. A 
draft  law  transposing  the  Directive  (EU)  2018/1808  on  Audiovisual  Media  Services,  which 
requires adequate financial and budgetary resources, was published for public consultation in 
March 2021. The draft law foresees that the authority should have the necessary budget.  

The lack of specific safeguards for editorial independence and editorial norms continue 
to raise concerns. In terms of self-regulation in the press sector, no changes occurred since 
the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  where  concerns  were  raised  about  the  lack  of  specific 
safeguards  for  editorial  independence  and  professional  norms,  either  through  legislation  or 
self-regulation.  The  COVID-19  pandemic  worsened  the  economic  situation  of  already 
struggling  print  and  local  press105,  and  made  the  enforcing  of  standards  of  quality  a  low 
priority106.  The  MPM  2021  indicates  as  a  major  ongoing  problem  “the  precarity  and  poor 
working  conditions  of  journalists”  and  assesses  commercial  and  owner  influence  over 
editorial content as a very high risk area107.  

Transparency  of  media  ownership  continues  to  be  incomplete108.  As  mentioned  in  the 
2020 Rule of Law report, the Audiovisual Law provides that the Council shall be required to 
ensure the transparency of the organisation, functioning and financing of the mass media in 
audiovisual  sector.  No  media  specific  rules  apply  to  print  and  digital,  which  are  subject  to 
general rules governing transparency of ownership included in the company law. The MPM 
furthermore  reports  the  existence  of  loopholes109.  In  addition,  data  protection  rules  are 
invoked  to  avoid  making  public  certain  media  ownership  information  that  has  previously 
been  disclosed  by  CNA110.  The  news  media  concentration  is  reported  in  the  MPM  2021 as 

100  Romania is at the 48th place worldwide in the World Press Freedom Index and at the 21st place in the EU. 
Over  the  last  years,  the  situation  is  relatively  unchanged,  its  ranking  varying  between  44th  and  49th  place 
since 2016. 

101  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 13. 
102   In  a  public  statement  of  10  February  2021  it  is  announced  that  the  public  séances  of  the  Council  will  be 
resumed  after  the  nomination  of  members  by  the  Parliament  for  the  four  vacant  mandates;  see  National 
Audiovisual Council (CNA), Press briefing on CNA public meetings, 10 February 2021. 

103  Pagina de media, “Official. Parliament voted for new CNA members: Mircea Toma, one of them”, 11 May 

2021. 

104   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Romania.  The  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor, 

country report for Romania, p. 13, also notes that CNA has limited funding. 

105  The Center for Independent Journalism (2020), Fundamental Rights under Siege 2020, p. 18.  
106  Information received in the context of the country visit to Romania.  
107  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  country  report  for  Romania,  p.  15;  see  also  Reporters  without  Borders  – 

Romania. 

108  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 14. 
109  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, p. 14, mentioned as an example that “a digital 
media  company  can  be  owned  by  another  company  that  is  in  turn  owned  by  an  entity  abroad  with 
undisclosed owners)”. 

110  Reporters without Borders – Romania.  

17 

 
                                                 
being high, especially in the print news market sector, which is very small in terms of both 
demand and number of titles111. 

State advertising continues to be an important source of financing for the media sector. 
The  decrease  in  commercial  advertising  has  resulted  in  revenue  losses  for  media  houses, 
while contracts for state advertising appear to raise concerns as regards editorial autonomy112. 
Stakeholders report further concerns about the allocation of funds, and mention for instance 
advertising  contracts  for  events  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  when  presumably  such 
events could not take place113.  

State  information  campaign  funds  have  been  an  important  means  of  support  to  the 
media  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  Emergency  Ordinance  No.  63  of  7  May 
2020114 allocated approximately EUR 50 million for governmental media campaigns aimed at 
the prevention of the spread of COVID-19. The majority of the budget (53%) was reserved 
by law for TV campaigns. In total 364 applicants benefitted from the scheme115. The scheme 
received  criticism  from  some  media  outlets  and  other  stakeholders  that  considered  the 
application criteria to favour large media and be conducive to clickbait. They also pointed to 
the risk of citizens’ decreasing trust in media as well as risks of political pressure and self-
censorship116. 

Concerns  remain  regarding  the  implementation  of  the  legal  framework  for  access  to 
information. The law117 guarantees the access of mass media to public interest information, 
including  through  press  conferences  that  have  to  be  regularly  organised  by  public 
authorities118.  However,  lack  of  access  to  information  continues  to  be  indicated  as  an 
important challenge for journalists. The issues that continue to be reported, also in the context 
of the COVID-19 pandemic, include delays or refusals to provide information, lack of press 
conferences119 and use of data protection rules to limit access to information120. Furthermore, 
where  the  decisions  of  authorities  refusing  to  provide  information  are  challenged  in  court, 

111  The 2021Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, p. 14, notes that the print news  market is 
very small in readership and titles, and that it is characterised by “virtually 100% concentration of the top 
four titles”. It furthermore indicates that “the digital news market is highly fragmented (37% concentration), 
while concentration is more moderate in television and radio, where the top four owners command 65% and 
59%  of  the  audience  respectively”.  The  MPM  warns  that  lack  of  data  continues  to  be  an  obstacle  for 
assessing market shares in the online environment, noting however that most Romanians still use television 
as their main source of news. 

112   The Center for Independent Journalism (2020), Fundamental Rights under Siege, pp. 17-18. 
113  Ibid., p. 19. 
114   Emergency  Ordinance  for  organizing  and  conducting  public  information  campaigns  in  the  context  of  the 

epidemiological situation caused by the spread of COVID-19, no. 63 of 7 May 2020. 

115  Information published by the General Secretariat of Government on 6 July 2020 (https://sgg.gov.ro/new/06-

07-2020-anunt/). 

116  The Center for Independent Journalism (2020), Fundamental Rights under Siege, p. 21; Contribution from 
Funky Citizens for the 2021 Rule of Law Report and Contribution from Expert Forum for the 2021 Rule of 
Law  Report;  Dumitrita  Holdis  (2020),  ReportIt:  When  state  funding  discredits  the  press  –  The  Romanian 
media is facing a financial and moral dilemma. 

117  Law on Access to information, no 544/2001, Article 17. 
118  Decree instituting the state of emergency in the territory of Romania, no. 195 of 16 March 2020. 
119  The Center for Independent Journalism (2020), Fundamental Rights under Siege, p. 10; Liberties (2021) EU 
2020:  Demanding  on  Democracy;  Contribution  from  Funky  Citizens  to  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report; 
difficulties to obtain information on spokespersons where also mentioned during country visits. 

120  Liberties (2021), EU 2020: Demanding on Democracy, pp. 157-158; Contribution  from  Funky  Citizens to 

the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

18 

 
                                                 
divergent interpretations are applied to similar situations121. In addition to general statistics, 
from March 2021, raw data concerning the COVID-19 pandemic was made available122 and 
updated  by  the  authorities  on  a  daily  basis.  Despite  this  effort,  access  to  information  still 
seems  to  have  been  rendered  more  difficult  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  prompting 
appeals by the civil society and journalists for greater transparency123. Regular monitoring by 
the  Romanian  authorities  reveals  divergent  application  of  the  legal  framework  by  the 
administration, as well as an insufficient prioritisation of the transparency measures by public 
bodies,  with  compliance  levels  lowest  for  local  authorities124.  The  MPM  2021  indicates  as 
risk factors the level of responsiveness of authorities, which remains inconsistent, and the fact 
that access to court for redress is onerous125. Amendments to the implementing rules of the 
legal framework were proposed in August 2020 to address some of the challenges. However, 
some  of  the  proposed  provisions  have  been  criticized  as  possibly  rendering  the  access  to 
certain  information  more  difficult126.  A  project  for  a  Strategy  for  the  management  of  the 
governmental communications was launched in March 2021127.  

Lawsuits for defamation against investigative journalists continue to be reported.  Two 
recent alerts on the Council of Europe Platform for the protection of journalism and safety of 
journalists  concern  harassment  and  intimidation  of  journalists128.  Another  lawsuit  for 
defamation  against  investigative  journalists,  concerning  articles  on  the  global  football 
industry,  has  been  dismissed  by  the  relevant  Romanian  court  in  early  2021.  In  a  recent 
judgment,  following  a  lawsuit  for  defamation  filed  by  the  mayor  of  a  Bucharest  district 
against a major newspaper, the court of first instance decided the removal of several articles 
published  by  that  newspaper129.  It  is  reported  that  the  mayor  has  also  filed  a  criminal 
complaint, investigated by the Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism, 
against journalists from several publications for constituting an organised criminal group as 
well  as  for  extortion130.  Civil  society  further  reported  cases  of  SLAPP  (strategic  lawsuit 

121  According to the contribution from Expert Forum association to 2021 Rule of Law Report, actions in  court 
against 42 police counties concerning data on fines and sanctions applicable during the COVID-19 pandemic 
received divergent adjudications in first instance (where 21 found for the applicant and 20 for the police) and 
in appeal. 

122  Ministry of Health, COVID-19 Transparency, https://data.gov.ro/dataset/transparenta-covid.  
123  Contribution  from  Funky  Citizens  to  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report;  see  also  Reporters  without  Borders  – 

Romania. 

124  Information received in the context of the country visit to Romania. 
125  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Romania, p.12 
126  Contribution from Funky Citizens to the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  
127  General Secretariat of the Government, 22 March 2021, Opening conference of the project ‘Strategy for the 

management of the governmental communication of Romania’. 

128  The  first  alert  concerns  a  lawsuit  filed  in  November  2020,  claiming  damages  of  over  EUR  488  000  from 
investigative  journalists,  in  relation  to  an  article  on  sale  of  masks  considered  faulty.  The  second  alert 
concerns  a  lawsuit  filed  in  March  2021  against  journalists  and  media  outlets,  following  articles  alleging 
sexual abuses and rape at an Orthodox Christian high school. The Romanian authorities’ reply for the latter 
case,  available  also  on  the  platform  Council  of  Europe  –  Romania,  specifies  that  the  case  mentioned  is 
currently  awaiting  trial  under  the  Civil  Code  and  that  it  was  introduced  by  the  plaintiff  in  his  personal 
capacity. 

129  Libertatea, ‘In the civil trial, the District Court 2 ruled in favour of Mayor Baluta and also decided to delete 

the articles about Goleac! The decision is not final’ of 24 May 2021. 

130  Agerpres, ‘Journalist Cătălin Tolontan, heard by DIICOT following a complaint filed by the mayor of Sector 
4’  of  20  May  2021;  Reporters  without  Borders  and  Active  Watch  sent  an  open  letter  to  the  Romanian 
authorities  asking  for  an  investigation  on  how  the  criminal  claim  was  handled  and  report  that  ‘an  internal 
investigation has been opened by the Direction of Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism Crimes 
(DIICOT) in Romania’. 

19 

 
                                                 
against public participation) against journalists, media or civil  society by  public institutions 
or businesspersons131. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Romania is a semi-presidential representative democratic republic. The Romanian Parliament 
is  bicameral,  comprising  the  Senate  (the  upper  house),  and  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  (the 
lower  house).  The  Government,  Deputies,  Senators,  or  a  group  of  no  less  than  100.000 
citizens have the right of legislative initiative132. The Constitutional Court is the guarantor for 
the supremacy of the Constitution and is responsible for the review of laws133. 

Concerns  remain  on  the  stability  and  predictability  of  legislation.  The  ordinary  process 
for preparing and enacting laws is well regulated, including an extended institutional set-up 
of checks and balances. However, as set out in the 2020 Rule of Law Report134 legislation is 
changed too often, while the objective of the amendments is often unclear and the resulting 
laws can be contradictory. In various policy fields, numerous legislative amendments of the 
same laws, including contradictory changes, have been initiated and adopted by Parliament. 
The  Legislative  Council135  reports  that  repeated  amendments  lacking  coherence,  combined 
with the lack of codification of laws amended numerous times, made it difficult to know the 
state of positive law even for legal practitioners. Companies refer that the lack of stable and 
predictable  legislation  constitutes  a  challenge136.  Therefore,  the  Legislative  Council  now 
insists on introducing the obligation to publish a consolidated version of a law each time it is 
amended.  Law no.  24 on legislative technique  allows the initiator of a law to  decide on its 
republication  in  a  consolidated  form,  but  this  possibility  is  seldom  used.  The  Legislative 
Council  has  also  initiated  a  project  on  codification  of  legislation137.  However,  the 
parliamentary  procedure  whereby  amendments  remain  tabled  until  specifically  removed 
means  that  several  long-standing  amendments  and  procedures  remain  open  before 
Parliament. The definitive rejection by Parliament, in the first months of the new legislature, 
of problematic amendments in key areas that remained pending from the previous legislature 
was seen as a positive step138. 

No significant Government Emergency Ordinances were adopted since the last report in 
the  field  of  justice.  In  a  consultative  referendum  held  in  May  2019,  a  majority  of  citizens 
voted in support of banning the use of Government Emergency Ordinances (GEO) in the area 

131  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Romania.  At  least  5  cases  where  public  money 
was used to cover the costs of the lawsuits  were  also reported. The MPM  notes that there are ‘occasional 
cases that could be considered examples of this [i.e. SLAPP] phenomenon’. 

132  Constitution of Romania, Art. 74. The citizens who exercise their right to a legislative initiative must belong 
to  at  least  one  quarter  of  the  country's  counties,  while,  in  each  of  those  counties  or  the  Municipality  of 
Bucharest, at least 5.000 signatures should be registered in support of such initiative. 

133  Constitution of Romania, Art. 142. 
134  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, pp. 16-17. 
135  The Legislative Council is an advisory expert body of Parliament which provides an opinion on all new draft 

legislation and ensures the systematic unification and co-ordination of the whole body of laws. 

136  Contribution  from  the  Austrian  Federal  Economic  Chamber  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  24.  The 
lack of legal certainty has been also underlined in the context of the European Semester; European Semester 
Country Report Romania 2020, SWD(2020) 522 final. Romania ranks below the EU average as regards the 
stability  and  accessibility  of  the  legislation,  and  stakeholders  report  that  the  uncertainty  over  policy  and 
legislative decisions has led to the overall perception of unpredictability. 

137  Information received in the context of the country visit to Romania. 
138  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress in Romania under the 

Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, COM(2021) 370 final.  

20 

 
                                                 
of  justice139.  This  illustrated  the  concern  about  the  excessive  use  of  GEOs  in  this  area,  of 
which there have been few cases since November 2019140. Beyond the justice area, in 2020, 
the large majority of the GEOs were issued in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic141. As 
regards  procedures  in  Parliament,  the  number  of  emergency  procedures  concerning  key 
justice  and  anti-corruption  matters  has  significantly  decreased  in  2020.  In  February  2021, 
Parliament  rejected  a  proposal  to  examine  the  draft  law  to  abolish  the  SIIJ  through  an 
emergency parliamentary procedure. 

The  number  of  impact  assessments  and  public  consultations  prior  to  the  adoption  of 
legislation  remains  limited.  Despite  the  efforts  made  by  the  General  Secretariat  of  the 
Government  to  strengthen  the  capacity  of  central  and  local  authorities  to  substantiate  the 
public  decisions142,  the  use  of  evidence-based  instruments  in  the  policy-making  remains 
uneven and many regulatory impact assessments are superficial143. The civil society reported 
that  many  bills  subject  to  public  consultation  do  not  have  a  budgetary  impact.  In  2020,  65 
normative acts were adopted at the level of the General Secretariat of the Government, out of 
which only 12 were publicly announced. Out of 47 recommendations received, only one was 
accepted.  Eleven  out  of  12  published  normative  acts  remained  unchanged144.  The 
participation of the non-governmental sector and media representatives in the policy-making 
process is sporadic145, although the online infrastructure is in place. The number of users of 
the  online  consultation  platform  remains  limited146.  The  General  Secretariat  of  the 
Government  is  working  on a catalogue of NGOs interested in  participating in  the decision-
making process.  

A  state  of  alert  succeeded  to  the  state  of  emergency  declared  in  the  context  of  the 
COVID-19  pandemic,  and  emergency  measures  were  subject  to  judicial  review.  The 
state of emergency declared in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic was lifted on 14 May 
2020. Following the end of the state of emergency, a state of alert was declared on 15 May147 
and confirmed by Government on 18 May148, initially for 30 days. It was then extended by 
successive  Government  decisions,  each  time  for  a  duration  of  30  days.  The  state  of  alert 
remains in place. Following rulings from the Constitutional Court questioning the legal basis 

139  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 16. 
140  Exceptions  include  (i)  steps  taken  to  ensure  the  functioning  of  the  justice  system  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic; (ii) an act of February 2020 on public acquisitions which introduced a potential new disciplinary 
procedure for judges, and which was declared unconstitutional; (iii) the GEO of 30 December 2020 delaying 
the entry into force of provisions increasing the number of judges required in certain court panels, which are 
expected to be abolished as part of the ongoing revision of the Justice laws. 

141  159 GEOs were issued in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the remaining 68 being adopted for the 

regulation of other measures. 

142  Law 24/2000 on drafting legal acts set out an initial obligation to identify the impacts of draft regulations, 
and the requirements for regulatory impact assessments have been further refined in Government Decision 
no. 1361 issued in 2006. According to these provisions, all regulations are required to be accompanied by an 
explanatory note, describing the rationale and assessing the impacts of the draft proposal. 

143  See Sustainable Governance Indicators 2020, Romania Report, pp. 28-29. 
144  Annual report on decisional transparency (1 January 2020 – 31 December 2020), Annex no. 20 – PS 14/2019 

at the level of the General Secretariat of the Government (Annex I). 

145  European Commission, Public administration characteristics and performance in EU28, April 2018. 
146  There were 202 users of the consultare.gov.ro platform in 2020. 
147  Decision  no.  24  of  the  National  Committee  for  Emergency  Situations  approving  the  establishment  of  a 
national  state  of  alert  and  infection  prevention  and  control  measures  in  the  context  of  the  epidemiological 
situation arising from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. 

148  Government  Decision  no.  394  of  18  May  2020  on  the  declaration  of  the  state  of  alert  and  on  measures 

applying for its duration to prevent and combat the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

21 

 
                                                 
of the state of emergency, Parliament approved the state of alert declared by Government149. 
In 2020 and 2021, the Administrative and Fiscal Contentious Chamber of the High Court of 
Cassation  and  Justice  decided  in  last  instance,  by  final  decision,  on  12  cases  concerning 
administrative acts issued based on Article 15 from the Law no. 136/2020 establishing public 
health measures in situations of epidemiological and biological risk, applicable in the context 
of the COVID-19 pandemic. In two cases, the court ordered the annulment of administrative 
acts150. 

The  measures  intended  to  address  the  issue  of  implementation  of  court  decisions  and 
application  of  jurisprudence  of  the  courts  by  public  administration  remain 
unimplemented. After being found in violation of Article 6(1) of the European Convention 
on Human Rights for the failure or significant delay by the State or by legal entities under the 
responsibility  of  the  state  to  abide  by  final  domestic  court  decisions151,  Romania  remains 
under  enhanced  supervision  from  the  Council  of  Europe  Committee  of  Ministers  for  the 
execution of this judgment152. In this context, in 2019, Romania proposed an action plan to 
the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers and approved the list of measures to  fulfil 
the  action  plan153.  However,  these  measures  have  not  been  implemented154.  In  a 
Memorandum  of  27  November  2020,  the  Government  decided  to  task  a  working  group  to 
propose  new  legal  solutions  to  fulfil  all  the  requirements  of  the  action  plan,  including  with 
regard to the implementation of judgments imposing an obligation to perform a specific act 
(non-pecuniary  obligation)  on  the  State  or  on  legal  entities  under  the  responsibility  of  the 
State.  

A  judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  8  June  2021  raises  serious  concerns,  as  it 
questions the principle of primacy of EU law. In this judgment155, the Constitutional Court 
did not accept the findings of the Court of Justice of the EU in its preliminary ruling of 18 
May  2021  and  questioned,  more  generally,  the  principle  of  primacy  of  EU  law156.  It  found 

149  Law no. 55/2020 of 15 May 2020 on measures applying to prevent and combat the effects of the COVID-19 

pandemic. 

150  Input from Romania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 44-45. 
151  Judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  of  6  September  2005,  Săcăleanu  group  v.  Romania 

(Application No. 73970/01). 

152  Department  for  the  Execution  of  Judgments  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  decision 

CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-23 of 11 March 2021. 

153  These measures included amendments to the legal framework in order to guarantee timely execution and a 
mechanism to supervise and prevent late execution of judgements for which the State is a debtor, to be set up 
under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice.  

154  The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe “called again upon the authorities to provide, by 15 
June 2021 at the latest, their analysis regarding a possible conflict between the avenues explored to ensure 
implementation  of  pecuniary  awards  when  the  debtor  is  a  State-controlled  company  and  the  State’s  other 
international obligations and requested them also to inform the Committee about any further progress in their 
consideration of the measures required in this area” and “expressed deep concern at the prolonged absence of 
tangible  progress  and  urged  the  authorities  to  redouble  their  efforts  to  ensure  that  this  process  is  rapidly 
completed”. See CM/Del/Dec(2021)1398/H46-23, paras. 6-7. 

155  Decision no. 390 of the Constitutional Court of 8 June 2021concerning the exception of unconstitutionality 
of  provisions  of  articles  881-889  of  Law  no.  304/2004  on  judicial  organisation  and  of  Government 
Emergency  Ordinance  no.  90/2018  concerning  certain  measures  for  the  operation  of  the  Section  for  the 
Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary. 

156  At paras. 251 and 252 of its Judgment of 18 May 2021, Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor Din România’ and 
Others,  in  joined  cases  C-83/19,  C-127/19,  C-195/19,  C-294/19,  C-355/19  and  C-379/19,  the  Court  of 
Justice  of  the  EU  recalled  that  “the  principle  of  the  primacy  of  EU  law  [requires]  the  referring  court  to 
disapply the provisions at issue, whether they are of a legislative or constitutional origin” and that it “must 
be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State having constitutional status, as interpreted by the 

22 

 
                                                 
 
that national  courts are not  empowered to  examine the conformity with  EU law of national 
provisions  declared  constitutional  by  the  Constitutional  Court  and  that  the  obligations 
deriving  from  the  CVM  decision  are  not  incumbent  upon  national  courts157.  This  may 
constitute a significant obstacle for courts called upon to apply the EU law requirements set 
out  in  the  abovementioned  preliminary  ruling  when  adjudicating  on  cases,  in  particular 
concerning the SIIJ. 

Independent authorities continued being active throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In 
2020, the Ombudsperson158 raised a total of 18 referrals of unconstitutionality (objections and 
exceptions), eleven of which were admitted in  total or in  part, while two were rejected and 
four  are  still  pending.  Six  exceptions  of  unconstitutionality  referred  to  the  Constitutional 
Court  concerned  measures  taken  in  the  context  of  the  state  of  emergency  and  the  state  of 
alert. The Ombudsperson also addressed a total of 65 letters and recommendations to various 
ministers  regarding  their  decisions  on  the  state  of  emergency  and  the  state  of  alert.  On  16 
June 2021, after rejecting the activity  reports of  the Ombudsperson for the last three  years, 
the  Parliament  dismissed  the  Ombudsperson  from  her  functions.  On  29  June  2021,  the 
Constitutional  Court  ruled  that  the  dismissal  of  the  Ombudsperson  by  the  Parliament  was 
unconstitutional, as the law governing the dismissal did not provide with certainty the cases 
for  this  sanction  nor  a  right  of  appeal  before  an  independent  and  impartial  court.  The 
dismissal  decision  was  therefore  struck  down  and  the  Ombudsperson  was  reinstated  in  her 
functions. 

A  proposal  to  merge  the  Romanian  Institute  for  Human  Rights  and  the  National 
Council for Combating Discrimination is under discussion in Parliament. Following the 
adoption  of  the  law  amending  the  mandate  and  attributions  of  the  Romanian  Institute  for 
Human Rights (RIHR)159, the Romanian President raised an unconstitutionality objection. In 
this  context,  the  Constitutional  Court  declared  the  law  was  unconstitutional  as  a  whole.  A 
legislative  proposal  on  the  merger  of  the  RIHR  into  the  National  Council  for  Combating 
Discrimination  (NCCD)  is  under  debate  in  the  Senate.  However,  major  differences  in  the 

constitutional court of that Member State, according to which a lower court is not permitted to disapply of its 
own  motion a  national provision falling  within the scope  of Decision 2006/928, which it considers, in the 
light  of  a  judgment  of  the  Court,  to  be  contrary  to  that  decision  or  to  the  second  subparagraph  of  Article 
19(1) TEU”. 

157  In  its  judgment  of  18  May  2021,  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  EU  made  clear  that  Romania  must  take  the 
appropriate  measures  for  the  purposes  of  meeting  the  CVM  benchmarks,  “taking  due  account,  under  the 
principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, of the reports drawn up by the Commission 
on the basis of that decision, and in particular the recommendations made in those reports”, such obligation 
being owed “by every organ of the Member State concerned”. Ibid., paras. 176-178. 

158  The request for accreditation of the Ombudsperson submitted to the European Network of National Human 

Rights Institutions (ENNHR) in 2020 is still being examined. 

159  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 17. 

23 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
legal status, mission, and mandate of these two institutions160 generate uncertainty as to the 
proposed merger161. 

New  amendments  to  ease  the  establishment  of  associations  and  foundations  came  into 
force  in  2020.  The  amendments  to  Government  Ordinance  26/2000  aim  at  facilitating  the 
right of association and lowering the bureaucratic burden on NGOs162. In particular, the new 
provisions  privilege  the  use  of  electronic  documents  and  streamlining  of  procedures  and 
registration  rules.  While  these  changes  were  considered  a  progress  by  several  civil  society 
organisations,  there  are  also  instances  of  criticism,  in  particular  related  to  the  lack  of 
coherence  of  the  amendments163.  Stakeholders  report  that  civil  society  organisations  were 
negatively  affected  by  the  limitations  to  the  right  to  freedom  of  assembly  and  association 
imposed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic164. The civil society space continues to be 
considered as narrowed165. 

160  RIHR has the status of independent body with legal personality, whereas NCCD was established as a state 
authority  with  legal  personality;  RIHR’s  mission  is  to  ensure  a  better  knowledge  by  public  bodies,  NGOs 
and Romanian citizens, of human rights issues,  whereas NCCD’s  mission is to implement the  principle of 
equality  between  citizens,  provided  by  the  Romanian  Constitution,  in  the  national  and  international 
legislation;  finally,  RIHR  has  a  general  mandate  to  provide  research,  information,  training  and  education 
activities in the field of human rights; NCCD exercises a mandate limited to the field of implementing the 
principles of equality and non-discrimination. 

161  Contribution from the European Network on National Human Rights Institutions for the 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, p. 272-273.  

162  Contribution from the Fundamental Rights Agency for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 7; Contribution from 

APADOR – Helsinki Committee for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 20. 

163  Contribution from Funky Citizens for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 30, and information received in the 

context of the country visit to Romania. 

164  Contribution from APADOR – Helsinki Committee for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 20. 
165  Ratings  given  by  CIVICUS;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed, 

repressed and closed. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Agerpres, ‘Journalist Cătălin Tolontan, heard by DIICOT following a complaint filed by the mayor of 
Sector 4’ (Jurnalistul Cătălin Tolontan, audiat la DIICOT în urma unei plângeri depuse de primarul 
Sectorului  4)  of  20  May  2021,  (https://www.agerpres.ro/justitie/2021/05/20/jurnalistul-catalin-
tolontan-audiat-la-diicot-in-urma-unei-plangeri-depuse-de-primarul-sectorului-4--716788). 

Center for Independent Journalism (2020), Fundamental Rights under Siege 2020. 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2021),  Media  pluralism  monitor  2021  –  Country 
Report for Romania. 

Bertelsmann  Foundation, 
(https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2020/country/SGI2020_Romania.pdf). 

Sustainable  Governance 

Indicators 

2020,  Romania  Report 

Constitutional  Court  of  Romania,  Press  release  of  7  April  2021  (https://www.ccr.ro/comunicat-de-
presa-7-aprilie-2021/). 

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Romania (https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/romania). 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Dumitrita Holdis (2020), ReportIt: When state funding discredits the press – The Romanian media is 
facing  a  financial  and  moral  dilemma  (https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/2020/10/30/reportit-
when-state-funding-discredits-the-press-the-romanian-media-is-facing-a-financial-and-moral-
dilemma/). 

European  Commission  (2018),  Public  administration  characteristics  and  performance  in  EU28 
(https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8123&furtherPubs=yes). 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report - The rule of law situation in the European 
Union. 

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

Expert Forum (2021), Contribution from Expert Forum for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Funky Citizens (2021), Contribution from Funky Citizens for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

General Secretariat of the Government (2020), Annual report on decisional transparency (1 January 
2020 – 31 December 2020), Annex no. 20 – PS 14/2019 at the level of the General Secretariat of the 
Government  (http://sgg.gov.ro/1/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/19022021-SGG-Raportul-de-evaluare-
a-implementarii-Legii-nr.-52_2003-in-anul-2020-.pdf). 

General  Secretariat  of  the  Government  (2021),  Opening  conference  of  the  project  ‘Strategy  for  the 
management  of  the  governmental  communication  of  Romania’  (http://sgg.gov.ro/1/conferinta-de-
deschidere-a-proiectului-strategia-pentru-managementul-comunicarii-guvernamentale-a-romaniei-
cod-sipoca-754/).  

Holdis, Dumitrita (2020), ReportIt: When state funding discredits the press – The Romanian media is 
facing  a  financial  and  moral  dilemma  (https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/2020/10/30/reportit-
when-state-funding-discredits-the-press-the-romanian-media-is-facing-a-financial-and-moral-
dilemma/). 

Libertatea, ‘In the civil trial, the District Court 2 ruled in favour of Mayor Baluta and also decided to 
final’  of  24  May  2021, 
delete 

the  articles  about  Goleac!  The  decision 

is  not 

25 

 
(https://www.libertatea.ro/stiri/in-procesul-civil-judecatoria-sectorului-2-a-dat-dreptate-primarului-
baluta-si-a-decis-si-stergerea-articolelor-despre-goleac-3566580). 

Liberties  (2021),  EU  2020:  Demanding  on  Democracy  (https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/rule-of-
law-report-2021-democracy-demanding-on-democracy/43362) 

National 
(http://www.pna.ro/obiect2.jsp?id=489) 

Anti-corruption 

Directorate 

(DNA), 

2020 

Activity 

Report 

National  Audiovisual  Council  (CNA),  Press  briefing  on  CNA  public  meetings,  10  February  2021 
(https://www.cna.ro/article11090,11090.html) 

National Integrity Agency (ANI), Communicate on prevention and consignation measures adopted by 
the  National  Integrity  Agency  in  the  context  of  the  organisation  of  local  elections  2020 
(https://www.integritate.eu/Comunicate.aspx?Action=1&NewsId=3005&currentPage=4&M=NewsV2
&PID=20). 

Reporters without Borders and Active Watch (2021), Open letter to the Romanian authorities asking 
for  an  investigation  on  how  the  criminal  claim  was  handled  (https://rsf.org/en/news/romania-open-
letter-rsf-and-activewatch-denounce-judicial-pressures-investigative-journalists). 

Reporters without Borders – Romania (https://rsf.org/en/romania). 

Romanian Government (2021), Input from Romania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

The  Center  for  Independent  Journalism  (2020),  Fundamental  Rights  under  Siege  2020,  p.  18, 
(https://cji.ro/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Freedom-of-expression-report_final.pdf). 

26 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Romania 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2021 with: 

  Association of Romanian Judges 
  Association “Mișcarea pentru apărarea statutului procurorilor” 
  Center for independent journalism 
  Expertforum 
  Freedom House 
  Funky citizens 
  High Court of Cassation and Justice 
 
Initiative for Justice Association 
  Legal Commission of the Chamber of Deputies 
  Legislative Council 
  Media Association – Cluj 
  Ministry of Justice 
  National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets  
  National Anti-corruption Directorate 
  National Anti-corruption Strategy 
  National Audiovisual Council 
  National Integrity Agency 
  National Union of the Romanian Judges 
  Ombudsperson 
  Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice 
  Romanian Judges’ Forum 
  Secretariat General of the Government 
  Superior Council for Magistracy 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: 

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches 
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law 
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 
 

ILGA-Europe 
International Commission of Jurists 
International Federation for Human Rights 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 

27 

 
 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

28