REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Progress in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism
Date: 2022-11-22
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Romania, conflict of interest, corruption, independence of the judiciary, judicial reform, public contract, public procurement, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 22.11.2022  COM(2022) 664 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Progress in Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

The  Cooperation  and  Verification  Mechanism  (CVM)  was  established  at  the  accession  of 
Romania to the EU in 2007 as a transitional measure to facilitate Romania’s continued efforts 
to  reform  its  judiciary  and  step  up  the  fight  against  corruption1.  It  represented  a  joint 
commitment  of  the  Romanian  State  and  of  the  EU.  In  line  with  the  decision  setting  up  the 
mechanism  and  as  underlined  by  the  Council  and  confirmed  by  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the 
European Union (CJEU)2, the CVM is brought to an end when all the benchmarks3 defined 
for Romania are satisfactorily met. 

Work  under  the  CVM  has  been  ongoing  since  2007  to  encourage  and  follow  the  reform 
process,  based  on  the  benchmarks.  In  January  2017,  the  Commission  undertook  a 
comprehensive assessment  of progress  over the ten  years of the mechanism4,  which  gave a 
clear  picture  of  the  significant  progress  made.  The  Commission  set  out  twelve  specific 
recommendations which, when met in an irreversible manner, would suffice to end the CVM 
process, providing however that there would be no developments such as to clearly reverse 
the course of progress.  

Since  then,  the  Commission  has  carried  out  four  assessments  of  progress  on  the 
implementation of the recommendations. Reports from late 2017 to 2019 were characterised 
by a waning  reform momentum. Steps taken by Romania re-opened issues  that the January 
2017 report had considered as closed, and additional recommendations were made5. Both the 
European Parliament and the Council shared these concerns6. However, the June 2021 report 
was  able  to  mark  substantial  progress,  with  many  recommendations  on  the  path  to  being 
fulfilled if progress remained steady7.  

In  recent  years,  the  EU  has  considerably  developed  its  toolbox  to  uphold  the  rule  of  law 
across the EU8. Some of the tools put in place are of direct relevance to EU efforts to support 
Romania in the reform process. As a result, there are a number of monitoring tracks now in 
place looking at issues covered by the CVM benchmarks. 

The  justice  system  in  general,  including  judicial  reform,  as  well  as  anti-corruption 
frameworks,  are  two  of  the  areas  covered  for  all  Member  States  under  the  annual  Rule  of 
Law Reports9. This ongoing process of coordination and monitoring goes beyond the specific 
context of post-accession which triggered the CVM. The scope of the Rule of Law Reports 
extends to issues with an important bearing on reform capacity and sustainability, such as the 

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

established by Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 (C(2006) 6569). 

2   Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 May 2021 in Joined Cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-294/19, 

C-355/19 and C-379/19 Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor Din România’ and Others, para 164.  

3   The  benchmarks  for  Romania  deal  with  the  effectiveness  and  transparency  of  the  judicial  system,  key 
institutions in areas like integrity and the fight against corruption at all levels, and corruption prevention. 

4   COM(2017) 44. 
5   COM(2017) 751; COM(2018) 851; COM(2019) 499.  
6   European  Parliament  non-legislative  resolution  on  the  rule  of  law  in  Romania  of  13  November  2018, 
2018 

December 

Council 

12 

of 

P8_TA-PROV(2018)0446. 
Conclusions 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2018-st15187_en.pdf 

7   COM(2021) 370.  
8   Another instrument that has been put in place since the 2018 CVM Report is the rule of law conditionality 
regime Regulation for the protection of the EU budget (Regulation 2020/2092, OJ L  433I, 22.12.2020, p.1-
10). 

9   The  Commission  has  adopted  three  Rule  of  Law  reports  so  far:  COM(2020)  580;  COM(2021)  700;  and 
COM(2022)  500.  They  included  specific  chapters  on  Romania:  SWD(2020)  322;  SWD(2021)  724; 
SWD(2022) 523. 

1 

 
 
                                                           
quality  of  legislation  and  the  legislative  process,  the  role  of  independent  institutions  in 
ensuring  checks  and  balances,  the  enabling  environment  for  civil  society,  as  well  as  media 
freedom  and  pluralism.  The  2022  Rule  of  Law  report  included  for  the  first  time 
recommendations to all Member States, to support them in their reforms in the four reporting 
areas,  including  for  Romania10.  The  Romanian  authorities  have  cooperated  actively  and 
constructively with the Commission in the Rule of Law Report cycle. 

A number of rule of law-related issues – notably the effectiveness of justice systems, the fight 
against corruption and the quality and inclusiveness of the law-making process – are also part 
of  the  European  Semester,  given  their  impact  on  the  business  environment,  investment, 
economic  growth  and  jobs.  In  addition,  the  Romanian  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan, 
positively  assessed  by  the  Commission  and  adopted  by  Council  on  3  November  202111, 
includes concrete milestones touching upon issues covered by the CVM which are central to 
the reform process, such as judicial reform and anti-corruption frameworks12. 

This  report  takes  stock  of  the  progress  made  by  Romania  to  implement  the  pending  CVM 
recommendations  and  the  fulfilment  of  the  CVM  benchmarks  since  June  2021.  As  in 
previous  years, this report is  the result of a careful  process  of analysis by the Commission, 
drawing  on  close  cooperation  with  Romanian  institutions,  civil  society,  and  other 
stakeholders13. 

2.  ASSESSMENT  OF  PROGRESS  ON  THE  FULFILMENT  OF  THE 

RECOMMENDATIONS  

This  section  assesses  progress  on  the  recommendations  of  the  Commission  in  past  CVM 
reports,  and  specifically  the  12  recommendations  of  January  2017  and  the  eight  additional 
recommendations  of  November  2018.  The  fulfilment  of  all  remaining  recommendations 
would allow the CVM to be completed. They represent the essential steps needed to cement 
the reform process on a sustainable path for the future, where the focus of cooperation with 
Romania  will  be  on  the  continued  implementation  of  reforms,  as  part  of  the  Rule  of  Law 
Report. 

2.1.   Benchmark One: Judicial independence and Judicial reform14 

Justice laws and legal guarantees for judicial independence 

2018 Recommendations  
• 

Suspend immediately the implementation of the Justice laws and subsequent Emergency 
Ordinances. 

•  Revise the Justice laws taking fully into account the recommendations under the CVM 

and issued by the Venice Commission and GRECO.  

10   COM(2022) 500, Annex and Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania.  
11   Council  Implementing  Decision  12319/21,  of  3  November  2021.  Specific  milestones  are  referenced  in  the 

text.  

12   The fulfilment of these milestones will be assessed under the dedicated procedure in the light of the criteria 

foreseen in Romania’s Recovery and Resilience Plan. 

13   The Commission services organised a fact-finding mission in November 2022. Online meetings included the 
Minister  of  Justice,  Members  of  the  Romanian  Parliament,  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy,  the  High 
Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice,  the  Prosecutor  General,  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate,  the 
National Integrity Agency, the national Agency for the Management of seized assets (ANABI), civil society 
organisations and judicial associations.  

14   The full benchmarks of the original CVM Decision can be found in Annex. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
Three justice laws15 define the status of magistrates and organise the judicial system and the 
Superior Council of Magistracy. They are  therefore central to ensuring the independence of 
magistrates and the good functioning of the judiciary. In 2018 and 2019, amendments to these 
justice laws had a serious impact on the independence, quality, and efficiency of the justice 
system. Major issues identified included the creation of a dedicated section for investigating 
criminal  offences  within  the  judiciary  (SIIJ),  the  system  of  civil  liability  of  judges  and 
prosecutors,  early  retirement  schemes,  the  entry  into  the  profession,  and  the  status  and 
appointment  of  high-ranking  prosecutors.  The  implementation  of  the  amended  laws  soon 
confirmed  concerns,  and  the  emergence  of  other  issues  in  the  intervening  years,  clearly 
showed the need for an overall revision of the laws16. 

Reflections on how to amend the three laws started in September 2020 and gained momentum 
in spring 202217, with a new consultation launched by the Ministry of Justice in June 2022. 
The  consultation  led  to  revised  drafts  submitted  for  an  opinion  to  the  Superior  Council  of 
Magistracy (SCM). Its opinion in August 2022 led to the tabling of a further revised version 
of the laws in  Parliament, and the parliamentary  process  was concluded in October 202218. 
Several provisions of the adopted laws were challenged before the Romanian Constitutional 
Court,  which  rejected  all  challenges.  The  laws  were  promulgated  by  the  President  of 
Romania  on  15  November19.  The  revision  of  the  justice  laws  is  also  a  milestone  under 
Romania’s Recovery and Resilience Plan20.  

The government considered that previous opinions of the Venice Commission had made clear 
its positions and had been taken into account in the revised laws, even if the final drafts had 
not  been  specifically  sent  for  consultation  prior  to  their  submission  to  Parliament. 
Nevertheless,  the  Parliamentary  Assembly  of  the  Council  of  Europe  seized  the  Venice 
Commission. Following a request from the Romanian authorities to deal with the opinion in 
an urgent procedure, the Venice Commission prepared an urgent opinion on the three justice 
laws,  published  on  18  November21.  This  opinion  will  be  presented  for  endorsement  to  the 
Venice Commission at the plenary session of December 2022.  

The  adopted  revisions  to  the  laws  constitute  an  important  overhaul  of  the  legislative 
framework.  Previous  reports  flagged  issues  of  structures  and  procedures,  such  as  the 
dismantling  of  the  SIIJ,  the  disciplinary,  civil  and  criminal  liability  regimes  for  judges  and 
prosecutors, the accountability and appointment of the Judicial Inspection management, and 
the  appointment  and  dismissal  procedures  for  senior  prosecutors,  as  well  as  the  role  of  the 

15   Law 207/2018 amending Law 304/2004 on the judicial organisation; Law 234/2018 for amending Law no. 
317/2004 on the Superior Council of Magistracy; Law 242/2018 amending Law no. 303/2004 on the statute 
of judges and prosecutors. The laws were further modified through Government Emergency Ordinances in 
2018 and 2019.  

16   For example, appointment rules for the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Judicial Inspection. See 

details in the 2019 CVM Report COM(2019) 499. 

17  For details of the developments between September 2020 and June 2022, see the 2021 CVM Report and the 

country chapter on Romania in the 2022 Rule of Law report. 

18   A special joint parliamentary Committee of the two Chambers examined the laws under an urgent 

parliamentary procedure starting on 12 September. The parliamentary process concluded on 17 October after 
a positive vote in the Senate. 

19   The laws were published in the Official Journal on 16 November. 
20   Milestone  423  of  Romania’s  RRP,  entitled  ‘Entry  into  force  of  the  ‘Justice  laws’  (laws  on  the  status  of 

magistrates, judicial organisation, Superior Council of Magistracy).’ 

21   Venice Commission opinion CDL-PI(2022)047. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  and  the  SCM.  Also  important  is  the  impact  of  the 
reforms on the independence and career organisation of magistrates. 

The  revised  justice  laws  reformed  the  civil  liability  regime  for  judges  and  prosecutors, 
addressing  a  long-standing  issue  identified  in  the  CVM  reports22,  Rule  of  Law  Reports  as 
well  as  in  the  case-law  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice23.  The  new  law  on  the  status  of 
magistrates provides that, when a plaintiff lodges a claim for compensation for a miscarriage 
of justice, the Ministry of Finance immediately  notifies the magistrate concerned, who may 
apply to intervene in the first set of proceedings against the State. Moreover, the Ministry of 
Finance may lodge a recourse action against the magistrate only if the relevant section of the 
SCM finds the existence of bad faith or grave negligence in the miscarriage of justice, on the 
basis of a report drawn up by the Judicial Inspection. Previously, the Ministry could lodge the 
action regardless of the conclusions of the report of the Judicial Inspection. 

More safeguards were also put in place as regards the disciplinary liability of magistrates. On 
substance,  the  disciplinary  offences  which  generated  concerns  for  judicial  independence24 
and  the  primacy  of  EU  law25  were  abolished.  At  the  same  time,  the  extension  of  another 
disciplinary offence to cover the expression of political opinions not only in the exercise of 
duties,  but  also  more  generally  the  expression  of  such  views  in  public,  will  need  to  be 
monitored  to  ensure  it  does  not  restrict  unduly  the  magistrates’  freedom  of  speech.  On 
procedural  aspects,  the  decisions  of  the  SCM  sections  in  disciplinary  matters  must  now  be 
reasoned  and notified without delay  to  the magistrate concerned. The law also  provides  for 
the deletion of disciplinary sanctions from the magistrate’s record three years from their date 
of  enforcement  if  the  magistrate  is  not  subject  to  a  new  disciplinary  sanction  during  this 
period. 

As  regards  the  disciplinary  procedure  itself,  stricter  deadlines  are  also  introduced  for  the 
SCM to reason its disciplinary decisions26. One remaining  concern is the possibility for the 
Judicial Inspection to challenge a decision of the SCM disciplinary section27.  

The justice laws introduce some important modifications regarding the career organisation of 
magistrates.  The  duration  of  the  training  at  the  National  Institute  of  Magistracy  (NIM)  has 

22   See notably 2018 Technical report (SWD(2018) 551 final), and 2021 Rule of  Law report - country chapter 
on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Romania.  The  rules  previously  in  place  raised  concerns  due  to  the  power 
assigned to the Ministry of Finance, which could 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. 
23   In 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,  paras  233-241,  the  CJEU  ruled  that  the 
rights  of  defense  of  judges  should  be  fully  respected,  that  a  court  should  rule  on  the  personal  liability  of 
judges and that the law 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 
activity. 

24  This  offence  concerns  “actions  affecting  the  honour,  professional  rectitude,  or  the  prestige  of  justice, 

committed during the performance or outside the performance of work duties.” 

25   The offence of “non-compliance with the decisions of the Constitutional Court or the decisions issued by the 
High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  in  resolving  appeals  in  the  interest  of  the  law”,  which  would  expose 
judges to disciplinary liability  when disapplying rulings of the Constitutional Court  prohibiting  them  from 
examining the conformity with EU law of provisions of domestic law, see the judgment of  the CJEU of 22 
February 2022, RS, in case C-430/21, paras 79 to 93.  

26   These  now  have  to  be  reasoned  without  delay,  instead  of  the  previous  20  days  deadline,  which  was  often 

ignored. 

27   “Once the disciplinary panel of the Supreme Judicial Council has found in favour of the judge, this decision 
should be final” (CDL-AD (2002) 015, Venice Commission Opinion on the Draft Law on Amendments to 
the Bulgarian Judicial System Act). 

4 

 
 
                                                           
been increased from two to three years. While this may have a longer-term effect on the size 
of the pool of available new magistrates28, it also allows more time for their practical training. 
Other modified provisions concern the seniority requirement for promotions to higher courts 
and  prosecutor  offices,  which  have  overall  been  increased29.  For  appointments  to  the 
specialised  prosecution  services,  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Department  (DNA)  and  the 
Directorate  for  Investigating  Organized  Crime  and  Terrorism  (DIICOT),  the  seniority 
requirements  have  been  maintained  at  ten  years,  with  a  temporary  transitional  period  to 
mitigate  possible  impact  on  human  resources.  The  concrete  impact  of  the  new  seniority 
requirements  on  human  resources  once  the  temporary  measure  is  phased  out  remains  to  be 
seen. The law maintains the two existing types of promotion at courts of appeal, tribunals and 
prosecutors’ offices attached to them, but puts on hold the provisions related to competitive 
on-the-spot promotions until December 2025, allowing only for effective promotions during 
this period30. New rules have been introduced for the promotion of judges to the High Court 
of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ), where promotions on the basis of a competitive written test 
have been replaced by a selection based on an evaluation of the judicial decisions taken by 
candidates  during  their  entire  activity  at  the  Court  of  Appeal  and  an  interview  before  the 
section for judges of the SCM31. Once promoted to the HCCJ, judges are also excluded from 
further  professional  evaluations.  Other  significant  changes  relate  to  the  appointments  of 
second-line managers in district courts, tribunals, specialised tribunals, courts of appeal and 
the  prosecutors’  offices  attached  thereto,  which  are  no  longer  done  by  competitive 
examinations,  but  simply  on  a  proposal  from  the  president  of  the  court  or  the  head  of  the 
prosecutor’s office.  

The  Venice  Commission  urgent  opinion  focuses  on  a  limited  number  of  topics,  concerning 
the  civil  and  disciplinary  liability  of  magistrates  and  competitions  for  admissions  in  the 
judiciary,  as  well  as  the  appointment  and  removal  of  specialised  and  high-ranking 
prosecutors. The opinion concludes that on the whole the laws seem to be heading in the right 
direction, although the  Venice Commission  did voice regret  that the Romanian government 
did  not  send  the  laws  for  consultation  as  announced.  Positive  elements  are  noted  on  the 
appointment  and  dismissal  of  high-ranking  prosecutors  (see  also  below).  Furthermore,  the 
opinion notes that there are safeguards against political interference in the work of the DNA 
as well as a clear limitation of powers of the Prosecutor General with respect to the DNA and 
the  DIICOT,  as  well  as  of  the  control  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  (limited  to  managerial 
questions).  Nevertheless,  the  Venice  Commission  issued  several  recommendations  which 
may  imply  further  targeted  changes  to  the  laws  such  as  extending  the  duration  of  the 

28   The SCM opinion on the draft laws highlighted a risk that this increase would have a significant impact on 
the  human resources and workload of courts and prosecutors’ offices, with potential consequences for  the 
quality  of  justice.  The  application  of  these  provisions  and  their  practical  impact  on  workload  and  the 
efficient handling of cases will continue to be monitored under the Rule of Law reports.  

29   These are now 7 years for tribunals, 9 years for Courts of Appeal, 10 years for the Prosecutor Office attached 

to the HCCJ. 

30   These are the “on-the-spot” promotions, which are based on results obtained in promotion competitions, and 
the effective promotion, which  are based on the evaluation of the magistrates’ activity over the past years. 
As  of  2025,  on-the-spot  promotions  are  foreseen  to  be  capped  to  20%  of  the  total  number  of  vacant 
positions.  These  restrictions  on  what  is  seen  to  be  a  more  objective  and  meritocratic  promotion  procedure 
have been criticised by some magistrates’ associations in Romania. 

31   This modification has also been criticised by some magistrates’ associations and civil society organisations, 
who argue that the meritocratic and competitive character of the procedure has been reduced. On the other 
hand, the SCM has argued that the current system  was not performing efficiently and that, at that level of 
seniority,  knowledge-based  tests  for  judges  are  less  relevant  than  an  analysis  of  their  performance  on  the 
bench.  

5 

 
 
                                                           
mandates  of  high-ranking  prosecutors  from  the  current  three  years  and  eliminating  the 
possibility  of  mandate  renewals,  as  well  as  reinforcing  the  safeguards  if  the  General 
Prosecutor overrules the decisions of regular prosecutors. Other proposed changes include a 
competitive selection for deputy managers in courts and prosecutor’s offices and setting out 
clearly  that  judicial  police  officers  seconded  to  prosecution  offices  cannot  report  to  the 
Minister of Interior. 

As  regards  the  SIIJ,  an  initial  draft  law  to  dismantle  this  body  was  tabled  in  Parliament  in 
February  2021.  Despite  adoption  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  –  and  a  favourable  Venice 
Commission  opinion  –  the  draft  was  not  adopted  in  the  Senate.  The  new  government 
relaunched the process in January 2022 and after a shortened ten-day public consultation on a 
new  draft  and  a  positive  opinion  of  the  SCM,  Parliament  adopted  a  law  on  28  February 
202232,  while  an  upcoming  Venice  Commission  was  pending.  The  SIIJ  was  dismantled  in 
March 2022.  

The SIIJ had shown itself unable to function effectively: in its three years of existence, it only 
sent seven cases to court, and it accumulated a large backlog of cases33. With the dismantling 
of the SIIJ, competence to investigate offences committed by magistrates has been transferred 
to  ‘designated  prosecutors’  within  the  Prosecutor’s  Offices  attached  to  the  High  Court  of 
Cassation and Justice34 and the Courts of Appeal35. The 2022 Rule of Law report noted that 
while the new system was an improvement in terms of the number of prosecutors allocated to 
the  new  structure  and  its  territorial  distribution36,  concerns  were  raised  about  its  impact  on 
judicial independence37. For example, the opportunity had not been taken to address  by law 
the concern about unfounded allegations (‘vexatious complaints’) being used as  a means of 
pressure  against  magistrates.  The  competence  ratione  personae  in  place  under  the  previous 
system  has  been  maintained,  without  it  being  clear  how  the  system  would  meet  the  test  of 
being justified by objective and verifiable requirements relating to the sound administration 
of  justice,  as  set  out  by  the  CJEU38.  Moreover,  a  lack  of  new  specific  safeguards  in  the 
structure put in place had led to concern, in the light of the CJEU ruling39. In its opinion of 

32   Law  No  49  of  11  March  2022  on  the  abolition  of  the  Section  for  the  Investigation  of  Offences  in  the 
Judiciary, as well as for the amendment of Law no. 135/2010 on the Code of Criminal Procedure, published 
in the Official Gazette No 244 of 11 March 2022. The law was challenged before the Constitutional Court, 
which declared it constitutional by Decision No. 88, of 9 March 2022. 

33   The SIIJ had a total of 9 651 cases to solve. Between 2018 and 2022, it solved a total of 2 000 cases. From 
these cases, the SIIJ issued 7 indictments and sued 9 defendants, leaving the number of open cases at 7002 in 
March 2022.  

34   For offences committed by members of the SCM, judges and prosecutors attached to the HCCJ, judges and 
prosecutors  attached  to  the  courts  of  appeal  and  the  military  court  of  appeal,  as  well  as  the  judges  of  the 
Constitutional Court.  

35   For offences committed by judges and prosecutors attached to courts of first instance, tribunals and military 

tribunals. 

36   Under the new structure, the Prosecutor General may designate up to 14 prosecutors within the Prosecutor’s 
Office attached to the HCCJ and up to three in each Prosecutor’s Offices attached to the Courts of Appeal. 
The prosecutors are designated for a period of four years upon recommendation of the plenum of the SCM. 
They return to their initial position at the end of that term or upon decision of the Prosecutor General to end 
the designation. 

37   Statement  by  the  Romanian  Judges  Forum  Association,  the  Movement  for  the  Defence  of  the  Statute  of 

Prosecutors Association and the ‘Initiative for Justice’ Association, of 24 January 2022. 

38   Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul  Judecătorilor  Din  România’  and 
joined  cases  C-83/19,  C-127/19,  C-195/19,  C-294/19,  C-355/19  and  C-379/19, 

in 

Others, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:393, para. 223. 

39   The new structure should be ‘accompanied by specific guarantees such as, first, to prevent any risk of that 
section  being  used  as  an  instrument  of  political  control  over  the  activity  of  those  judges  and  prosecutors 

6 

 
 
                                                           
 
March 2022, the Venice Commission held that any dismantlement of the SIIJ should ensure 
more efficacy in  investigating allegations of corruptions by judges and prosecutors40. Other 
concerns  centred  on  the  appointment  process  for  the  ‘designated  prosecutors’41.  The 
decentralised approach taken puts the onus on a need to monitor the track record of the new 
system. So far, no procedural incidents have been raised, with work focusing on processing 
the  transferred  cases42  and  priority  given  to  closing  cases  based  on  unsubstantiated 
allegations. Over 95% of the transferred files processed so far appear to have been based on 
vexatious  complaints.  The  Prosecutor  General  has  also  developed  a  methodology  for  the 
prioritisation of cases. The 2022 Rule of Law report included two specific recommendations 
on the new regime43, on the implementation of which the Commission will report in the 2023 
Rule of Law report. 

The legislative processes of revising the three justice laws and the provisions regarding the 
investigation of offences in the judiciary are now completed. The Romanian government has 
committed  to  take  the  utmost  account  of  the  upcoming  Venice  Commission  opinion  on  the 
justice laws, which may imply further targeted changes to the legislation. Follow-up on this 
commitment and the practical implementation of the new legislative framework fall within the 
scope of  Commission  monitoring  under  the Rule of  Law Report.   The new  justice  laws will 
also be assessed under the dedicated procedure in Romania’s Recovery and Resilience Plan. 

Appointments to leadership posts in the prosecution services 

•  2017 Recommendation: Put in place a robust and independent system of appointing top 
prosecutors,  based  on  clear  and  transparent  criteria,  drawing  on  the  support  of  the 
Venice Commission. 

•  2018  Recommendation:  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. 

likely to undermine their independence and, secondly, to ensure that exclusive competence may be exercised 
in respect of those judges and prosecutors in full compliance with the requirements arising from Articles 47 
and 48 of the Charter’, 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, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:393, para. 223. 

40  Venice  Commission,  Opinion  on  the  draft  law  dismantling  the  section  for  investigating  criminal  offences 

committed within the judiciary (CDL-AD(2022)003), point 37. 

41   Concerns included the lack of a dedicated competitive procedure and of a specific role for the Prosecutors’ 
Section  of  the  SCM.  The  Venice  Commission  has  underlined  the  importance  of  ‘giving  the  prosecutorial 
section  of  the  SCM  a  stronger  involvement  in  the  initial  selection  of  prosecutors’  (Venice  Commission 
Opinion  (CDL-AD(2022)003),  para.  28).  These  concerns  were  reinforced  by  the  initial  decisions  of  the 
SCM, which seemed to favour continuity with the previous staff of the SIIJ. So far out of the total 59 posts, 
37 have been filled and another 9 proposals are pending. The Prosecutor General flagged some difficulties in 
having prosecutors appointed by the Superior Council of Magistracy to some offices, leading to discrepancy 
in the distribution of workload. 

42   Since the SIIJ was dismantled, 1 237 files have been solved by the new structure by the end of September 
2022 (786 at central and 451 at local level) and 2 960 cases are still pending at the central level, while the 
prosecutor offices throughout the country have 4 208 cases pending. 

43   The two recommendations are to “take measures to address remaining concerns about the investigation and 
prosecution  of  criminal  offences  in  the  judiciary,  taking  into  account  European  standards  and  relevant 
Venice Commission opinions”; and to “closely monitor the impact of the new system on investigating and 
prosecuting corruption offences in the judiciary”. See also under Benchmark Three. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
•  2018 Recommendation: Relaunch a process to appoint a Chief prosecutor of the DNA with 
proven experience in  the prosecution of  corruption crimes and with  a clear  mandate for 
the DNA to continue to conduct professional, independent and non-partisan investigations 
of corruption. 

A system of transparent and merit-based appointments of the most senior prosecutors, able to 
provide  sufficient  safeguards  against  politicisation,  has  been  a  long-standing  CVM 
recommendation. Successive CVM reports had highlighted the need for sufficient checks and 
balances in the procedure to appoint top prosecutors, as well as a reflection on the extent to 
which  the  same  appointment  and  dismissal  procedure  would  apply  at  lower  management 
levels  within  the  prosecution44.  The  Commission  has  also  consistently  underlined  that 
consultation  of  the  Venice  Commission  on  the  envisaged  procedure  is  an  important  way  to 
bring sustainability to the solution chosen and to ensure a balance which will stand the test of 
time  between  the  respective  role  of  the  different  institutions  involved,  the  President  of 
Romania, the Minister of Justice and the SCM45, in the process.  

The Venice Commission has acknowledged that there are different models with regard to the 
appointment  to  the  position  of  Prosecutor  General  (or  similar  top  prosecution  posts). 
However, it has underlined that public confidence calls for an adequate balance between the 
requirement  of  democratic  legitimacy  of  such  appointments,  and  the  requirement  of 
depoliticisation46.  

The  procedure  for  appointing  top  prosecutors  is  part  of  the  revised  law  on  the  statute  of 
magistrates adopted by the Parliament in October 2022. The procedure foresees that the chief 
prosecutors  (Prosecutor  General,  Chief  Prosecutor  of  DNA  and  Chief  Prosecutor  of 
DIICOT), as well as their deputies, are to be appointed by the President of Romania upon a 
reasoned  nomination  submitted  by  the  Minister  of  Justice,  following  a  selection  process 
launched and organised by the Ministry of Justice and an opinion of SCM. Key issues in the 
past  have  included  the  consistency  and  transparency  of  the  selection  process,  which  have 
been accommodated in the law with new rules detailing the organisation of the selection and 
nomination  process,  the  eligibility  of  the  candidates,  the  evaluation  criteria  and  the 
composition of the selection committee. Of particular importance has been the respective role 
and the weight of the SCM (particularly the prosecutorial section) and of the President in the 
procedure,  as  counterweights  to  the  influence  exercised  by  the  Minister  of  Justice  and 
safeguards  against  politicisation.  The  procedure  now  provides  for  the  involvement  of  the 
Section for prosecutors of the SCM both in the selection process, where two representatives 
of the Section now take part in interviews, and in the nomination process, where the Minister 
of  Justice  must  seek  the  opinion  of  this  section.  Though  the  opinion  of  the  SCM  is  not 

44   The recommendation dates from 2016 and its relevance has been emphasized by subsequent developments. 
Whereas nominations have continued to be characterised by a consensual approach, controversies linked in 
particular to the arbitrariness allowed by law in the process of dismissals showed the need to ensure clarity 
and  introduce  safeguards.  The  2016  CVM  report  also  recommended  that  a  procedure  which  involves  a 
political  element  should  not  be  applied  to  lower  management  posts,  deputies  and  heads  of  section  (which 
would be left to the SCM and leadership of the organisations concerned).  

45   See  Venice  Commission  concern  on  the  lack  of  counterbalance  to  the  influence  of  the  Minister  of  Justice 

opinion 950/2019 CDL-AD(2019)014. 

46   CDL-AD(2015)039,  Joint  Opinion  of  the  Venice  Commission,  the  Consultative  Council  of  European 
Prosecutors (CCPE) and OSCE Office  for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), on 
the draft Amendments to the Law on the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia, § 19; CDL-AD(2017)028, Poland - 
Opinion  on  the  Act  on  the  Public  Prosecutor's  office,  §  33.  See  also  CDL-PI(2022)023,  Compilation  of 
Venice Commission Opinions and Reports Concerning Prosecutors.  

8 

 
 
                                                           
binding  on  the  Minister,  the  procedure  foresees  that  in  case  of  a  negative  opinion,  a  new 
interview  with  the  proposed  candidate  would  need  to  take  place,  which  should  take  into 
account  the  arguments  laid  out  in  the  SCM  opinion.  Following  the  new  interview,  the 
Minister can either send the nomination proposal to the President or withdraw the nomination 
and  organise  a  new  selection  process.  The  President  can  either  accept  the  Minister’s 
nomination  proposal  and  proceed  with  the  appointment,  or  can  refuse  this  proposal,  giving 
reasons.  

The  revised  law  has  therefore  introduced  a  more  transparent  and  robust  selection  and 
nomination  process  at  the  level  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  also  ensuring  more  stability 
through  the  use  of  legislation  rather  than  ministerial  orders.  This  has  been  appreciated 
positively by the Venice Commission in its urgent opinion. The specified involvement of the 
Section of Prosecutors of the SCM will also help to ensure support of the magistracy for the 
nominated  candidates.  While  the  solution  chosen  does  not  prevent  the  Minister  from 
proceeding  with  a  nomination  in  the  face  of  a  negative  opinion  from  the  SCM,  nor  after  a 
refusal  by  the  President,  the  additional  safeguards  introduced  help  to  ensure  that  the 
arguments raised in such a SCM opinion are adequately examined and taken into account in 
the nomination process.  

In  its  urgent  opinion,  the  Venice  Commission  found  that,  while  the  appointment  procedure 
continues  to  give  the  Minister  of  Justice  a  decisive  role,  the  political  responsibility  for  the 
appointment is shared with the President of Romania and the role of the SCM is strengthened.  
According to  the Venice Commission, the involvement of several  institutional  actors in  the 
procedure  ensures  a  good  degree  of  transparency  and  the  amendment  represents  an 
improvement in terms of guarding against the risk of partisan appointments.  

The  dismissal  procedure  of  senior  prosecutors  is  similar  to  the  appointment  process.  In  the 
revised law, the procedure is initiated by a request from the Minister of Justice for an opinion 
to the Section for Prosecutors of the SCM. The opinion is not binding, and after it is issued, 
the Minister may propose a dismissal to the President of Romania, who can only refuse the 
proposal  on  grounds  of  legality.  One  change  follows  a  ruling  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human Rights  (ECtHR),47 which  drew attention to the growing importance of involving an 
authority  independent  of  the  executive  and  the  legislative  branch  in  decisions  affecting  the 
appointment and dismissal of prosecutors, and the risk that the dismissal could have a chilling 
effect on the willingness of magistrates to participate in public debate on issues concerning 
the  judiciary.  A  review  procedure  before  an  administrative  court  has  been  added  to  the 
procedure  for  dismissal  of  prosecutors  from  leadership  functions,  giving  the  dismissed 
prosecutor  15  days  to  challenge  the  dismissal,  with  the  Court  being  therefore  able  (but  not 
required) to examine the legality and soundness of the proposed dismissal48.  

As regards the 2018 recommendation on the appointment of the DNA Chief Prosecutor, the 
2021 CVM report concluded that it had been addressed. 

The  revised  justice  laws  introduce  a  more  transparent  and  robust  process  of  selection  for 
appointments  to  leadership posts in  the prosecution, with additional  safeguards  to  enhance 
the accountability of the Minister of Justice in putting forward nominations.  The procedure 
for  appointments  and  dismissals  of  leadership  posts  in  the  prosecution  services  has  been 
under discussion since the start of the CVM, and consultation of the Venice Commission is an 

47   Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 5 May 2020, Kövesi v. Romania, 3594/19. 
48   Unlike in the previous law, a legal challenge of the President’s decree to dismiss a top prosecutor does not 

have a suspensive effect on the dismissal. 

9 

 
 
                                                           
important way to bring sustainability to the solution chosen. The Romanian government has 
committed  to  take  the  utmost  account  of  the  upcoming  Venice  Commission  opinion  on  the 
justice laws. The Commission will continue to monitor the follow-up on this commitment and 
the  practical  implementation  of  the  new  legislation  in  the  framework  of  the  Rule  of  Law 
Report.  

Codes of conduct 

2017  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  parliamentarians  now  being 
developed in Parliament includes clear provisions on mutual respect between institutions and 
making  clear  that  parliamentarians  and  the  parliamentary  process  should  respect  the 
independence of the judiciary. A similar Code of Conduct could be adopted for Ministers. 

As  reported  in  2021,  a  Code  of  Conduct  for  parliamentarians  is  in  place  since  the  end  of 
201749. Though it does not include explicit provisions on the respect for the independence of 
the judiciary50, it may have contributed to increased awareness and therefore a reduction in 
the  number  of  incidents  of  disregard  of  judicial  independence  in  the  parliamentary  process 
and  criticism  of  the  judicial  system  and  of  individual  magistrates  from  some  Members  of 
Parliament as noted in the 2021 CVM report51. The ministerial code of conduct, amended in 
2020, includes the obligation to respect judicial independence52. 

Since  the  2021  CVM  report  there  has  been  a  reduction  in  significant  public  criticism  from 
parliamentarians  likely  to  undermine  the  independence  of  the  judiciary,  and  there  were  no 
instances  to  test  the  effectiveness  of  the  Code  in  case  of  breaches.  During  2021-2022,  the 
SCM  admitted  eight  requests  for  defending  the  professional  reputation,  independence  and 
impartiality of judges, and 18 such requests for prosecutors53. The SCM has noted that, unlike 
in the past when campaigns denigrating magistrates were launched by politicians in national 
media outlets, most requests are now linked to statements issued in local media.  

This improved situation may offer an opportunity to guard against any future return to a more 
conflictual atmosphere and a greater risk of attacks from politicians towards members of the 
judiciary. The Codes of Conduct could for instance be accompanied by guidance, examples 
and awareness-raising on how to deal with concrete situations. A possible way forward which 
the Romanian authorities could consider would be to follow-up to ensure that when the SCM 
condemns  statements  of  a  Member  of  Parliament  or  of  the  government  in  relation  to  an 
individual  magistrate  or  the  judicial  system,  a  prompt  assessment  of  whether  the  Code  has 
been  breached  is  carried  out.  Such  developments  can  be  monitored  in  the  Rule  of  Law 
reports. 

Codes  of  Conduct  for  parliamentarians  and  ministers  are  in  place  and  can  contribute  to 
increased awareness  and a significant  reduction in  the number of  incidents  of  disregard of 
judicial independence and criticism of the judicial system and of individual magistrates.  

49   Parliament decision 77/2017: https://www.juridice.ro/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Codul-de-conduită.pdf.  
50   The  Code  of  Conduct  does  not  specifically  mention  respect  for  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  but 
includes  a  general  provision  on  the  respect  of  separation  of  powers:  Article  1  paragraph  (3)  provides: 
"Deputies  and  senators  have  the  obligation  to  act  with  honour  and  discipline,  taking  into  account  the 
principles of separation and balance of powers in the state, transparency,  moral probity, responsibility and 
respect for Parliament's reputation." 

51   Superior Council of Magistracy website – statements and decisions regarding judicial independence. 
52   Article 3(1) of the Code. 
53   The total number of decisions taken by the SCM in cases of requests to defend the professional reputation 
and  impartiality  of  magistrates  were  36  in  2021  (23  requests  admitted,  10  rejected,  the  rest  annulled  or 
withdrawn) and 18 in 2022 (8 admitted, 9 rejected, 1 annulled).   

10 

 
 
                                                           
Civil procedure code 

2017 Recommendation: The Minister of Justice, the Superior Council of the Magistracy and 
the High Court of Cassation and Justice should finalise an action plan to ensure that the new 
deadline for the implementation of the remaining provisions of the Code of Civil Procedures 
can be respected. 

This Recommendation covered the finalisation of the reform of the Code of Civil Procedures, 
which in particular set up a council chamber stage in the civil procedure and procedures for 
appeals  in  certain  cases.  In  2018,  this  reform  was  abandoned54.  The  2021  CVM  report 
maintained  the  conclusion  reached  in  2019  that  this  should  provide  an  opportunity  for  a 
period of stability in this branch of the judicial system, and considered the recommendation 
fulfilled.  

No  further  developments  were  noted  since  the  last  CVM  report  and  the  recommendation 
remains  fulfilled.  Assessments  of  the  efficiency  and  quality  of  the  judicial  proceedings  are 
being examined in the context of the Rule of Law Report. 

Criminal code and criminal procedure code 

•  2018 Recommendation:  Freeze the entry into force of  the changes to  the Criminal Code 

and Criminal Procedure Code. 

•  2018  Recommendation:  Reopen  the  revision  of  the  Criminal  Code  and  Criminal 
Procedure  Code  taking  fully  into  account  the  need  for  compatibility  with  EU  law  and 
international anti-corruption instruments, as well as the recommendations under the CVM 
and the Venice Commission opinion. 

•  2017  Recommendation:  The  current  phase  in  the  reform  of  Romania's  Criminal  Codes 
should be concluded, with Parliament taking forward its plans to adopt the amendments 
presented by the government in 2016 after consultation with the judicial authorities. 

CVM  reports  have  consistently  returned  to  the  need  to  conclude  the  reform  of  Romania’s 
2014  Criminal  Codes.  A  key  driver  for  this  reform  has  been  the  need  to  adapt  to 
Constitutional  Court  decisions,  as  well  as  to  transpose  EU  Directives.  Since  2014,  the 
Constitutional  Court  adopted  80  decisions  declaring  various  provisions  of  the  Codes 
unconstitutional55. Responding swiftly and consistently to the need to adapt the legislation to 
reflect these decisions proved to be a challenge56. In previous years, the Commission reported 
in detail on developments around the revisions of the Codes, reiterating the need to conclude 
the reforms as a matter of priority. 

A  number  of  far-reaching  decisions  of  the  Constitutional  Court  made  since  2014  annulled 
provisions  of  both  codes,  with  a  particular  impact  on  the  fight  against  corruption  and 
organised crime57. The absence of policy and legislative solutions led to increased obstacles 
and  legal  uncertainty  regarding  the  investigation,  prosecution  and  sanctioning  of  high-level 
corruption  cases,  with  cases  failing  in  court,  legal  uncertainty  on  the  admissibility  of 

54  The amended laws entered into force in December 2018.  
55   66 decisions relate to the Criminal Procedure Code and 14 decisions to the Criminal Code. 
56   As the Romanian government noted, although some of the unconstitutionality deficiencies have already been 
remedied  by  the  adoption  of  legislative  amendments,  there  are  still  32  CCR  decisions  on  the  Code  of 
Criminal  Procedure  and  13  decisions  on  the  Criminal  Code  which  have  not  been  followed  by  legislative 
interventions.  

57   Examples  include  the  definition  of  the  crime  of  abuse  in  office,  the  conditions  for  using  technical 
surveillance  methods  (wiretapping)  or  the  special  statute  of  limitation  for  crimes.  In  this  respect,  see  also 
Benchmark Three. 

11 

 
 
                                                           
evidence,  and  the  restart  of  investigations  or  trial.  In  certain  cases,  the  lack  of  legislative 
action has led to a succession of Constitutional Court decisions on the same topic, and to the 
need for the High Court of Cassation  and Justice (HCCJ)  to  interpret  them in  order  for  the 
courts to apply them in a consistent manner.  

A  recent  example  is  likely  to  have  a  particularly  damaging  impact  on  important  ongoing 
criminal cases. In 2018, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional a provision related 
to the interruption of the limitation period of the criminal liability for all offences for which a 
statute  of  limitation  applies.  The  majority  of  the  courts  took  account  of  this  decision  by 
interpreting in a more restrictive manner the situations in which a procedural act could lead to 
the interruption of the statute  of limitation. However, the failure to  remedy the situation by 
enacting new provisions in law was noted in a second decision of the Constitutional Court on 
the  same  article  in  May  2022.  This  decision  considered  that  as  from  the  first  decision,  and 
until the conditions for interruption of the limitation period are set out by the legislature, there 
is  no  basis  for  the  interruption  of  the  limitation  period  for  the  criminal  liability.  Whilst  a 
Government Emergency Ordinance in 2022 was issued to clarify the conditions under which 
the  interruption  of  the  limitation  period  would  apply  for  the  future,  this  would  not  have 
retrospective  effect.  In  addition,  challenges  to  the  Ordinance  are  currently  also  pending 
before the Constitutional  Court.  On 25 October 2022, the HCCJ  held that, according to  the 
principle  of  the  most  favourable  law  in  the  period  2014-2022,  no  procedural  acts  of  the 
prosecution may be considered to interrupt the limitation period for criminal liability58. This 
sequence of events  could  have serious consequences. The  Prosecutors’ Section of the SCM 
warned  that  it  would  lead  to  the  termination  of  criminal  proceedings  and  the  removal  of 
criminal liability in a substantial number of cases59.  

Since the 2021 report, concrete steps have been taken to take forward the revision of the two 
codes. The interinstitutional working group that had been set up in 2019 continued its work, 
and  revised  drafts  were  published  for  consultation  on  the  Ministry  of  Justice’s  website  in 
summer 2021. One year later, on 2 June 2022, the Ministry of Justice sent a revised version 
of the draft laws to the Government for approval60. The revision is also part of the milestones 
of a reform in the national Recovery and Resilience Plan of Romania.61  

The legislative process of revising the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code to align 
provisions with the relevant decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania is still ongoing. 
This alignment will also need to take into account the need for compatibility with EU law and 
international  anti-corruption  instruments,  as  well  as  the  recommendations  of  the CVM  and 

58   Decision  67/2022  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice,  referring  to  Decision  no.  297/2018  and 

Decision no. 358/2022 of the Constitutional Court.  

59   https://www.csm1909.ro/PageDetails.aspx?Type=Title&FolderId=9880. See also Benchmark 3. 
60   See  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  report  for  more  details.  In  particular,  the  current  draft  proposes  to  amend  the 
offence of abuse of power in the Criminal Code to specify that a ‘violation of a duty’ should follow from a 
law, a Government Ordinance, a Government Emergency Ordinance, or another normative act which, at the 
date of its adoption, was assimilated to a law. Lack of clarity on this offence had inhibited its prosecution 
and  it  is  expected  that  the  amendment  will  facilitate  the  effective  prosecution  of  this  offence.  It  is  also 
proposed,  following  a  Constitutional  Court  judgment  and  a  2018  Opinion  of  the  Venice  Commission,  to 
adopt strengthened safeguards for the use of evidence obtained from electronic recordings. 

61   Milestone  424  of  Romania’s  RRP,  entitled  ‘Amendment  of  the  Criminal  Code  and  Criminal  Procedure 
Code’ requires Romania to ‘bring the provisions of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code that 
entered into force in 2014 in line with the Constitutional provisions, in accordance with the relevant national 
Constitutional  Court  decisions  on  the  constitutionality  aspects  of  the  recent  changes  made  to  the  Criminal 
Code  and  Criminal  procedure.’  Romania’s  agreed  target  to  complete  this  reform  in  its  RRP  is  December 
2022. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
the Venice Commission opinion. Recent developments in jurisprudence related to the statute 
of limitation of criminal liability and their substantial impact on ongoing pre-trial and court 
proceedings  demonstrate  the  need  for  such  alignment.  Completing  the  revision  of  the  two 
Codes is also part of the commitments undertaken by Romania in its Recovery and Resilience 
Plan  and  the  Commission  will  assess  closely  the  revised  codes  in  accordance  with  the 
specific procedures envisaged in that context.  

The legislative process in the CVM area 

2017 CVM Recommendation: In order to improve further the transparency and predictability 
of the legislative process, and strengthen internal safeguards in the interest of irreversibility, 
the Government and Parliament should ensure full transparency and take proper account of 
consultations  with  the  relevant  authorities  and  stakeholders  in  decision-making  and 
legislative activity on the Criminal Code and Code for Criminal Procedures, on corruption 
laws, on integrity laws (incompatibilities, conflicts of interest, unjustified wealth), on the laws 
of  justice  (pertaining  to  the  organisation  of  the  justice  system)  and  on  the  Civil  Code  and 
Code for Civil Procedures, taking inspiration from the transparency in decision-making put 
in place by the Government in 2016. 

This recommendation was an acknowledgement that an open and robust legislative process is 
the  best  way  to  ensure  that  reforms  are  sustainable  as  well  as  effective62.  The  2021  CVM 
report  concluded  that  the  legislative  process  for  the  various  proposals  for  reform  –  on  the 
SIIJ, the Justice Laws, and later the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code – provided 
an opportunity to show that the approach of the recommendation is being followed.  

A  balance  between  the  need  to  inject  urgency  in  priority  commitments  and  to  ensure  a 
transparent and inclusive process has not always  been found.  The swift process of adopting 
the  law  that  dismantled  the  SIIJ  led  to  concerns  that  there  had  been  little  opportunity  for 
stakeholders  to  comment  on  the  new  arrangements,  a  concern  echoed  by  the  Venice 
Commission itself63. The justice laws have also been subject to the urgency procedure of the 
Parliament64  and  expedited  public  consultation  on  the  final  versions  tabled  in  Parliament. 
Stakeholders  have  also  pointed  out  that  the  parliamentary  debates  were  rushed,  without 
sufficient time to discuss amendments in substance65.  

The 2022 Rule of Law report has commented more generally on the law-making process in 
Romania,  noting  that  frequent  changes  of  legislation  and  the  regular  use  of  emergency 
ordinances continue to raise concerns regarding the stability and predictability of legislation. 
In this framework, the Commission issued a recommendation to Romania to ensure effective 
public  consultation  before  the  adoption  of  draft  legislation66.  The  2023  Rule  of  Law  report 
will follow up on the implementation of this recommendation. Issues related to the quality of 
law-making  are  also  addressed  by  Romania’s  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan,  including  a 
specialised structure to oversee the quality of legislation and the systematic re-publication of 

62   The 2022 Rule of law report  - Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania and the European 
Semester  Country  Specific  Recommendations  have  underlined  concerns  regarding  the  predictability  and 
quality of the legislative process in general.  

63   Venice  Commission,  Opinion  on  the  draft  law  dismantling  the  section  for  investigating  criminal  offences 

committed within the judiciary (CDL-AD(2022)003). 

64   15  days  for  each  Chamber  for  the  emergency  legislative  procedure  instead  of  the  normal  legislative 

procedure of 45 days per Chamber. 

65   Observations from NGOs present at the debates, and media reports. 
66   2022 Rule of law report - Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 2. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
consolidated  versions  of  laws  whenever  they  are  amended,  as  well  as  developing  a 
methodology on the use of government emergency ordinances. 

While  the  calendar  for  reforms  has  not  always  allowed  for  extended  consultations,  the 
Romanian  Government  has  nevertheless  taken  steps  in  line  with  the  recommendation  and 
sought to ensure transparency and that relevant actors have had the opportunity to express 
views on the reforms proposed. The more general approach to  effective public consultation 
before  the  adoption  of  draft  legislation  will  continue  to  be  monitored  in  the  Rule  of  Law 
Report. 

Implementation of court decisions by public administration 

2017  CVM  Recommendation:  The  Government  should  put  in  place  an  appropriate  Action 
Plan  to  address  the  issue  of  implementation  of  court  decisions  and  application  of 
jurisprudence  of  the  courts  by  public  administration,  including  a  mechanism  to  provide 
accurate  statistics  to  enable  future  monitoring.  It  should  also  develop  a  system  of  internal 
monitoring involving the Superior Council of the Magistracy and Court of Auditors in order 
to ensure proper implementation of the Action Plan. 

Respect and implementation of court decisions is an integral part of the effectiveness of any 
judicial system67. To respond to challenges in this area, Romania proposed to the Council of 
Europe’s  Committee  of  Ministers  an  action  plan  to  address  the  structural  problems  of  non-
enforcement  or  delayed  enforcement  of  court  decisions  against  the  State68  identified  by  the 
European  Court  of  Human  Rights69.  A  list  of  measures  to  implement  the  action  plan, 
including  amendments  to  the  legal  framework  to  guarantee  timely  execution  and  a 
mechanism  to  supervise  and  prevent  late  execution  of  judgments  for  which  the  State  is  a 
debtor,  were  approved  in  201970.  In  its  March  2022  assessment  of  progress  of  the 
implementation of the action plan, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers reiterated 
their  call  upon  the  authorities  to  step  up  efforts  and  demonstrate  commitment  to  complete 
necessary  reforms71.  Following this, a  new structure was set  up in  October 2022 within the 
Secretariat General of the Government to monitor and control the enforcement of judgments 
delivered  by  the  ECtHR  following  the  non-enforcement  of  judgments  delivered  against 
public debtors in Romania72. 

The  Rule  of  Law  Report  now  includes  an  overview  of  systematic  indicators  on  the 
implementation  of  ECtHR  leading  judgments  in  all  Member  States73.  In  January  2022, 
Romania’s  rate  of  implementing  leading  judgments  from  the  past  ten  years  was  at  57%  – 

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

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

68   See Council of Europe reference CM/Notes/1280/H46-21. 
69   Romania  was  sanctioned  by  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  in  2005  on  the  grounds  of  failure  or 
significant  delay  by  the  State  or  by  legal  entities  under  the  responsibility  of  the  State  to  abide  by  final 
domestic court decisions.  

70   Memorandum nr. L1/1814/26.02.2019 on ‘Measures to Ensure the Execution of Judgments against a Public 
Debtor, in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding non-execution or 
execution with delay of the judgments handed down against a public debtor.’ 

71   Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)58. 
72   The  implementation  will  be  analysed  by  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  in  March 

2023. 

73   The adoption of necessary execution measures for a judgment by the ECtHR is supervised by the Committee 

of Ministers of the Council of Europe. 

14 

 
 
                                                           
 
compared  to  the  overall  Member  State  average  of  40%  –  and  the  average  time  that  the 
judgments  had  been  pending  implementation  was  over  four  years  and  two  months74.  This 
issue will continue to be followed in the framework of the Rule of Law Report, including as 
regards steps taken by Romania to develop a mechanism of accurate statistics and a system of 
internal  monitoring  that  involves  the  Supreme  Council  of  the  Magistracy  and  Court  of 
Auditors to ensure the proper implementation of its Action Plan. 

New steps to implement this recommendation have recently been taken, which are expected to 
address  the  persistent  issues  identified.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  follow  closely  the 
monitoring process set up at the level of the Council of Europe and report as relevant in the 
framework of the Rule of Law Reports, as it does for all Member States75. 

Strategic Judicial Management and Action Plan for the judiciary 

2017  CVM  Recommendation:  The  Strategic  Judicial  Management,  i.e.,  the  Minister  of 
Justice, the Superior Council of the Magistracy, the High Court of Cassation and Justice and 
the Prosecutor-General should ensure the implementation of the Action Plan as adopted and 
put in place regular common public reporting  on its implementation, including solutions to 
the  issues  of  shortages  of  court  clerks,  excessive  workload  and  delays  in  motivation  of 
decisions. 

CVM  reports  identified  the  Strategic  Judicial  Management  as  an  important  opportunity  to 
build a consensual and sustainable way forward for the justice system. The 2022 Rule of Law 
report assessed that the new Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary 2022-2025 and its 
related  Action  Plan,  adopted  on  30  March  2022,  set  clear  objectives  and  a  monitoring 
mechanism.  The  adoption  and  entry  into  force  of  the  new  Strategy  is  a  milestone  under 
Romania’s Recovery and Resilience Plan76. The Strategy focuses on both the independence, 
quality  and  efficiency  of  justice,  and  on  access  to  justice.  It  includes  the  elimination  of 
inequities  in  the  magistrates’  salaries  and  pensions,  and  the  modernisation  of  the  status  of 
judicial  staff  and  related  legal  professions,  as  well  as  the  reform  of  the  justice  laws.  The 
Strategy  envisages  a  number  of  measures  to  remedy  the  issue  of  staff  shortages  in  the 
judiciary, including modernising the status of judicial and auxiliary staff to allow judges and 
prosecutors to concentrate on judicial work. It also sets the quantitative objective to ensure an 
occupancy  rate  of  95%  of  the  judge  positions  and  80-85%  of  the  prosecutor  positions  by 
202577. 

The strategy will be an important tool for addressing remaining challenges in the judiciary in 
a sustainable manner. Close monitoring and public reporting will also serve to foster public 
trust that issues related to  excessive workload  and related delays in  the treatment  of  Court 

74   2022 Rule of law report - Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 28. 
75   See 2022 Rule of Law report, COM(2022) 500 final, p.24. 
76   Milestone 421 on “Entry into force of the  law approving the strategy for the development of the judiciary 

2022-2025”. 

77   The  issue of staff shortages in the judiciary has  gained  public prominence  in November,  where a  wave  of 
retirement requests were registered, notably among judges. Magistrate associations pointed to the need for  a 
clear  strategy  to  address  shortages  and  excessive  workload.  In  order  to  reduce  the  rate  of  retirements  of 
judges, as well as to ensure an adequate selection range for recruitment competitions in the profession, both 
the  presidents  of  the  courts  of  last  instance  –  the  High  Court  and  the  courts  of  appeal  –  and  the  general 
assemblies  of  judges  of  the  courts  have  called  on  the  other  branches  of  government  to  take  measures  to 
strengthen the status of judges and improve working conditions in the courts in a Resolution adopted on 28 
October. Shortages within the judiciary are also being followed in the Rule of Law Reports. The 2022 report 
noted that the number of retirements continues to exceed the number of new recruitments.  

15 

 
 
                                                           
cases  are  being  adequately  prioritised.  Proactive  and  regular  communication  and 
consultations  with  the  judiciary  and  the  legal  professions  could  also  be  useful  to  reassure 
magistrates that issues related to staff shortages and the resulting disproportionate workload 
are being addressed. 

The transparency and accountability of the Superior Council of the Magistracy  

2017 CVM Recommendation: The new Superior Council of the Magistracy should prepare a 
collective  programme  for  its  mandate,  including  measures  to  promote  transparency  and 
accountability.  It  should  include  a  strategy  on  outreach,  with  regular  open  meetings  with 
assemblies  of  judges  and  prosecutors  at  all  levels,  as  well  as  with  civil  society  and 
professional  organisations,  and  set  up  annual  reporting  to  be  discussed  in  courts'  and 
prosecutors' general assemblies. 

Successive  CVM  reports  have  consistently  underlined  the  need  for  the  Superior  Council  of 
the Magistracy (SCM) to contribute to the momentum of reform, articulating clear collective 
positions and securing confidence through transparency and accountability. The  2021 report 
noted  important  concerns  related  to  the  capacity  of  the  SCM  to  build  consensus  in  the 
judiciary  and  play  a  constructive  role  in  key  decisions  for  the  organisation  and  the 
functioning  of  the  judiciary,  but  also  pointed  to  instances  where  the  SCM  was  able  to 
surmount its internal divisions and obtain results78.  

Despite efforts to reach compromises, divisions within the SCM since 2021 have continued to 
beset issues such as appointments for the new structure replacing the SIIJ, the organisation of 
elections  for  the  new  SCM,  or  public  disagreements  between  SCM  members  on  the  justice 
laws.  The  current  SCM  term  expires  at  the  end  of  2022,  and  the  process  to  elect  new 
members  was  launched  in  February  2022.  The  elections  for  the  new  Council  also  attracted 
criticism79.  The  designation  as  interim  President  of  the  Council  for  2022  of  its  sitting 
President gave rise to further reactions within the SCM80.  

The revised legislative provisions concerning the functioning of the SCM include a number 
of obligations that can contribute to the transparency and accountability of the Council. The 
law  maintains  the  possibility  to  recuse  SCM  members  when  judging  disciplinary  cases  on 
grounds extended to conflicts of interest and impartiality. A clear deadline for replacing SCM 
members  when  their  term  expires  is  introduced.  Finally,  the  assemblies  maintain  the 
possibility to recuse members of the SCM on grounds of non-fulfillment of duties.  

In contrast to 2020 – when the SCM did not engage constructively on the draft justice laws 
published  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  did  not  issue  an  official  opinion  –  in  2022  the 
Council has been able to adopt formal positions on key legislative projects. Although marred 

78   See 2021 CVM report for details.  
79   Elections were organised in early July 2022, during summer recess. The results were challenged and on 19 
July  SCM  admitted  challenges  from  two  judges  but  rejected  those  of  prosecutors,  which  led  to  public 
controversies.  See 
instance  https://ziare.com/alegeri-csm/alegeri-turul-2-procurori-csm-1753710; 
https://spotmedia.ro/stiri/opinii-si-analize/apel-catre-comisia-europeana-csm-dovedeste-ca-romania-are-
nevoie-sa-ramana-cu-mcv; 
https://romania.europalibera.org/a/alegeri-csm-contestatii/31950487.html; 
VIDEO Procurorul Bogdan Pîrlog despre votul din CSM: „O încălcare a legii care ridică probleme penale” - 
PRESShub.  

for 

80   Several  members  of  the  SCM  deemed  that  this  interim  nomination  has  circumvented  constitutional 
provisions  whereby  the  President  of  the  Council  can  be  elected  for  a  non-renewable  one  year  mandate, 
calling into question the legitimacy of several important proceedings initiated in 2022 such as the elections 
for the Council, the nomination of the new Chief Judicial Inspector and the selection of a new President of 
the High Court of Cassation and Justice.  

16 

 
 
 
                                                           
by controversy within the Council, with some members deploring the lack of consultation of 
the Courts and prosecution services, the plenum issued a positive opinion on the draft law for 
the dismantling of the Special Section for the Investigation of Offences  in February 202281. 
The Council also issued a positive opinion on the draft justice laws in August 202282, while 
presenting suggestions for some amendments, and participated in the ensuing parliamentary 
debates with further proposals for amendments.  

Since the last report, the activity of the SCM in defending the independence of the judiciary 
has continued to  rely on  the sections  rather than the plenum83. Some members of the SCM 
have questioned the processes as unnecessarily lengthy and inconsistent in their conclusions.   

As  regards  transparency  and  access  to  information,  the  Council  has  continued  to  publish 
relevant  information  on  its  website,  and  its  plenary  and  sections  meetings  are  broadcast. 
Information about disciplinary decisions is also available online.  

The  newly  elected  SCM  starting  its  mandate  in  2023  would  need  to  ensure  hat  it  takes 
forward transparency and accountability as key objectives in its programme. Holding regular 
open  meetings  and  discussing  the  annual  reports84  with  the  assemblies  of  judges  and 
prosecutors at  all levels, as well as with civil society and professional organisations will be 
key to ensure the implementation of these objectives. The civil society forum in the area of 
justice established in December 2021 can make a major contribution in this respect. 

Successive  CVM  reports  have  consistently  underlined  the  need  for  the  Superior  Council  of 
Magistracy to  contribute to  the momentum of  reform, articulating  clear collective positions 
and securing confidence through transparency and accountability.  The importance of  these 
objectives has been recognised by the Romanian government. The election of a new Council 
to  start  its  mandate  in  2023  provides  an  opportunity  to  ensure  transparency  and 
accountability, which could be demonstrated by the new Council in the form, for instance, of 
a public statement of governing principles, as well as in the sustained collective endorsement 
of key positions by the Council.  

The Judicial Inspection 

2018 CVM Recommendation: The Superior Council of Magistracy to appoint immediately an 
interim team for the management of the Judicial Inspection and within three months to appoint 
through a competition a new management team in the Inspection.  

The  2021  CVM  report  concluded  that  structural  concerns  related  to  the  Judicial  Inspection 
remained to be addressed, including in the light of the May 2021 judgement of the European 

81   Superior Council of Magistracy, Decision 1 of 11 February 2022. The controversy was linked to the fact that 
the Council's draft amendments to the law were taken up by the Ministry of Justice in a revised draft law, 
which led to the Council issuing a positive opinion without comments. In a letter to the Commission, several 
Members of the Council argued that this created a false public perception of a full agreement of the judicial 
system  towards  this  law,  despite  a  lack  of  consultation  of  courts  and  prosecution  offices  on  the  draft 
provisions.  

82   Decision 115 of 12 August 2022. 
83  The plenum issued no decisions during 2022, and 7 in 2021. In 2021, one of the requests admitted concerned 
public televised statements made by one SCM member himself related to the prosecution. The prosecutors’ 
section  concluded  in  December  2021  that  the  statements  had  seriously  affected  the  independence  and 
impartiality of prosecutors, in particular those charged to investigate corruption offences.  

84   The SCM has not yet published the 2021 Report on the Judiciary, although its mandate will end in December 

2022. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                           
Court of Justice85. The 2022 Rule of Law report reiterated the concerns about the extensive 
powers  and  lack  of  accountability  of  the  Chief  Judicial  Inspector.  These  concerns  included 
the  concentration  of  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Chief  Inspector  and  his  deputy,  the  high 
proportion of cases brought by the Inspection and eventually rejected in court, as well as the 
limits to the oversight by the SCM86. Questions were raised on whether the provisions in the 
justice laws for appointing the management of the Judicial Inspection and its accountability 
offer sufficient guarantees and achieve the right balance between judges, prosecutors and the 
SCM. A request for a preliminary ruling is pending before the CJEU on the question whether 
the  extensive  powers  vested  in  the  Chief  Inspector  are  in  line  with  the  requirements  of 
judicial independence87.  

The  law  on  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  adopted  in  October  2022  amended 
substantially the legislative framework related to  the Judicial  Inspection.  It  includes several 
provisions  to  remedy  the  lack  of  accountability  of  the  Judicial  Inspection  and  the 
concentration of power in the hands of the Chief Inspector. The powers of the Chief Inspector 
are  balanced  by  a  newly  introduced  Board,  with  a  series  of  powers  to  ensure  an  adequate 
counterweight. Its role will cover decisions on the organisation and operation of the Judicial 
Inspection,  the  performance  of  inspection  works  and  appointment  competitions.  The 
appointment of the deputy Chief Inspector passes from the hands of the Chief Inspector to the 
SCM  plenum,  based  on  more  objective  criteria.  Similarly,  the  judicial  inspectors  will  be 
appointed by the Chief Inspector on the basis of a competition organised by the relevant SCM 
section  with  the  support  of  the  National  Institute  of  Magistracy.  This  competition  was 
previously  run  by  the  Judicial  Inspection  itself.  The  rules  on  the  organisation  of  the 
competitions were clarified, including as regards the selection criteria and the composition of 
the selection panels. New rules have been introduced to regulate any situations of conflict of 
interests  faced  by  a  Chief  Inspector,  who  will  also  now  be  required  to  propose  the 
composition of the monitoring teams to the management board (instead of the Chief Inspector 
deciding  directly).  A  remaining  concern  relates  to  the  possibility  for  the  Chief  Inspector  to 
overrule  a  decision  to  dismiss  a  case,  or  any  decision  taken  by  an  inspector  following  a 
preliminary investigation. The application of this rule in practice and the effectiveness of the 
existing safeguards88 will need to be monitored. 

In  the  past,  the  selection  and  appointment  of  the  Chief  Inspector  raised  controversy,  as 
detailed by the 2021 CVM report. The appointment of the new head of the Judicial Inspection 
in  July  2022  appears  to  have  been  more  straightforward,  even  though  only  one  candidate 
applied.  The  new  legislation  also  covers  the  appointment  of  the  Chief  and  Deputy  Chief 
Inspectors, giving stronger oversight powers to the SCM and involving the National Institute 
of  Magistracy  in  the  competitions  for  entering  the  Judicial  Inspection.  The  revocation 
procedure  for  the  Chief  Inspector  has  also  been  altered,  from  a  requirement  for  a  decision 

85   Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  May  2021,  Asociaţia  ‘Forumul  Judecătorilor  Din  România’  and 
joined  cases  C-83/19,  C-127/19,  C-195/19,  C-294/19,  C-355/19  and  C-379/19, 

in 

Others, 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:393, para. 207.  

86   The  latest  progress  report  for  Romania  under  the  CVM,  (COM(2021)  370  final),  notes  that  there  remain 
cases  where  disciplinary  investigations  and  heavy  sanctions  on  magistrates  critical  of  the  efficiency  and 
independence of the judiciary have raised concerns. More recently, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by 
the Judiciary Inspection against a judge of the Pitești Court of Appeal generated such concerns, in substance 
because he decided to disapply the legislation establishing the SIIJ in light of the judgment of the ECJ from 
May 2021. The SCM eventually rejected the disciplinary action by decision of 14 April 2022. 

87   C-817/21, R.I. v Inspecția Judiciară, N.L. 
88   The  Chief  Inspector  can  overule  such  decisions  only  once  and  with  an  obligation  to  provide  reasoned 

grounds.   

18 

 
 
                                                           
from the full SCM plenary to initiation by five SCM members or by the General Assembly of 
the  Judicial  Inspection.  The  resulting  balance  between  considerations  of  independence, 
accountability and stability in the leadership of the Judicial Inspection will need to continue 
to be monitored in practice.  

In  2021  and  2022  the  number  of  disciplinary  actions  registered  by  the  Superior  Council  of 
Magistracy  has  remained  broadly  stable89.  However,  there  remain  cases  where  disciplinary 
investigations and resulting sanctions imposed on magistrates appear to have been linked to 
the voicing of critical opinions on rule of law issues. Such investigations have been opened 
by  the  Judicial  Inspection  either  ex  officio  or  at  the  request  of  the  SCM90.  The  CJEU  has 
made  clear  that  judicial  independence  could  be  undermined  if  the  disciplinary  regime  is 
diverted  from  its  legitimate  purposes  and  used  to  exert  political  control  over  judicial 
decisions  or  pressure  on  judges91.  In  addition  to  the  cases  mentioned  in  the  Rule  of  Law 
report  2022,  other  disciplinary  investigations  against  judges  were  perceived  as  a  form  of 
pressure and retaliation for sentences given, notably in high-level corruption-related cases92. 

Although  public  information  regarding  disciplinary  cases  at  the  Judicial  Inspection  was 
lacking for the past three years93, predictability and transparency has been increased through 
the decision of the  SCM  to  publish, in  anonymised format, disciplinary decisions that have 
become final and breaches of the code of ethics on a portal accessible to magistrates only. 

This  2018  recommendation  has  become  obsolete.  The  new  leadership  of  the  Judicial 
Inspection has now the opportunity to ensure disciplinary investigations are no longer used 
as an instrument to exert pressure on the activity of judges and prosecutors, in line with the 
case-law of the CJEU. The Commission will continue to look at the operation in practice in 
the framework of the Rule of Law Reports. 

On  the  basis  of  the  analysis  of  Benchmark  One,  overall  the  recommendations  can  be 
considered satisfactorily fulfilled, and monitoring can continue under  the annual Rule of 
Law Report cycle. The Commission welcomes the Romanian government’s commitments to 
continue  the  path  of  reform  by  taking  the  utmost  account  of  Venice  Commission 
recommendations  and  completing  the  process  of  adopting  new  criminal  codes.  Romania 
has been fully committed to working together with the Commission on the annual Rule of 
Law Report cycle. This monitoring framework has already started to follow in detail many 
of the issues explored under the CVM, such as the regime succeeding the Section for the 
Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary and the functioning of the Judicial Inspection, 
as well as the broader legislative framework of the Justice Laws and the Criminal Codes 
and  the  work  of  the  Superior  Council  of  Magistracy.  Commitments  under  the  Recovery 
and  Resilience  Facility  and  further  opportunities  for  assistance  under  other  relevant  EU 

89   24  actions  concerning  judges  and  13  concerning  prosecutors  in  2021,  26  actions  concerning  judges  and  6 
concerning prosecutors in 2022. The sanctions issued on judges included warnings, suspension from office, 
reduction of monthly employment allowances, demotion in rank and exclusions from magistracy as regards 
judges. For prosecutors, only warnings were issued.   

90   See Rule of Law report 2022, Country chapter on Romania for details. 
91   Judgments of the Court of Justice of 15 July 2021, Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime for judges), 
C-791/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:596, para. 138, and of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion e.a., in joined 
cases C-357/19, C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1034, para. 239. 

92   Two judges were concerned by the opening of five disciplinary investigations in past months, who claimed 
that the cases were opened at the request of the defendants, with a view to challenging the substance of the 
judgment, or ex officio by the Judicial Inspection. 

93   https://www.inspectiajudiciara.ro/ro-ro/page/comunicate-de-presa. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                           
programmes, in particular the Technical Support Instrument, can help with continuing the 
implementation of relevant reforms.  

2.2   Benchmark Two: Integrity framework and the National Integrity Agency 

The 2021 CVM report  concluded that the  risk of backtracking identified  in  2019, linked to 
modifications  to the  rules on  integrity, had been  mitigated and that there  were encouraging 
signs that the new legislature could set a clear path towards the sustainability of the National 
Integrity Agency (ANI) and the legislative framework on integrity. 

ANI  continues  to  investigate  incompatibilities,  conflicts  of  interest  and  unjustified  wealth, 
maintaining a steady track record94. As set out in the 2022 Rule of Law Report, ANI has seen 
a number of positive developments. After more than one year and a half without a President, 
at  the  proposal  of  the  National  Integrity  Council,  a  new  ANI  President  was  appointed  in 
202195.  

The  fact  that  asset  and  interest  declarations  must  be  filled  electronically  and  are  publicly 
available online since 2022 increased transparency and facilitated ANI’s work96. As well as 
training sessions, ANI launched "e-DAI Assistant" in May 2022, a chatbot helping people to 
use the platform effectively. ANI has also been developing its own tools to identify by itself 
suspicious declarations of assets and interests, on the basis of risk indicators, and intends to 
work  more  closely  with  the  National  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Seized  Assets 
(ANABI)97.  

CVM reports have noted that the effectiveness  of ANI has been constrained by the need to 
modernise and further improve the clarity of the legal framework for integrity, putting it on a 
stable  and  sustainable  basis.  In  its  national  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan,  Romania 
committed to have a consolidated law on integrity in force by 202498. ANI is working with 
the Ministry of Justice and other partners to carry this work forward, expecting to finalise it 
by  mid-202399.  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.  

ANI  continues  to  work  effectively  and  to  take  steps  to  improve  its  governance,  tools  and 
methods.  Work  is  well  under  way  to  prepare  a  comprehensive  legislative  framework  on 

94   Between  1  June  2021  and  30  September  2022,  ANI  analysed  over  1  700  files  and  found  218  integrity 
incidents:  120  cases  of  incompatibility,  81  cases  of  administrative  conflict  of  interest  and  17  cases  of 
unjustified wealth. Integrity inspectors identified 68 cases involving possible criminal offences and referred 
them to the competent bodies for further investigation. 

95   The  new  President  had  been  Vice-President  since  2017. The  selection  procedure  for  a  Vice-President  was 
launched in September 2022 (after a first unsuccessful round earlier this year) and should be finalised by the 
end of the year. The President of ANI flagged that there was little interest from qualified candidates (only 
one candidate applied), also due to the remuneration conditions of the post.  

96   By 30 September 2022, some 10.7 million assets and interests disclosures had been published on the e-DAI 

portal (http://declaratii.integritate.eu/). 

97   Information received from ANI in the context of the country visit to Romania for the purposes of the 2022 

Rule of Law report. 

98   Milestone  no.  431  of  Romania’s  RRP  states:  ‘Consolidated  laws  on  integrity  shall  enter  into  force.  The 
update of the integrity legislation shall be realized based on a prior evaluation and analysis of the integrity 
laws,  together  with  an  initial  clustering  of  the  normative  acts.  Within  the  second  phase  of  the  project,  the 
existing laws shall either be unified and updated, or new normative acts shall be proposed.’ 

99   ANI is currently carrying out a comprehensive mapping of existing integrity rules, of international standards 
and of best practice in other Member States. This will be finalised by the end of 2022 and will inform work 
on the new consolidated law. 

20 

 
 
                                                           
integrity to be adopted in 2023 and this is an opportunity to further support ANI’s work and 
bring  the  clarity  and  stability  needed  to  effectively  detect  and  address  incompatibilities, 
conflicts  of  interest  and  unjustified  wealth.  The  new  legislation  falls  under  Romania’s 
Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan  and  its  practical  implementation  is  within  the  scope  of 
Commission monitoring under the Rule of Law Reports. 

The PREVENT system 

2017  Recommendation:  Ensure  the  entry  into  operation  of  the  PREVENT  system.  The 
National Integrity Agency and the National Public Procurement Agency should put in place 
reporting  on  the  ex-ante  checks  of  public  procurement  procedures  and  their  follow-up, 
including ex post checks, as well as on cases of conflicts of interest or corruption discovered, 
and  the  organisation  of  public  debates  so  that  the  government,  local  authorities,  the 
judiciary and civil society are invited to respond. 

Since 2017, the PREVENT system has been working to avert conflicts of interests in public 
procurement  procedures  by  setting  up  an  ex-ante  verification  mechanism.  This  helps 
contracting authorities to remedy possible problems before the contract is awarded.  

The  2021  CVM  report  confirmed  PREVENT’s  positive  results,  and  its  continued 
effectiveness  has  been  confirmed  by  ANI.  Between  1  June  2021  and  end-September  2022, 
almost 20 000 procurement procedures were reviewed by the PREVENT system with a view 
to  identifying  possible  conflicts  of  interest,  including  over  3  700  dealing  with  EU  funds.  
These  involved  over  2  600  contracting  authorities,  and  almost  16  000  companies.  Integrity 
inspectors  issued  24  integrity  warnings,  covering  procedures  equating  €97  million.  In  all 
cases  notified  by  the  system,  the  contracting  authorities  removed  the  causes  that  generated 
potential  conflicts  of  interest:  there  were  two  cases  where  the  National  Agency  for  Public 
Procurement  was  notified  of  a  potential  irregularity.  This  track  record  confirms  the 
conclusion of the 2021 CVM report that this recommendation is fulfilled.  

The recommendation on the PREVENT system was already fulfilled in 2018 and its continued 
positive results illustrates its sustainability.  

Follow-up of court decisions concerning Members of the Parliament 

2017  Recommendation:  The  Parliament  should  be  transparent  in  its  decision-making  with 
regard  to  the  follow-up  to  final  and  irrevocable  decisions  on  incompatibilities,  conflicts  of 
interests and unjustified wealth against its members. 

Previous  CVM  reports  pointed  at  delays  and  apparent  inconsistencies  in  the  application  of 
sanctions against Members of Parliament found by a final court decision to hold incompatible 
functions  or  to  have  a  conflict  of  interest  following  a  report  from  ANI.  They  highlighted  a 
possible  divergent  interpretation  of  the  rules,  in  particular  when  the  integrity  incident 
occurred in a previous mandate or position, and suggested more clarity. In 2020 and 2021, the 
High Court of Cassation and Justice clarified the interpretation of the laws. 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 the sanction not applying after three years)100.  

100  HCCJ Decision of 16 November 2020 and HCCJ Decision 1/2021 of 19 March 2021.  

21 

 
 
 
                                                           
Since  2021,  there  has  been  one  case,  where  ANI  found  that  one  Senator  held  incompatible 
functions. This led to the prompt resignation of the person concerned from public function, 
despite a challenge to  ANI’s decision being brought  before the Court. There were no cases 
which would have tested the Parliament’s transparency in its decision-making with regard to 
final court decisions.  

The positive assessment in the 2021 CVM report based on the proactive cooperation seen at 
the  start  of  the  new  Parliament  is  confirmed  and  this  recommendation  can  therefore  be 
considered  fulfilled.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  the  follow-up  given  by  the 
Parliament to irrevocable decisions on incompatibilities, conflicts of interests and unjustified 
wealth against its members, under the Rule of Law Reports. 

On  the basis  of the analysis  of Benchmark Two,  all recommendations can be considered 
satisfactorily fulfilled. The Commission will continue to look at developments related to the 
integrity framework and its implementation in the Rule of Law reports. The consolidation 
of  the  legal  framework  for  integrity  is  also  a  milestone  in  Romania’s  Recovery  and 
Resilience Plan101.  

2.3   Benchmark Three: Tackling High-level Corruption 

The National Anti-Corruption Directorate and the fight against high-level corruption 

Corruption was a primary area of concern that the positive assessment reached in respect of 
Benchmark  Three  in  January  2017  had  been  put  into  question  by  Romania.  However,  the 
2021 report was able to mark an improvement, with a new impetus and institutional stability 
at the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA). The positive trend in the effectiveness of 
the  investigation  and  sanctioning  of  corruption  was  confirmed  in  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 
report.  

Since  the  last  CVM  report  and  until  the  end  of  October  2022,  the  DNA  sent  451  cases  of 
high-level corruption to trial, concerning a total of 1 067 defendants. These included sitting or 
former ministers, deputies, senators, or persons holding high-level political or public office in 
the local administration. In the same period, the Courts decided on the final conviction of 564 
defendants in cases prosecuted by the DNA and ordered the confiscation of assets amounting 
to a value of almost €24 million. State entities became entitled to recover over €43 million in 
prejudice  in  DNA  cases  following  final  court  decisions.  These  results  confirm  the  positive 
trend noted in 2021.   

Nevertheless,  operational  challenges  remain  for  the  work  against  high-level  corruption. 
Recruitment  has  proved  challenging,  although  some  improvement  is  noted  on  the  DNA’s 
occupancy rate of prosecutors that has now reached 78%, according to the data provided to 
the Commission. The high seniority requirement had been identified as a major reason for the 
limited  number  of  applications  to  fill  in  the  existing  vacancies102.  However,  since  the 
Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional a law decreasing the seniority  requirement to 
seven  years103,  the  seniority  requirement  for  appointment  in  DNA  has  not  been  changed  in 

101  Milestone 431 on the ‘Evaluation and update of legislation on the integrity framework’. 
102  As acknowledged in the input from Romania for the Rule of Law report, p. 27 and National Anti-Corruption 

Directorate (DNA), 2021 Activity Report, p. 8.  

103  Constitutional Court, Decision No. 514, of 14 July 2021, The Court argued that, as the DNA is a specialised 
department  within  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  attached  to  the  HCCJ,  its  prosecutors  should  have  the  same 

22 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
the  revised  justice  laws,  and  a  ten-year  requirement  is  in  place,  as  well  as  three  years  of 
mandatory  training  in  the  National  Institute  of  Magistracy104.  Given  the  shortage  of 
prosecutors in the DNA, delegation, secondment and transfer remain important tools105. The 
modifications brought about by the new justice laws regarding the recruitment procedure of 
regular  prosecutors  at  the  DNA,  which  has  been  transferred  from  the  Superior  Council  of 
Magistracy to the DNA, are also  seen to  be helping to  reach this  objective. Addressing the 
operational  challenges  of  the  DNA,  including  as  regards  recruitment  of  prosecutors,  is  a 
recommendation  in  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report  and  Romania’s  Recovery  and  Resilience 
Plan includes a commitment to increase the occupancy rate of the DNA to 85% by 30 June 
2023106. 

The dismantling of the SIIJ (see also Benchmark One) is of particular relevance to the work 
to  combat  high-level  corruption.  The  CJEU  noted  that  in  the  case  of  the  SIIJ,  the  lack  of 
expertise  to  conduct  investigations  into  complex  corruption  cases,  insufficient  human 
resources and heavy workload could all risk delays and reduced effectiveness in dealing with 
cases107. The DNA has not regained the competence to investigate corruption in the judiciary, 
although  the  Venice  Commission108  and  the  Prosecutor  General109  have  both  expressed  the 
view that it is unlikely that the new structure would be better placed to conduct investigations 
into allegations of corruption by judges and prosecutors than a specialised prosecution service 
like the DNA. With only a few months since the SIIJ was dismantled, it is too early to assess 
whether  the  new  structure  can  effectively  prosecute  corruption  offences  in  the  judiciary110. 
One other important concern with the SIIJ was the lack of clarity in the attribution of cases 
between DNA and the SIIJ, and in particular the transfer of entire corruption files away from 
DNA, as soon as a judge or prosecutor was involved. The new law aims to limit joined cases 
to  only  those  where  “for  reasons  of  good  conduct  of  the  prosecution,  the  case  cannot  be 
disjoined”111.  If  properly  implemented,  this  could  help  to  prevent  the  disruption  to  anti-

seniority as prosecutors at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the HCCJ (12 years). DNA and DIICOT had 
argued that the seniority required for the operation within a prosecutor's office structure is not provided for 
in constitutional law, and cited the practical reasons behind a reduction to 7 years of seniority. 

104  A transitional provision delays until 2026 the inclusion of the three-year training period in the calculation of 

seniority. In the short term, this could help increase the occupancy rate in the DNA. 

105  In Spring 2022, DNA operated with 14 delegated prosecutors out of 145 filled positions (10% of staff). The 
new law on the statute of magistrates  foresees no delegation from the DNA/DIICOT; but secondments are 
possible to the DNA/DIICOT from other prosecution offices (once, for a maximum of 1 year). 

106  Milestone 429 of Romania’s RRP. 
107  As  noted  in  the  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, 
EU:C:2021:393, para. 221-222.  

108  In its opinion of 2022, the Venice Commission recommended restoring the competences of the specialised 
prosecution  services  (DNA  and  DIICOT)  to  also  investigate  and  prosecute  offences  within  their  remit 
committed by judges and prosecutors, noting that “[t]he objective of dismantling [SIIJ] should be to ensure 
more  efficacy  in  investigating  and  prosecuting  offences  –  most  importantly  corruption  –  committed  by 
judges  and  prosecutors.  It  is  implausible  that  a  structure  of  non-specialised  prosecutors  at  the  level  of  the 
prosecutor’s offices attached to the HCCJ and those attached to the courts of appeal will be better placed to 
conduct investigations into allegations of corruption by judges and prosecutors than the existing specialised 
prosecution service  DNA.”  (see Venice  Commission, Opinion on the draft law dismantling the section for 
investigating criminal offences committed within the judiciary (CDL-AD(2022)003, point 37). 

109  Written  submission  received  from  the  Prosecutor-General  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  for  the  2022 

Rule of law report. 

110  See also under Benchmark One on the current focus of work to process the backlog and prioritise cases.  
111  Article  3(5)  of  the  new  Law.  In  case  of  disagreement  between  two  prosecutorial  offices,  the  Prosecutor 

General decides if the cases remain joined. 

23 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
corruption investigations seen in the past112. So far, no incidents have been reported and no 
cases  were  registered  where  the  arbitration  on  competence  with  the  DNA  was  needed.  The 
2022  Rule  of  Law  Report  included  a  recommendation  highlighting  the  impact  of  the  new 
system on investigating and prosecuting corruption offences in the judiciary. 

The protracted revision process of the criminal codes (see Benchmark One) has impacted on 
the  fight  against  corruption.  Two  Constitutional  Court  decisions  had  the  consequence  of 
terminating criminal procedures in corruption cases against national politicians, by rendering 
null and void court judgments based on the question of the composition of the court panels113. 
At  the  same  time,  following  a  CJEU  judgment114,  in  April  2022  the  HCCJ  upheld  prison 
sentences  in  a  high-profile  case  from  2018,  which  had  been  suspended  on  the  grounds  of 
unlawful  court  composition115.  In  May  2022,  the  HCCJ  ruled  in  another  high-profile  case, 
implementing  the  abovementioned  CJEU  judgement  to  disregard  the  case-law  of  the 
Constitutional Court on the legality of the composition of judges’ panels, and sentenced the 
main defendant to imprisonment for bribery116. 

As set out above, the lack of a legislative response to the Constitutional Court ruling on  the 
statute of limitation has had a major impact on ongoing cases. This is particularly true in the 
case of corruption cases117. According to  an estimate published by the DNA, a total of 557 
criminal cases under criminal prosecution or pending before the courts could consequently be 
terminated  118. While the exact prejudice would need to be assessed case by case, the DNA 
estimates damage in  these cases  to  around €1.2  billion and the total  amount of bribery  and 
influence peddling at around €150 million. Although civil law avenues for recovering some 
of the prejudice remain, the discontinuation of criminal proceedings in such a high number of 
corruption cases may have a significant impact on efforts to combat high-level corruption and 
its  actual  consequences  and  possible  mitigating  actions  will  be  monitored  closely  by  the 
Commission, also in the light of the CJEU’s ruling that EU law precludes the application of 
national rules or a national practice similar to the case-law of the Constitutional Court if it is 
capable of giving rise to a systemic risk of impunity for corruption offences or acts of fraud 
affecting the financial interests of the Union119. The risk that thousands of defendants would 
not face criminal liability has triggered major criticism in Romania.  

Recurring changes on the composition of panels seating in criminal cases have been reported 
since the last CVM report of 2021. Consequently, where an appeal panel is composed of two 
judges  and  a  judge  is  replaced,  the  entire  panel  is  dismissed  and  the  whole  process  of 

112  So far the DNA reported no incidents related to this issue. 
113  Constitutional Court of Romania, Decisions no. 685/2018 and no. 417/2019. The Constitutional Court ruled 
that the practice of appointing de jure members in the composition of the five-judge panels of the HCCJ was 
contrary to the rule that required that all members be drawn by lot. It also ruled that the HCCJ had failed to 
establish specialist three-judge panels to deal at first instance with corruption offences. For more details, see 
2020 Rule of Law report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p. 10. 

114  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion e.a., in joined cases C-357/19, 

C-379/19, C-547/19, C-811/19 and C-840/19. 

115  Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of 7 April 2022. 
116  Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of 10 May 2022 in case 105/1/2019. 
117 Beyond corruption cases, according to an estimate provided by the specialised prosecution office  handling 
terrorism and organised crime, a total of 605 ongoing cases, with a total estimated financial damage of over 
€1 billion, would be affected in the area handled by DIICOT. Estimates from the General Prosecutor’s office 
on other crimes were not available. 

118 DNA, press release of 28 October 2022, https://www.pna.ro/comunicat.xhtml?id=11549.  
119 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion e.a., in joined cases C-357/19, 
C-379/19,  C-547/19,  C-811/19  and  C-840/19.  For  more  details,  see  2022  Rule  of  Law  report,  Country 
Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, p.14. 

24 

 
 
                                                           
administrating  evidence  must  restart.  This  creates  a  critical  situation  for  cases  that  will 
become  time-barred  early  2023.  The  Prosecutor  General  has  advanced  the  idea  to  reserve 
judges in order to prevent the dissolution of the panel. 

The  positive  track  record  in  the  effectiveness  of  the  investigation  and  sanctioning  of  high-
level  corruption  has  continued  through  2021  and  2022.  It  will  be  important  to  ensure  that 
this  effectiveness  can  be  maintained  sustainably  (see  also  Benchmark  One),  including 
through  the  stabilisation  of  an  appropriate  criminal  legal  framework  and  of  the  relevant 
provisions  in  the  justice  laws.  The  overall  framework,  and    how  Romania  will  continue  to 
address  the  operational  challenges  facing  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate, 
essential  for  maintaining  the  sustainability  of  continued  progress,  will  be  followed  closely 
within the scope of Commission monitoring under the Rule of Law report.  

Lifting of immunity of Members of Parliament 

2017 CVM Recommendation: Adopt objective criteria for deciding on and motivating lifting 
of  immunity  of  Members  of  Parliament  to  help  ensure  that  immunity  is  not  used  to  avoid 
investigation  and  prosecution  of  corruption  crimes.  The  government  could  also  consider 
modifying  the  law  to  limit  immunity  of  ministers  to  time  in  office.  These  steps  could  be 
assisted by the Venice Commission and GRECO. The Parliament should set up a system to 
report  regularly  on  decisions  taken  by  its  Chambers  on  requests  for  lifting  immunities  and 
could organise a public debate so that the Superior Council of Magistracy and civil society 
can respond. 

This  recommendation  concerns  the  accountability  of  the  Parliament  in  its  decisions  on 
requests from the prosecution to authorise preventive measures, such as searches or arrests, 
and on requests to authorise the investigation of a Member of Parliament when he/she is or 
has  also  been  a  Minister.  In  the  past,  the  lack  of  reasoning  of  decisions  taken  by  the 
Parliament – as well as the number of occasions when Parliament did not allow investigation 
to proceed – led to concerns about the objectivity of these decisions.  

The 2021 CVM  report concluded that the approach in  Parliament has  evolved in  a positive 
direction120 and this has continued. There have been only two cases of demands for lifting of 
immunity  by  DNA  since  the  last  CVM  report,  both  swiftly  approved  by  Parliament121.  In 
addition,  on  7  November  2022,  the  Senate  modified  its  rules  of  procedure  to  introduce 
defined  objective  criteria  to  decide  on  requests  for  lifting  parliamentary  immunities,  on  the 
lines  already  in  place  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies122.  Abiding  by  the  rules  in  place  will  be 
important for ensuring that the current approach is maintained. 

The  accountability  of  Parliament  in  its  decisions  on  requests  from  the  prosecution  to 
authorise preventive measures and on requests to authorise the investigation of Members of 
Parliament has also been an important area of monitoring under the CVM. The 2021 CVM 
Report  concluded  that  the  approach  in  Parliament  had  evolved  positively,  and  the  recent 

120  The  Chamber  of  Deputies  amended  its  rules  of  procedure  in  2019  to  introduce  specific  reference  to  the 
criteria set out in the Venice Commission’s report on the purpose and waiver of parliamentary immunity. 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 by a letter. Greco RC4(2021). 

121  One  request  concerned  the  approval  for  search  in  the  case  of  a  Member  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  the 
other  concerned  the  approval  of  a  criminal  investigation  regarding  a  sitting  Minister.  Both  requests  were 
addressed to the Chamber of Deputies. 

122  https://www.monitoruloficial.ro/Monitorul-Oficial--PI--1074--2022.html.  

25 

 
 
 
                                                           
decision of the Senate to introduce defined objective criteria to decide on requests for lifting 
parliamentary immunities mean that both chambers have important transparency safeguards 
in place on a permanent footing. The Commission will continue to follow the developments in 
the context of the monitoring under the annual Rule of Law Report. 

The situation in respect of Benchmark Three has maintained a positive momentum since 
2021.  On  the  basis  of  the  analysis,  the  recommendations  can  be  considered  satisfactorily 
fulfilled. It  will  be important  to maintain this  positive  track record.  As for other Member 
States, the Rule of Law report monitors the way Romania continues to  address remaining 
and new challenges in the fight against high-level corruption and the implementation of its 
recommendations.  

2.4.   Benchmark Four: Tackling corruption at all levels 

Since the June 2021 CVM report, the General Prosecution Office has continued the effective 
prosecution  of  corruption  and  corruption-assimilated  offences123.  However,  the  shortage  of 
human  resources  in  the  judiciary124  and  limited  technical  means  for  special  investigation 
techniques available to the Public Ministry impact the investigations in its competence. The 
General Anti-Corruption Directorate (DGA) inside the Ministry of Interior continued to carry 
out its work in good cooperation with the Prosecution. 

National Anti-Corruption Strategy 

2017  Recommendation:  Continue  to  implement  the  National  Anti-corruption  Strategy, 
respecting  the  deadlines  set  by  the  government  in  August  2016.  The  Minister  of  Justice 
should put in place a reporting system on the effective implementation of the National Anti-
corruption  Strategy  (including  statistics  on  integrity  incidents  in  public  administration, 
details of disciplinary procedures and sanctions and information on the structural measures 
applied in vulnerable areas). 

The  2021  CVM  report  concluded  that  further  work  was  needed  on  the  national  Anti-
Corruption  Strategy  to  ensure  an  effective  implementation  and  step  up  the  prevention  and 
fighting of corruption in vulnerable areas and at local level.  

A new National Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 was approved by the Government in 
December  2021125.  Its  preparation  was  informed  by  an  internal  evaluation  and  an  external 
audit performed by the OECD. The OECD evaluation acknowledged the significant steps that 
Romania  took  towards  strengthening  its  anti-corruption  and  integrity  policies,  while  also 
noting  that  the  lack  of  political  support  to  implement  important  legislative  reforms  was  an 
important challenge126. 

The  implementation  of  the  2021-2025  strategy  is  on  track.  Work  focuses  on  the  defined 
priority  areas  and  a  peer  review  process  of  the  participating  institutions  will  kick  off  in 

123  Since the 2021 CVM report less prosecution cases concerned bribery compared to 2020 and 2021, while the 

focus in investigating corruption allegations concerning public administration officials continued. 

124  In  July  2022,  the  scheme  of  the  Public  Ministry  staff  was  filled  only  at  55%  and  the  situation  further 

deteriorated. 

125  This  is  also  set  out  in  Romania’s  RRP,  whose  Milestone  426  required  the  ‘Entry  into  force  of  the 

Government Decision approving new National Anti-Corruption Strategy’. 
126 OECD, Evaluation of the Romanian Anti-Corruption Strategy 2016-2020. 

26 

 
 
                                                           
December.  A  mid-term  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  is  foreseen  in  the  first 
trimester of 2023.  

Efforts  are  under  way  to  ensure  the  effective  implementation  of  the  2021-2025  anti-
corruption  strategy.  Evaluation  and  reporting  mechanisms  are  being  set-up.  This 
recommendation  can  be  considered  fulfilled.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  the 
implementation of the strategy under the Rule of Law Report. 

National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets 

2017  Recommendation:  Ensure  that  the  National  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Seized 
Assets  is  fully  and  effectively  operational  so  that  it  can  issue  a  first  annual  report  with 
reliable statistical information on confiscation of criminal assets. The Agency should put in 
place  a  system  to  report  regularly  on  development  of  administrative  capacity,  results  in 
confiscation and managing criminal assets.  

The  mission  of  the  National  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Seized  Assets  (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  2022  ANABI  entered  its  sixth  year  of  activity,  and  it  is  functioning  effectively, 
implementing  a  National  Strategy  for  Strengthening  the  Asset  Recovery  System  for  2021-
2025.  ANABI’s  mandate  has  been  extended  in  July127  and  the  Agency  is  working  on 
increasing  the  capacity  to  trace  assets  both  nationally  and  internationally,  enhance 
cooperation  mechanisms,  and  provide  new  tools  for  financial  investigations  by  police  and 
prosecutors.  The implementation  of the new legislative framework is  ongoing, including  as 
regards additional funds allocated to the Agency.  The new law also provides for a fund for 
crime prevention and victim protection, a point repeatedly flagged by civil society.  ANABI 
seized  over  €60  million  in  2022  compared  to  almost  €57  million  in  2021.  It  manages  over 
140 mobile assets with a total value of almost €5.5 million128.  

The  2021  CVM  report  concluded  that  this  recommendation  was  fulfilled.  This  can  be 
confirmed.  

On the basis of the analysis of Benchmark Four, all recommendations can be considered 
fulfilled. The Commission will continue to monitor the fight against corruption at all levels 
in the Rule of Law Reports.  

3.  

CONCLUSION 

The  Decision  to  establish  the  CVM  in  2006  was  an  inherent  part  of  Romania’s  accession 
process.  It  offered  a  way  to  address  remaining  issues  where  further  progress  was  still 
necessary  to  ensure  the  capacity  of  the  judicial  system  and  law  enforcement  bodies  to 
implement  and  apply  the  measures  adopted  to  establish  the  internal  market  and  the  area  of 
freedom, security, and justice129.  

127  This has also been subject to Milestone no. 422 of Romania’s RRP requires the ‘Entry into force of the law 

amending the powers of the National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets.’ 

128  Figures  on  31  October  2022,  provided  by  ANABI  for  the  purposes  of  the  progress  report  sent  to  the 

Commission in November 2022.  

129 Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 (C(2006) 6569) 

27 

 
 
                                                           
Since then, the CVM has offered a framework for cooperation and monitoring to accompany 
the reform process set out under the benchmarks. This entered a final phase when the positive 
stocktaking of January 2017 led to the twelve key recommendations. Though this phase was 
prolonged by the need to address the eight additional recommendations of November 2018, 
these 
more  recently  Romania  has  worked  consistently  on 
recommendations,  as acknowledged in  the  June 2021 report. The conclusions of this report 
have  been  able  to  mark  major  progress  in  the  legal  and  institutional  framework  to  address 
long-standing CVM recommendations.  

implementation  of 

the 

The  evolution  of  the  EU’s  rule  of  law  landscape  has  given  a  new  context  for  the 
Commission’s cooperation with Romania. In particular, the annual Rule of Law Report cycle 
now  provides  an  ongoing  framework  which  allows  a  long-term  perspective  to  accompany 
sustainable reform, with Romania as with other Member States.  

The annual Rule of Law Report cycle will enable the implementation phase of many of the 
agreed  reforms  to  continue  to  be  monitored  in  practice.  Issues  such  as  the  new  regime 
following the dismantling of the Section for the Investigation of Offences in the Judiciary, the 
functioning of the Judicial Inspection, human resources in the judiciary, the implementation 
of court decisions by public administration, the impact of the upcoming revision of criminal 
legislation  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  fight  against  corruption,  and  the  evolution  of  the 
integrity  framework  and  its  application,  including  by  Parliament,  can  continue  to  be 
followed-up in  this way. This  will be part of the monitoring of the justice system and anti-
corruption  as  two  of  the  core  pillars  of  the  reports.  This  is  in  line  with  the  Romanian 
government’s commitment to consolidate, in an irreversible manner, the progress achieved so 
far in guaranteeing the independence of justice and its efficiency, as well as the track record 
in combatting corruption. 

The  Romanian  authorities  have  also  made  clear  that  a  number  of  immediate  issues  will  be 
followed up as required in the coming months. Romania has committed to further analyse and 
take the utmost account  of the opinions of the Venice Commission, on the  justice laws and 
more generally if further actions are necessary. It has also committed to complete the revision 
of the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code,  to ensure alignment with the decisions 
that  the  Constitutional  Court  of  Romania  has  taken  since  2016.  Completing  the  revision  of 
the two Codes is also part of the commitments undertaken by Romania in its Recovery and 
Resilience Plan to be adopted by the end of 2022, and the Commission will assess closely the 
revised  codes  in  accordance  with  the  specific  procedures  envisaged  in  that  context.  A  final 
immediate  issue  will  be  the  ability  of  the  incoming  Superior  Council  of  the  Magistracy  to 
contribute  to  the  momentum  of  the  reform,  and  the  Romanian  government  expressed  its 
confidence  in  the  ability  of  this  Council  to  give  a  new  impetus  to  transparency  and 
accountability. 

Romania  has  already  shown  its  strong  commitment  to  work  under  the  annual  Rule  of  Law 
Report  cycle  and  it  continues  to  cooperate  constructively  in  that  framework.  In  parallel, 
Romania’s Recovery and Resilience Plan has also allowed the setting of specific milestones 
for progress. 

The Commission is confident that now with the key final steps being in place, the cooperation 
and  monitoring  of  the  justice  system  and  anti-corruption  policies  in  Romania  can  be  taken 
forward under the Rule of Law Report and other established parts of the rule of law toolbox 
applying to all Member States. Recommendations under the Rule of Law Reports are already 
in  place  to  that  effect,  as  well  as  programmes  under  the  Technical  Support  Instrument  to 
support the process of reform. 

28 

 
 
The Commission considers that the progress made by Romania under the CVM is sufficient 
to meet Romania’s commitments made at the time of its accession to the EU.  

It  is  important  that  Romania  continues  to  work  consistently  on  translating  the  remaining 
legislation  and  on  continued 
commitments  specified 
implementation,  within  the  annual  Rule  of  Law  Report  cycle  and  with  the  support  of  other 
parts of the EU rule of law toolbox.  

into  concrete 

this  report 

in 

The Commission will take duly into account the observations of the Council, as well as of the 
European  Parliament130  before  taking  a  final  decision  on  Romania  in  accordance  with  the 
CVM decision. 

130  Terminating the CVM  for Romania  would take the  form of a  Commission decision revoking Commission 
Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 establishing a  mechanism for cooperation  and verification of 
progress  in  Romania  to  address  specific  benchmarks  in  the  areas  of  judicial  reform  and  the  fight  against 
corruption (C(2006) 6569). 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
Annex: Benchmarks under the CVM Decision 

Benchmarks to be addressed by Romania pursuant to Commission Decision of 13/XII/2006 
establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address 
specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption: 

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

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

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

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

local government 

30