COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2026 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2026 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2026-07-17
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Romania, administrative transparency, corruption, democracy, freedom of the press, human rights, independence of the judiciary, pluralism in the media, rule of law, whistleblowing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.7.2026  SWD(2026) 923 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2026 Rule of Law Report                                Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2026 Rule of Law Report                                 The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2026) 900 final} - {SWD(2026) 901 final} - {SWD(2026) 902 final} - {SWD(2026) 903 final} - {SWD(2026) 904 final} - {SWD(2026) 905 final} - {SWD(2026) 906 final} - {SWD(2026) 907 final} - {SWD(2026) 908 final} - {SWD(2026) 909 final} - {SWD(2026) 910 final} - {SWD(2026) 911 final} - {SWD(2026) 912 final} - {SWD(2026) 913 final} - {SWD(2026) 914 final} - {SWD(2026) 915 final} - {SWD(2026) 916 final} - {SWD(2026) 917 final} - {SWD(2026) 918 final} - {SWD(2026) 919 final} - {SWD(2026) 920 final} - {SWD(2026) 921 final} - {SWD(2026) 922 final} - {SWD(2026) 924 final} - {SWD(2026) 925 final} - {SWD(2026) 926 final} - {SWD(2026) 927 final} - {SWD(2026) 928 final} - {SWD(2026) 929 final} - {SWD(2026) 930 final} - {SWD(2026) 931 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT   

In Romania, the Justice Laws continued to be implemented and contributed to improving the 
legislative  framework  for  the  independence  and  functioning  of  the  judiciary,  while  a 
reflection on various concerns related to the judiciary in public debates has been put on hold 
following  a  decision  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice.  A  selection  procedure 
resulted  in  the  appointments  of  several  high-ranking  prosecutors.  However,  no  legislative 
steps  have  been  taken  yet  to  strengthen  safeguards  to  ensure  the  independence  of  high-
ranking  prosecutors  and  for  the  organisation  and  functioning  of  the  judicial  police.  Some 
magistrates continue to feel undue pressure from inside the judiciary and judges were recused 
for  intending  to  refer  cases  to  European  Courts.  The  occupancy  rate  of  positions  in  the 
magistracy increased in 2025, and measures have been taken to tackle current shortages and 
to improve the legal aid system, which remains underfunded. The digitalisation of the justice 
system is one of the priorities of the Government. The estimated time needed to resolve civil, 
commercial, administrative cases significantly decreased while the clearance rate improved. 

The  evaluation  of  the  2021-2025  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  has  been  finalised  and 
the  next  strategy  for  2026-2030  is  under  preparation.  The  track  record  in  prosecuting  both 
petty  and  high-level  corruption  has  been  maintained  compared  to  the  previous  year.  Lower 
courts have continued to close corruption cases and annul convictions, including in high level 
ones,  following  rulings  by  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  on  the  statute  of 
limitations.  While  the  backlog  of  pending  cases  has  been  significantly  reduced,  there  have 
been  no  further  measures  taken  to  ensure  the  effective  investigation  and  prosecution  of 
corruption  offenses  in  the  judiciary.  New  legislation  on  revolving  doors  was  adopted, 
including  pre-  and  post-employment  restrictions  on  a  wide  range  of  public  officials,  and  a 
new  Code  of  Ethics  for  the  government  is  being  implemented,  including  a  prohibition  on 
gifts. A broad legislative proposal on asset declarations, submitted by the National Integrity 
Agency  (ANI),  is  currently  under  discussion.  New  rules  on  lobbying  for  Members  of 
Parliament have been introduced. ANI is developing an IT system for whistleblower reports.  

The  media  regulator  has  fewer  human  resources  despite  an  increase  in  tasks,  with 
digitalisation  efforts  initiated  in  2025  progressing  slowly.  Self-regulation  has  still  not  been 
completely  agreed  upon  by  media  actors.  Initial  steps  have  been  taken  on  the  reform  to 
enhance  independent  governance  and  editorial  independence  of  public  service  media. 
Transparency of media ownership continues to present limitations, and issues with access to 
information remain, pending discussions on a new Code of Administrative Procedures. The 
new Audiovisual Code legislates the financing of private media by political parties and state 
authorities and has led to a better marking of the type of content than in the past, but certain 
related practices remain an issue. An anti-SLAPP law is in preparation, as some further cases 
of threats and instances of harassment of journalists have been reported.  

Less  government  emergency ordinances were adopted in  2025 than in  2024 and steps have 
been  taken  for  effective  public  consultations,  while  a  number  of  shortcomings  remain  in 
practice.  Legislative  unpredictability  driven  by  frequent  amendments  to  legislation  and  a 
large number of draft laws pending in Parliament remain primary concerns for businesses and 
CSOs.  A  final  decision  is  pending  regarding  the  accreditation  of  National  Human  Rights 
Institutions.  Actions  planned  in  the  framework  of  the  Strategy  for  Open  Government  in 
Romania  2025-2030  remain  to  be  implemented  and  CSOs  report  increasing  restrictions  to 
their work. 

1 

 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

Overall, based on the recommendations in  the 2025 Rule of Law Report, considering other 
developments  that  took  place  in  the  period  of  reference  and  in  addition  to  recalling  the 
relevant commitments made under the Recovery and Resilience Plan and the country-specific 
recommendation under the European Semester on the predictability and quality of decision-
making, the Commission concludes the following:  

•  The  Justice  Laws  continue  to  be  implemented  and  have  contributed  to  improving  the 
legislative  framework  for  the  independence  and  functioning  of  the  judiciary,  while  a 
reflection  on  various  aspects  related  to  the  judiciary  has  been  put  on  hold  following  a 
decision  of  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice.  It  is  therefore  recommended  to 
Romania  to  take  forward  the  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  Justice  Laws  in 
close  consultation  with  relevant  stakeholders,  including  as  regards  measures  to  further 
improve the effectiveness and governance of the judiciary. 

•  There  has  been  no  progress  yet  to  strengthen  safeguards  to  ensure  the  independence  of 
high-ranking prosecutors and for the organisation and functioning of the judicial police, 
as  the  reflection  on  various  aspects  related  to  the  judiciary  has  been  put  on  hold.  It  is 
therefore  recommended  to  Romania  to  step  up  the  legislative  work  to  strengthen 
safeguards  to  ensure  the  independence  of  high-ranking  prosecutors  and  for  the 
organisation and functioning of the judicial police.  

•  There has been no further progress to ensure the effective investigation and prosecution 
of corruption offenses in the judiciary, as no measures were taken to  address remaining 
shortcomings.  It  is  recommended  to  Romania  to  take  measures  to  ensure  effective 
investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the judiciary, including as regards 
corruption offences. 

•  The recommendation to introduce rules on lobbying for members of Parliament has been 
fully implemented as a new law was adopted in November 2025 which obliges deputies 
and  senators  to  register  meetings  with  third  parties  on  legislative  initiatives.  Some 
progress has been made to ensure the effectiveness of the asset declaration system, with a 
draft  law  which  aims  to  update  the  existing  integrity  legal  framework.  Therefore,  it  is 
recommended to Romania to complete the legislative process to ensure the effectiveness 
of the asset declaration system. 

•  Some  further  progress  has  been  made  on  the  frequent  use  of  government  emergency 
ordinances and effective public consultations, while a number of shortcomings remain in 
practice.  It  is  therefore  recommended  to  Romania  to  step  up  efforts  to  address  the 
frequent  use  of  government  emergency  ordinances  and  to  ensure  effective  public 
consultations before the adoption of legislation.  

•  There has been no progress on the accreditation of National Human Rights Institutions, as 
a decision remains pending, and the Government has not solved compliance issues with 
the  Paris  Principles  of  two  organisations  it  proposed  as  National  Human  Rights 
Institutions.  It  is  therefore  recommended  to  Romania  to  take  forward  the  process  for 
obtaining  accreditation  for  the  National  Human Rights  Institutions,  taking  into  account 
the UN Paris Principles.  

2 

 
 
 
 
As regards the other 2025 recommendations, the Commission concludes that: 

•  Limited progress has been made strengthening the rules and mechanisms to enhance the 
independent  governance  and  editorial  independence  of  public  service  media,  in  light  of 
the establishment of an interministerial working group on the matter. Given that the topics 
of  this  recommendation  are  covered  by  the  provisions  of  the  European  Media  Freedom 
Act  (EMFA),  while  the  Rule  of  Law  Report  will  continue  to  monitor  significant 
developments and report on their impact, further follow-up will be ensured as part of the 
Commission’s support to Member States and enforcement of the EMFA. 

3 

 
 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM1 

Independence 

The level of perceived judicial independence in Romania continues to be average among 
both the general public and companies. Overall, 41% of the general population and 43% of 
companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ 
in  20262.  The  perceived  judicial  independence  among  the  general  public  has  slightly 
decreased in comparison with 2025 (44%) and has significantly decreased in comparison with 
2022  (48%).  The  perceived  judicial  independence  among  companies  has  significantly 
decreased  in  comparison  with  2025  (51%)  and  has  decreased  in  comparison  with  2022 
(49%)3.  

The  Justice  Laws  continue  to  be  implemented,  while  a  reflection  on  various  aspects 
related to the judiciary has been put on hold following a decision of the High Court of 
Cassation and Justice. The Justice Laws adopted in 2022 have contributed to improving the 
legislative framework for the independence and functioning of the judiciary and corrected the 
amendments  to  these  laws  of  2018  and  2019,  which  had  a  serious  impact  on  the 
independence, quality and efficiency of the justice system4. Based on the experience gained 
with  implementation  since  the  adoption  of  the  Justice  Laws,  further  legislative  adjustments 
may  be  required  to  address  remaining  concerns  related  to  judicial  governance,  career 
management  and  institutional  safeguards,  and  the  authorities  deemed  that  an  evaluation 
should be considered after a sufficient period of time since the adoption of the Justice Laws5. 
Following  public  debates  on  concerns  raised  within  the  judiciary  in  December  20256,  the 
President of Romania invited magistrates to  share  their views on the  functioning  of justice, 
the independence of magistrates and the mechanisms regarding their career7. In parallel, the 
Prime  Minister  set  up  a  Committee  to  look  at  avenues  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the 
judiciary8, in particular through the review and possible amendments of the Justice Laws. The 
Committee  discussed9  the  concerns  raised  by  magistrates,  in  particular  as  regards  the  high 
number  of  delegations  of  judges,  including  to  management  positions  in  courts10;  the 

1  An overview of the institutional framework for all four pillars can be found here. 
2   Figures 48 and 50, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard and Figures 51 and 53, 2024 EU Justice Scoreboard. The 
level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  categorised  as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents 
perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-
59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

3   See  also  January  2026,  INSCOP  Research,  survey  on  the  trust  in  the  judiciary  in  Romania,  according  to 
which seven out of ten Romanians have very little or no trust in the judiciary, while more than two-thirds 
believe that the justice system is not independent. FDSC (2026), written input, p. 9. 

4   2023 Rule of Law Report, pp. 4-6. 
5   2025 Rule of Law Report, p. 4. 
6   Discussions in the wake of the broadcasting of a documentary by an investigative media outlet. 
7   President  of  Romania’s  Summary  of  “the  comments  submitted  by  magistrates  and  other  actors  in  the 
judicial  system  on  the  functioning  of  justice,  the  independence  of  magistrates  and  the  mechanisms 
regarding the career of magistrates”. 

8   Decision no. 574/2025 of the Prime Minister on the setting up, organisation and tasks of the Committee on 
the  Review  and  Revision  of  the  Justice  laws.  Members  of  the  Committee  are  the  Chancellery  and  the 
Ministry of Justice. 

9   See press release issued by the Government with topics discussed. 
10   As of January 2026, out of 657 management positions, 430 were filled by delegation, i.e. 65.44% (Superior 
Council of Magistracy (SCM) data). Magistrates’ associations and CSOs expressed their concern that this 
undermines judicial independence. (Country visit). On this aspect and the following issues mentioned, see 
also Expert Forum (2025), Priorities of Justice; the Romanian Forum of Judges (2025), Some Effects of the 
New Justice Laws. 

4 

 
 
withdrawal  of  cases  from  judges,  sometimes  without  their  consent11;  the  number  of 
secondments  of  judges  to  other  courts  or  panels,  sometimes  without  their  consent12;  the 
procedure  for  high-level  nominations  and  promotions  of  judges  and  prosecutors13;  the 
composition  of  courts’  governing  boards14;  and  the  composition  and  representativity  of  the 
Superior  Council  of  Magistracy  (SCM)15.  Magistrates’  associations  and  CSOs  had 
highlighted  that  the  set-up  of  the  Committee  provided  a  timely  opportunity  to  evaluate  the 
implementation of the Justice Laws in light of European standards and in close consultation 
with  relevant  stakeholders  and  with  the  Venice  Commission16.  In  a  decision  of  25  March 
2026, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) however suspended the decision that 
set  up the Committee. As a consequence, the  Committee’s work was  put  on hold17. In July 
2026, the Government published the Committee’s report, which includes recommendations to 
improve the situation in the judiciary, including through an evaluation and possible revision 
of the Justice Laws18. 

No progress has been made yet on the recommendation on strengthening safeguards for 
the independence of high-ranking prosecutors and the organisation and functioning of 
the  judicial  police19.  A  selection  procedure  was  organised  resulting  in  appointments  to 
several high-ranking prosecutorial positions. However, pending the work of the Committee, 
the  Government  also  suspended  the  legislative  work  on  the  draft  law  to  further  strengthen 
safeguards  to  ensure  the  independence  of  high-ranking  prosecutors.  There  were  also  no 

11   Country  visit  Romania,  CSOs  and  magistrates’  associations.  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of 
Europe (2010), para. 9 provides that a case should not be withdrawn from a particular judge without valid 
reasons,  unless  such  decision  is  taken  on  the  basis  of  objective,  pre-established  criteria  and  following  a 
transparent procedure. See also Judges’ Forum (2025). 

12   Country visit Romania, CSOs and magistrates’ associations and documents mentioned under fn. 11. CJEU, 
Judgment of 6 October 2021, Case C-487/19, W.Z., para. 114 provides that transfers without consent of a 
judge  to  another  court  or  another  panel  can  undermine  the  principles  of  the  irremovability  of  judges  and 
judicial independence. 

13   A key concern raised by magistrates regards the level of transparency of such promotions, which rest on an 
evaluation of  the candidates’ judgments and an interview with the  SCM section of judges, and no longer 
include  a  written  competition.  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Romania,  p.  4.  Country  visit  Romania, 
magistrates’  associations  and  CSOs.  See  also  documents  mentioned  under  fn.  11.  CCBE  (2026).  The 
nominations of high-level prosecutors by the President of Romania prompted twenty-five CSOs, supported 
by  a  number  of  citizens  who  signed  a  petition,  to  organise  demonstrations,  as  in  their  view  these 
nominations would go against efforts to strengthen judicial independence and the fight against corruption.  

14   Some stakeholders consider that a majority of members should be elected by their peers, which is not the 
case  under  the  Justice  Laws.  Country  visit  Romania,  CSOs  and  magistrates’  associations  and  documents 
mentioned under fn. 7. 

15   The Venice Commission has reiterated the principle of broad and fair representation of all levels and types 
of courts in judicial councils. Venice Commission (2023, 2022, 2021). See also 2025 Rule of Law Report, 
Romania, p.4, and Country visit Romania, magistrates’ associations and CSOs.  

16   Country visit Romania, Romanian Judges’ Forum Association, Movement for the Defence of Prosecutors' 
Status  Association,  Initiative  for  Justice  Association,  Civil  Society  Development  Foundation  (FDSC), 
Funky Citizens, Expert Forum. 

17   See footnote nr. 8 on Prime Minister Decision no. 574/2025. The HCCJ Decision is not public yet. Decision 
no. 574/2025 has also been appealed in front of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (Case number 448/2/2026). 
On 6 July 2026, the Bucharest Court of Appeal annulled the decision to set up the Committee. 

18  Government of Romania, Chancellery of the Prime Minister, Report on the work of the Committee on the 
Review  and  Revision  of  the  Justice  Laws.  The  report  recommends,  among  other  things,  to  revise  the 
legislative  framework  on  delegations  and  promotions  of  magistrates,  their  disciplinary  regime  and  the 
composition  of  management  boards  in  courts,  and  to  regularly  audit  the  system  of  random  allocation  of 
cases. 

19   The  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  Romania  to  “Take  forward  legislative  steps  to  strengthen 
safeguards to ensure the independence of high-ranking prosecutors and for the organisation and functioning 
of the judicial police”. This was a new recommendation in 2025. 

5 

 
 
further legislative developments in  the organisation and functioning  of the judicial police20. 
In addition, due to budgetary constraints, the Government put on hold the independent audit 
of  the  random  case  allocation  system  provided  for  in  the  Justice  Laws21.  Pending  further 
reflection, there has been no progress yet to strengthen safeguards to ensure the independence 
of high-ranking prosecutors and for the organisation and functioning of the judicial police.  

Some magistrates continue to feel undue pressure from inside the judiciary, and judges 
were  recused  for  intending  to  refer  cases  to  European  Courts.  These  concerns  were 
brought to the attention of the President of Romania by magistrates and their associations22. 
The transparency of case law on disciplinary sanctions has improved23, but decisions of the 
disciplinary  sections  of  the  SCM  are  not  published  and  their  reasoning  is  often  transmitted 
late to the magistrate concerned24, which hampers the exercise of their right to appeal25. In a 
case  of  December  2025,  the  Grand  Chamber  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights 
reiterated  that  magistrates  should  be  allowed  to  speak  out  in  defence  of  judicial 
independence26.  However, 
facing  pressure27  and 
magistrates’ associations issued public statements demanding an end to disciplinary pressure 
on magistrates exercising their right to free speech28. The Judicial Inspection concluded that 
the  statements  made  by  magistrates  regarding  disciplinary  or  administrative  pressures  were 
unsubstantiated29.  A  large  number  of  magistrates  and  CSOs,  however,  disagreed  with  this 
assessment  and  raised  questions  as  to  the  independence  of  the  Judicial  Inspection  and  its 
report30. On 1 April, the Constitutional Court (CCR) declared rules on the appointment to the 
position of inspector within the Judicial Inspection, provided for in Law No 317/2004 on the 
SCM, unconstitutional, as they should be regulated by an organic law. In parallel, the HCCJ 
decided that magistrates who report wrongdoings cannot be considered as whistleblowers31. 

individual  magistrates  continued 

20   Romanian Government (2026), written input, p. 2-3. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Romania, p. 4. 
21   Ibidem, p. 13. 
22   See  Summary  of  the  Presidency  of  the  Republic,  fn.  5.  See  also  Country  visit  Romania,  Concordia  and 

Romanian Business Leaders. 

23   2025 Rule of Law Report, Romania, p. 4-5. 
24   Romanian  Judges’  Forum  Association,  Movement  for  the  Defence  of  Prosecutors'  Status  Association, 
Initiative for Justice Association,  Civil Society Development Foundation (FDSC), Funky Citizens, Expert 
Forum. 

25   See GRECO recommendation to Portugal (4th evaluation round, pt. 96), that information on the outcome of 
disciplinary procedures is published in a timely manner. And pts. 16 and 18 (right to a timely decision and 
right to appeal) of CCJE Opinion No. 27 (2024) on the disciplinary liability of judges. 

26   Judgment  of  the  ECHtR  (Grand  Chamber),  case  No.  16915/21,  Danileţ  v.  Romania,  para.  152.  See  also 
Communication from an NGO (Romanian Judges' Forum Association (18/05/2026)) in the case of Danilet 
v. Romania (Application No. 16915/21) to the Committee of Min. for non-implementation of the judgment. 
27   See  notably  HCCJ  Decision  of  27  October  2025  and  Judicial  Inspection  Decisions  of  24  April  2026, 
launching disciplinary proceedings against a prosecutor speaking in the documentary; and of 20 April 2026 
against a judge publishing political opinions on social media. Disciplinary proceedings were also launched 
against magistrates replying to the President’s invitation to debate about the issues in the judiciary. Judges’ 
Forum (2026), written input. 

28   Romanian  Judges’  Forum  Association,  Movement  for  the  Defence  of  Prosecutors'  Status  Association, 

Initiative for Justice Association. FDSC (2026), written input, p. 9. 

29   Judicial  Inspection  Report  no.  25-2781/2026  (not  public).  Disciplinary  actions  were  launched  against 
magistrates issuing public statements in a documentary (see e.g. Judicial Inspection Decisions 26-127 of 4 
March, of 29 April and of 14 May 2026). Other judges were moved or their delegation prematurely ended. 
The  Report  on  the  work  of  the  Committee  points  to  the  concentration  of  decision-making  powers  at  the 
level of the Inspection’s management. 

30   Letter signed by 900 magistrates. Expert Forum (2026), written input, p. 9. FDCS (2026), written input, p. 

9. Following the documentary, the Judicial Inspection initiated disciplinary checks.  

31   See  HCCJ  Decision  182/2024  referring  to  Decision  by  the  SCM  of  28  February  2024 (not  published).  A 
legislative proposal from the Save Romania Union (USR) political party has been registered by the Senate 

6 

 
 
The Report on the work of the Committee recommends that the Justice Laws be amended so 
as to clarify that the rules on whistleblowers also apply to magistrates32. In addition, in 2025 
and 2026, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ) recused, in three decisions33, some 
of  its  judges34  because  of  their  intention  to  refer  questions  to  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the 
European Union, as this reference would be such as to raise questions as to the impartiality of 
these judges, or to seek an advisory opinion from the European Court of Human Rights35. 

Quality  

The occupancy rate of positions in the magistracy increased in 2025, and measures are 
being  taken  to  tackle  the  current  shortage  of  magistrates.  The  occupancy  rate  of 
magistrates’  positions  increased  in  2025,  while  the  SCM  and  magistrates  consider  that  the 
number  of  vacancies  remains  an  issue  for  the  judiciary.  Competitions  for  magistrates  and 
clerks have been suspended in  2025 and 2026 due to  country-wide budgetary restrictions36, 
but exceptions have been provided in  April 2026 for the judicial sector37, and several other 
measures have been taken to address the shortage of staff in 2026. For instance, the reduction 
of the duration of courses at the National Institute of Magistracy (INM) from 3 to 2 years has 
been  extended38.  The  Prosecutor  General,  in  agreement  with  the  SCM,  also  proposed  to 
reorganise the map of prosecutors’ offices by establishing a single prosecutor's office unit at 
county  level  to  streamline procedures39. As a result, at  the end of 2025, the occupancy rate 
increased  to  85%40  for  judges’  positions  and  to  76%  for  prosecutors41.  Feedback  to  a 
questionnaire  addressed  by  the  SCM  to  all  judges  in  office  in  December  2025  however 
highlights  that  the  high  workload  and  insufficient  number  of  judges  and  clerks  continue  to 
directly  impact  their  work42.  This  is  also  confirmed  by  all  magistrates’  associations43.  In 

on  11  March  2026  to  supplement  art.2  of  Law  no.  361/2022  on  the  protection  of  whistleblowers  in  the 
public interest to explicitly include magistrates in the scope. 

32  Government of Romania, Chancellery of the Prime Minister, Report on the work of the Committee on the 

Review and Revision of the Justice Laws. 

33   Decisions of the HCCJ, Cases No. 2431/1/2025, No. 793/1/2025 and No. 815/59/2022. In the latter case, 
the same three judges were recused for proposing to submit a request for an advisory opinion to the ECtHR 
on  the  question  whether  a  preliminary  reference  to  the  Court  of  Justice  in  the  circumstances  of  that  case 
constitutes a lack of impartiality under Article 6(1) ECHR. 

34   The same judges who requested preliminary rulings from the CJEU in cases Lin II and Lin III. Judgment of 
the CJEU in case C-107/23, Lin, and referrals C-280/25 Lin II, C-496/25, Lin III. See pillar II below.  
35   The CJEU underlined on several occasions the importance of the freedom to refer questions under Article 

267 TFEU. See CJEU judgment in C-564/19, IS. 

36   Government Emergency Ordinance No. 156/2024 on certain fiscal-budgetary measures in the field of public 

expenditure for the substantiation of the consolidated general budget for 2025; extended to 2026. 

37   A  legislation  of  16  April  2026  allows  the  organisation  of  competitions  in  duly  justified  cases,  with  the 

approval of the Government. 

38   Government  Emergency  Ordinance  No.  93/2025  regarding  certain  temporary  measures  in  the  field  of 
justice,  as  well  as  for  the  amendment  of  certain  normative  acts.  See  also  Romanian  Government  (2026), 
written input, p. 27. 

39   Romanian Government (2026), written input, p. 45. Country visit Romania, Prosecutor General and SCM. 
The  idea  is  to  establish  a  single  prosecutor's  office  at  county  level  to  operate  alongside  the  first  instance 
courts, and to transform the other prosecutor's offices attached to the first instance courts in the county into 
secondary  offices.  A  draft  law  was  published  on  24  February  on  the  website  of  the  Ministry  for  public 
consultation. 

40   At the beginning of 2025, it was of 83%. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Romania, p. 5. 
41   At the beginning of 2025, it was of 74%. Ibidem. 
42   Decision  of  the  Section  for  Judges  no.  144/06.02.2026.  The  most  frequently  signaled  issues  relate  to  the 
excessive volume of activity, encompassing insufficient staffing, a high number of vacancies, and an acute 
need for a workload regulation mechanism. SCM(2026) additional input. 
43   Country visit Romania, Magistrates’ associations. See also EAJ(2026), p. 26. 

7 

 
 
parallel, annual statistics related to the competitions for admission to the National Institute of 
Magistracy  reflect  a  steady  decrease  in  the  attractiveness  of  the  judicial  profession44.  A 
reform of magistrates’ pensions was adopted on 27 February 2026, which gradually increases 
their retirement age over a period of 15 years45. The aim is to improve equity in the pension 
system  and  better  align  pension  contributions  paid  during  the  working  life  and  pension 
benefits. While the reform could lead to early retirement of some magistrates46, requiring new 
recruitments, it will also help keeping more experienced magistrates in activity, which will be 
beneficial for the functioning of the judicial system47. 

Measures have been taken to improve the legal aid system, which remains underfunded. 
These measures include a new procedure for judicial assistance (SAJ) and the development of 
a  national  digital  platform  for  managing  legal  aid,  aimed  at  improving  transparency, 
uniformity and timeliness of payments. According to the Ministry of Justice, the amount paid 
for legal  aid  in  civil  and criminal  matters in  2025 was of approximately  EUR 30 million48. 
The  Romanian  Union  of  Bar  Associations  (UNBR),  however,  considers  that  the  legal  aid 
system is still severely underfunded and payments often delayed, but reports that a dialogue 
is  taking  place  with  the  Ministry  of  Finance  to  address  these  delays  and  agree  on  uniform 
billing  rules49.  Romania  has  one  of  the  lowest  number  of  beneficiaries  per  capita  (around 
12 000 in total in Romania in 2025)50 and its income level ceiling for applicants for legal aid 
is  among  the lowest  in  the EU51. Data on the number of beneficiaries, their profile  and the 
amounts received is not published, which according to civil society does not allow for public 
scrutiny52. 

The  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system  is  one  of  the  priorities  of  the  Strategy  for  the 
Development  of  the  Judicial  System  and  Justice  as  a  Public  Service  2025–2029.  The 
Ministry  of  Justice  completed  one  of  4  sub-investments  financed  under  the  National 
Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan  (NRRP)53,  including  the  establishment  of  technical  facilities 
for  hosting  the  critical  IT  infrastructure  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  the  development  and 
optimisation  of  the  data  infrastructure  for  the  judicial  sector  and  the  implementation  of  a 
private  cloud  infrastructure  for  the  justice  system54.  Discussions  between  the  Ministry  of 
Justice  and  the  SCM  are  still  underway  to  ensure  that  changes  in  the  IT  infrastructure  are 
consistent with  the imperative to  preserve the independence of the judiciary  55. The current 

44   2583  judges  participated  in  the  consultation process,  representing  56.50%  of  all  active  judges.  Romanian 

Government (2026), written input, p. 22. 

45   Currently, retirement with full pension rights is possible after 25 years of service upon reaching the age of 
49. The retirement age will increase by one year annually, reaching 64 in 2041, at which point full pension 
rights will be granted to those with at least 25 years of service  and a minimum of 34 years of total work 
experience. 

46   Romanian Government (2026), written input, pp. 10ff. and country visit Romania, SCM. 
47   Country visit Romania, the Government. 
48   EUR 26 million in 2024. 
49   CCBE (2026), written input, p. 17 and 20. 
50   According to the UNBR, the total number of beneficiaries (of 41 counties  - 2 missing as they didn’t send 

the requested data) in 2025 was 12 093. 

51   49% below the Eurostat poverty threshold. Figure 22, EU Justice Scoreboard, data collected by CCBE. 
52   CSOs. 
53   The electronic access of case files/e-files (positively assessed under payment request 4), while the ECRIS V 
system, the data centre for the judiciary and the IT&C equipment will be completed by August 2026 and 
assessed under the payment request 6.  

54   @just.ro.  
55   See 2025 Rule of Law, Romania, p. 5. SCM(2026), additional input. 

8 

 
 
single  domain  which  serves  the  courts  is  under  the  supervision  of  the  ministry56,  while 
appropriate  solutions  are  being  discussed  in  order  to  safeguard  the  independence  of  the 
judiciary  and  the  principle  of  separation  of  powers57.  The  SCM  developed  an  artificial 
intelligence  system  that  automatically  anonymises  court  decisions  and  will  replace  the 
previous system by the end of 2026. The registratura.rejust.ro portal, which allows citizens to 
file  a  complaint  and  pay  the  court  fee  online,  benefited  from  the  implementation  of  new 
functionalities58.  ECRIS  V,  the  electronic  case  management  system  for  judges,  was  further 
developed,  while  prosecutors  have  now  access  to  their  case  files  through  the  new  National 
Electronic  Case  File  (DEN)59.  The  UNBR  highlighted  both  opportunities  and  risks  of  the 
digitalisation of justice systems, including cybersecurity concerns, illegal online services, and 
the  need  for  safeguards  when  adopting  AI  tools60.  At  the  initiative  of  the  President  of 
Romania, the Just.AI  Forum  – a first  permanent  national  platform for institutional  dialogue 
on  AI  in  justice  –  was  established  and  operationalised,  with  dedicated  working  groups 
involving courts, prosecution services and other key public institutions61. 

Efficiency 

The estimated time needed to resolve civil, commercial, administrative and other cases 
decreased significantly and the clearance rate has improved. The time needed to resolve 
civil,  commercial,  administrative  and  other  cases  significantly  decreased  from  228  days  in 
2023  to  180  days  in  2024,  and  the  clearance  rate  of  civil,  commercial,  administrative  and 
other cases increased from 87% in 2023 to 99% in 2024. Romania is still the Member State 
with  the highest  number of incoming  civil  and commercial litigious cases, a number which 
has been constantly increasing in previous years62. According to the Prosecutor General, this 
would also be linked, in criminal matters, to the fact that an investigation must be opened for 
every  complaint  (no  opportunity  assessment)63.  According  to  businesses,  the  duration  of 
proceedings remains an important concern, especially in complex commercial, administrative 
or  tax  disputes.  They  also  report  that  the  reasoning  of  judicial  decisions,  which  should  be 
communicated  within  30  days  after  the  adoption  of  the  decision,  sometimes  reaches  the 
parties after 2 or 3 years64. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

The  perception  among  experts,  citizens  and  business  executives  is  that  the  level  of 
corruption in the public sector remains high. In the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index by 
Transparency International, Romania scores 45/100 and ranks 25th in the European Union and 

56   According  to  the  SCM,  access  of  the  executive  to  documents  linked  to  specific  court  cases  could  raise 

questions with regard to the independence of the judiciary. See 2025 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 

57   Romanian Government (2026), written input, p. 37. 
58   Ibidem, p. 38. 
59   SCM(2026), additional input. 
60   CCBE(2026), written input, p. 22. 
61  These  working  groups  are  focusing  on  identifying  practical  use  cases,  assessing  operational  needs  and 
developing common principles and future regulatory solutions, building on with the overarching objectives 
of enhancing the security, efficiency and transparency of judicial activities. See: www.justai.presidency.ro . 

62   Figures 2, 5 and 10, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
63   Romanian Government (2026), written input p. 47. Country visit Romania, Superior Council of Magistracy 
and  Prosecutor  General.  The  Prosecutor  General  explained  that  it  is  not  possible  to  prioritise  cases  over 
others which are less grounded, repetitive, or abusive. 

64   Foreign Investors’ Council Romania (2026) written input, p. 1. Country visit Romania, Romanian Business 

Leaders and Concordia. 

9 

 
 
70th  globally65.  This  perception  has  remained  stable  over  the  past  five  years66.  The  2026 
Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  71%  of  respondents  consider  corruption 
widespread  in  their  country  (EU  average  71%)  and  55%  of  respondents  feel  personally 
affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 30%). As regards businesses, 94% of 
companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 65%) and 73% consider that 
corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  37%).  Furthermore,  52%  of 
respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from  corrupt 
practices  (EU  average  38%),  while  30%  of  companies  believe  that  people  and  businesses 
caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 31%)67. 

The evaluation of the 2021-2025 National Anti-Corruption Strategy has been finalised, 
and  the  next  strategy  is  under  preparation.  The  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the 
measures  and  specific  objectives  set  out  in  the  Strategy  was  carried  out  by  an  external 
contractor and the final report has been published68. It notably recommends establishing clear 
budgetary  planning  and  focussing  the  next  anti-corruption  strategy  on  a  limited  number  of 
programmes.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  is  coordinating  the  preparation  of  the  next  strategy 
covering  the  2026–2030  period.  Consultations  of  public  institutions  and  stakeholders  have 
taken place in 2025 and have continued in the first half of 2026. The envisaged priority areas 
include  prevention,  notably  through  youth  engagement,  and  monitoring  and  evaluation 
mechanisms69.  In  October  2025,  Romania  adopted  Law  No.  156/202570,  strengthening  its 
legal  framework  for  preventing  and  combating  corruption  in  international  business 
transactions in order to align it with the recommendations of the OECD Working Group on 
Bribery (WGB)71. 

The  track  record  in  prosecuting  to  both  petty  and  high-level  corruption  has  been 
maintained  compared  to  the  previous  year.  This  concerns  both  the  General  Prosecutor’s 
Office  for  petty  corruption72  and  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Directorate  (DNA)  for  the 
prosecution of high-level corruption73. The workload of the DNA remains high with a similar 

65   The level of perceived corruption is categorised as follows: low (above 79); relatively low (between 79-60), 

relatively high (between 59-50), high (below 50). 

66   In  2021,  the  score  was  45  and  in  2025,  the  score remains 45.  The  score  significantly  increases/decreases 
when it changes more than five points; improves/deteriorates (changes between 4-5 points) and is relatively 
stable (changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

67   Data from Special Eurobarometer 573 (2026) and Flash Eurobarometer 582 (2026). 
68   Final report of the evaluation of the 2021-2025 National Anti-Corruption Strategy. 
69   Romanian Government (2026a), written input, p. 57-58. Country visit Romania, Ministry of Justice. 
70   The  legislative  changes  include  the  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  offence  of  corruption  of  foreign  public 
officials; an increase of the amount of daily fines, if imposed in addition to imprisonment; the introduction 
of  a  judicial  mitigating circumstance  for  the  legal  persons  adopting  and  implementing  effective corporate 
policies in  order  to  prevent  corruption  acts,  and  assigning  jurisdiction  to  the  DNA  for conducting 
the criminal investigation  also  in  the case  of certain  related  offences  (money  laundering,  forgery  of 
documents, tax evasion), when they are committed in connection with the offence of foreign bribery. DNA 
(2026), written input, p. 73. 

71  Romanian  Government  (2026b).  The  reforms  resulted  in  the  issuance  of  Formal  Opinion  no.  17  in  the 
OECD  accession  process.  Such  an  opinion  refers  to  the  evaluation  adopted  by  the  OECD,  during  a 
country’s accession process and determines if a candidate country meets the OECD standards.  

72   In 2025, as regards petty corruption, a total of 1 997 (1 702 in 2024, 1 843 in 2023) cases were settled of 
which 286 (209 in 2024, 259 in 2023) indictments and plea agreements were issued. There were 125 (164 in 
2024, 159 in 2023) final judgements, by which 147 (179 in 2024, 154 in 2023) individuals were convicted, 
See input from Romania for the 2025 Rule of Law Report, Annex 10. 

73   In 2025, in cases referred to by the National Anticorruption Directorate, the courts handed down 289 final 

convictions (391 in 2024) and 34 final acquittals (147 in 2024), see DNA (2026) written input, p. 74. 

10 

 
 
number of cases as last year74. According to the DNA, the staffing level remains stable and 
sufficient75.  Since  2022,  the  DNA  has  been  investing  in  modernising  its  technical 
infrastructure, supporting the digital transformation, notably in the field of computer forensic 
searches76.  The  DNA  indicates  that  notifications  about  possible  corruption  cases  received 
from other national authorities which would allow it to conduct its work more efficiently are 
low77. In 2025, the EPPO investigated 43 corruption cases, which accounts for 8% of the total 
number of EPPO cases in Romania78. 

Lower courts have continued to close corruption cases and annul convictions following 
rulings  by  the  High  Court  of  Cassation  and  Justice  on  the  statute  of  limitations.  The 
closing of corruption cases, including  high  level  ones, and the release of  defendants due to 
the statute of limitations, has continued, negatively affecting the perception by the public  of 
the judiciary’s ability to effectively fight corruption79. Certain magistrates’ associations have 
nevertheless  highlighted  that  limitation  periods  are,  as  such,  sufficiently  long  to  conduct  a 
case,  despite  the  impact  of  these  rulings80,  whilst  others  have  reported  transfers  of  cases  to 
other  panels  or  courts,  resulting  in  further  delays  leading  to  the  case  reaching  its  limitation 
period81.  These  rulings  neutralise  the  interruption  effect  on  the  statute  of  limitations  of 
procedural  acts  carried out  before  and after the 2018-2022 period,  thereby exacerbating the 
systemic  risk  that  a  certain  number  of  criminal  cases  escape  criminal  penalty82  and  raising 
certain questions under EU law83. According to the EPPO, the High Court of Cassation and 
Justice’s (HCCJ) rulings could affect its ability to carry out effective investigations regarding 
criminal  offences  affecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  in  Romania84.  At  the  same 
time, the HCCJ submitted referrals for preliminary rulings on this topic to the Court of Justice 
of  the  European  Union85.  On  16  July  2026,  the  Court  of  Justice  clarified  certain  questions 
under EU law raised by the current situation. 

There has been no further progress on the recommendation to take measures to ensure 
the effective investigation and prosecution of corruption offenses in the judiciary86. Such 
offences  are  of  the  competence  of  delegated  prosecutors  within  the  Prosecutor’s  Offices 

74   Ibidem,  p.  74.  The  number  of  pending  cases  was  5  556  (compared  to  5  443  in  2024)  with  2  599  new 
criminal cases  registered  in  2025  (similar  to  2023  and  2024).  In  2025,  a  total  of  792  defendants  were 
brought to trial (683 in 2024, 651 in 2023). Of those 539 were prosecuted by indictment (445 in 2024, 481 
in 2023) and 253 by plea agreement (238 in 2024). 

75   Ibidem, p. 32. Two competitions were organised in 2025 to fill executive positions. 
76   Romanian Government (2026a), written input, DNA, Annex 3, funded notably  under the European Union 

Anti-Fraud Programme (EUAF), for example 2025-RO-FORENSIQ. 

77   Country visit Romania, DNA. 
78   EPPO (2026), Annual Report 2025, p. 49. 
79   Country  visit  Romania,  CSOs  and  media  reporting,  notably  on  the  SCM  who  regrets  the  closure  of 

corruption cases due to the ruling of the HCCJ (see sources). 

80   Country visit Romania, UNJR, AMR, APR. 
81   Country visit Romanian, Romanian Judges’ Forum Association, Movement for the Defence of Prosecutors' 
Status Association, Initiative for Justice Association. A new legislative proposal initiated by Save Romania 
Union  (USR)  parliamentarians  provides  for  the  increase  of  the  special  limitation  period  for  criminal 
liability.  The  measure  is  intended  to  give  authorities  more  time  to  complete  investigations  and  bring 
perpetrators to justice, especially in complex cases. 

82   2025 Rule of Law Report, Romania, p.7-8. 
83   Judgement of the CJEU, case C-107/23, Lin. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law 

situation in Romania, p.7-8. 

84   EPPO (2026), written input, p. 59-61. 
85   Cases C-280/25, Lin II and C-496/25, Lin III. The latter case is still pending. 
86   In the 2025 Rule of Law Report, the Commission recommended to Romania to: ‘take measures to ensure 
efficient investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the judiciary, including as regards corruption 
offences’. Some progress was previously assessed on this recommendation in 2023, 2024 and 2025. 

11 

 
 
attached to the HCCJ and to courts of appeal87. Delegated prosecutors attached to the HCCJ 
issued  two  indictments  in  2025,  and  those  attached  to  courts  of  appeal  did  not  issue  any88. 
Efforts have continued to resolve the pending cases transferred from the former Section for 
the  Investigation  of  Offences    within  the  judiciary  (SIIJ)89.  The  General  Prosecutor 
underlined the insufficient number of police officers seconded to his office and their lack of 
expertise on corruption cases90, as well as the continued difficulty to fill vacancies91 due to 
the nomination procedure, and in particular the requirement of approval by both the judges’ 
and prosecutors’ sections of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM)92. These issues were 
raised  with  the  Committee  for  the  Review  and  Revision  of  the  Justice  Laws,  and  the 
Committee’s  report  recommends  to  strengthen  the  effectiveness  of  investigations  and 
prosecutions of corruption offenses by magistrates, including by returning this competence to 
the DNA93. As no measures were taken to address remaining shortcomings, there has been no 
further progress in ensuring the effective investigation and prosecution of corruption offenses 
in the judiciary. 

New legislation on revolving doors was adopted in November 2025. The law94 harmonises 
pre- and post-employment restrictions which apply over a 12-month period to a wide range of 
public officials95. The system is based on individual declarations which are examined by the 
National Integrity Agency (ANI). ANI monitors compliance with the restrictions and, when 
relevant,  may  impose  administrative  penalties  provided  by  the  law,  applicable  to  both 
individuals and public institutions. Its inspectors have also conducted information campaigns 
and training. ANI is currently adapting its e-DAI platform to integrate such declarations and 
include  an  automatic  alert  system  of  potential  breaches.  As  from  2027,  the  Agency  will 
publish statistics annually (e.g. number of breaches and notifications), based on information 
provided by public institutions and authorities96. 

87   For  further  details  on  this  system  specific  to  offenses  committed  by  magistrates  see  2023  Rule  of  Law 

Report, Romania, p. 12. 

88   Input from Romania for the 2026 Rule of Law Report, General Prosecutor’s Office, p. 53. There were six 

indictments in 2024, see 2025 Rule of Law Report, Romania, p. 8. 

89   Government  of  Romania  (2026b).  The  number  of  pending  case  files  reached  its  lowest  level  since  the 
abolition  of  the  SIIJ,  particularly  within  the  Criminal  Investigation  Section.  In  2025,  1 424  cases  were 
resolved  out  of  a  total  of  3 188  pending  cases,  while  in 2024 1 997  cases  were resolved  out  of  a  total of 
4 566 pending cases. 

90   Country visit Romania, General Prosecutor’s Office. 
91   At the end of 2025, the occupancy rate was 76.28%, while it was 75.65% at the end of 2024. Input from 

Romania for the 2026 Rule of Law Report, General Prosecutor’s Office, p. 31. 

92   Country  visit,  Romania,  General  Prosecutor’s  Office:  according  to  the  General  Prosecutor’s  office,  the 
nominations of delegated prosecutors should be done only by the prosecutors’ section of the SCM. On the 
procedure to recruit delegated prosecutors and the role of the SCM, see 2025 Rule of Law report, p. 8-9. 
93   Country visit Romania. The work of this Committee was suspended following a decision of the HCCJ – see 
Pillar I. Government of Romania, Chancellery of the Prime Minister, Report on the work of the Committee 
on the Review and Revision of the Justice Laws. 

94   Law  no.  189/2025  published  in  the  Official  Journal  no.  1065  of  19  November  2025.  The  reform  was 
assessed  by  the  OECD  Working  Party  on  Public  Integrity  and  Anti-Corruption  and  contributed  to  the 
subsequent adoption of Formal Opinion no. 22 by the OECD Public Governance Committee. 

95   Input from Romania for the 2025 Rule of Law Report,  Ministry of Justice and ANI, p. 4. Official falling 
under the scope are determined based on the nature of the powers and responsibilities exercised and include 
senior officials, local elected representatives, and personnel involved in procurement, auditing, concessions, 
regulation, accreditation and authorisation. 

96   Country visit Romania, ANI.  

12 

 
 
A  new  Code  of  Ethics  for  the  government  introduced  by  law  in  April  2025  is  being 
implemented97.  It  covers  a  wide  range  of  officials,  from  the  Prime  Minister  and  their 
advisors to Ministers and Secretaries of State and their equivalents in ministries or specialised 
central bodies. The new law includes a prohibition on gifts (above EUR 100), monitored by a 
special committee, and provisions on publication. Ethics advisors may provide guidance upon 
request98. ANI is mandated to give training on the Code of Ethics to members of government 
when  they  take  office.  There  are  still  no  clear  rules  on  gifts,  hospitality,  favours  and  other 
benefits of members of Parliament99. 

Some progress has been made on the recommendation to ensure the effectiveness of the 
asset declaration system100. The e-DAI platform managed by ANI continues to be used to 
streamline the process for filling in and submitting asset declarations in digital format, which 
are  no  longer  published101.  ANI  submitted  a  broad  legislative  proposal  on  integrity  to  the 
Ministry  of  Justice  in  November  2025.  The  draft  aims  to  clarify  ambiguities,  harmonise 
certain provisions and update the existing legal framework, in particular on asset declaration 
formats. It currently does not regulate asset declarations by spouses and children, where the 
rules  had  been  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Constitutional  Court  in  a  decision  reported 
upon last year102. The draft is currently under discussion and the Ministry of Justice intends to 
carry  out  further  consultations103.  In  light  of  these  developments,  Romania  has  made  some 
progress in ensuring the effectiveness of the asset declaration system. 

Romania  has  fully  implemented  the  recommendation  to  introduce  new  rules  on 
lobbying for Members of Parliament104. A new law of November 2025105 obliges deputies 
and  senators  to  register  meetings  with  third  parties  on  a  legislative  initiative  in  the 
transparency  register  (RUTI),  which  is  already  used  by  members  of  government  and  high-
level government officials. Members of Parliament may only hold meetings with third parties 
registered  in  RUTI.  They  must  publish  information  on  such  meetings  in  advance  or,  in  the 
case of unplanned meetings, within 48 hours after they take place, indicating the participants, 
the  date  and  place,  and  the  purpose  of  the  meeting.  RUTI  is  managed  by  the  Secretaries 
General  of  the  two  Chambers,  who  publish  an  annual  report  on  its  operation.  Failure  to 
comply  with  the  new  obligations  will  result  in  a  written  warning  issued  to  the  deputy  or 
senator106.  Stakeholders  have  underlined  the  lack  of  basic  functionalities  of  RUTI  (search 

97   Law  no.  49/2025.  See  also  earlier  Law  No.  251/2004  on  goods  received  free  of  charge  in  the  context  of 
protocol activities during the exercise of a  mandate  or public office  establishes obligations for holders of 
public dignity offices to declare gifts received in connection with official duties. The law provides for the 
evaluation and inventory of such gifts, rules on their retention or transfer, and annual public disclosure and 
their destination. The implementing provisions are set out in Government Decision No. 1126/2004. 

98   Country visit Romania, Ministry of Justice. 
99   2024 Rule of Law Report Romania, pp 17-18 and 2025 Rule of Law Report Romania, p. 10.  
100   The  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  to  Romania  to  “…  ensure  the  effectiveness  of  the  asset 

declaration system”. This was a new part of the recommendation. 

101   Romanian Government (2026a), written input. 
102   2025  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Romania,  p.  9.  The  Constitutional  Court  held  that  the  rules  requiring  that 
officials declare their spouses’ and children’s assets are unconstitutional on grounds that such declaration of 
assets, being a declaration under oath, entails the criminal liability of the declarant and can only be made in 
one’s own name. 

103   Country visit Romania, Ministry of Justice and ANI. 
104    The  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  Romania  to  “Introduce  rules  on  lobbying  for  Members  of 
Parliament …’. No progress was previously assessed on this recommendation in 2023, 2024 and 2025. 
105   Law  no.  197/2025  amending  Law  no.  96/2006  on  the  Status  of  Deputies  and  Senators,  published  in  the 

Official Journal no. 1106 of 28 November 2025. 

106   Romanian Government (2026a), written input. 

13 

 
 
functions, filters), as well as its insufficient use by the government so far107. Despite certain 
limitations  of  RUTI,  Romania  has  successfully  introduced  new  rules  on  lobbying  for  the 
Members of Parliament and fully implemented the recommendation. 

There have been no further developments to improve the transparency of political party 
financing  as  the  legislation  is  still  pending  in  Parliament.  Draft  legislation  from  the 
Permanent Electoral Authority (PEA) to improve the transparency of political party financing 
and the enforcement of related rules has been pending before the Chamber of Deputies since 
October  2023,  with  no  set  date  for  adoption108.  The  Court  of  Accounts  had  confirmed  the 
need to better regulate the funding of political parties in Romania and recommended that the 
PEA  initiates  legislative  amendments109.  The  PEA  did  not  conduct  the  annual  audit  of 
political  parties, which had already been postponed in  2024110. Concerns raised in  previous 
Rule  of  Law  reports  remain,  particularly  as  regards  the  lack  of  thorough  auditing, 
investigation  and  enforcement  of  the  rules  and  low  penalties  for  non-compliance111.  In 
February 2025, the Parliament dismissed the PEA President on integrity related grounds, and 
a new President was nominated in December. CSOs criticised the lack of transparency in the 
nomination process112. 

ANI performs the role of main external whistleblower channel and is developing an IT 
system  to  receive  and  manage  whistleblower  reports,  with  the  aim  of  increasing 
efficiency  and  the  communication  workflow.  Training  sessions  were  held  for  public  and 
private  entities  covering  both  internal  and  external  reporting  channels.  The  new  IT  system 
will be accessible to  all entities which have an external  reporting channel,  and they will be 
able to manage reports using the platform113. ANI received 167 reports in 2025, managed by 
four  inspectors114.  No  reports  were  on  corruption.  It  also  provided  confidential  and  non-
confidential counselling, upon request, to individuals and entities. The Agency monitored the 
implementation of the law, specifically regarding the establishment and operation of internal 
reporting channels by public and private entities115. 

Public procurement remains a high-risk area with additional measures taken to address 
corruption risks, including the launch of a new National Public Procurement Risk Map. 
Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU show that 38% of companies in Romania 
(EU average 30%) think that corruption has prevented them from winning a public tender in 
practice in the last three years116. 57% of businesses perceive the level of independence of the 
the National Appeals Settlement Council as very or fairly good when it is reviewing public 
procurement  cases117.  The  Single  Market  and  Competitiveness  Scoreboard  on  access  to 
public procurement in Romania reports 49% of single bids for 2025 (27% EU average). The 
Court  of  Accounts  reports  that  80%  of  the  public  interest  whistleblowing  notifications 

107   Written input, Centre of Public Innovation, p. 17. 
108   2025 Rule of Law Report, Romania, p. 11. 
109   Country visit Romania, Court of Accounts. See also 2025 Rule of Law report, p. 11. 
110   Expert Forum, Monitoring Report 2024, 8 September 2025. This evaluation should be done annually. 
111   2024 Rule of Law Report Romania, p. 18-19 and 2025 Rule of Law Report Romania, p. 11. 
112   Country visit Romania, Expert Forum, Civic Radauti Association, Apador-CH, Public Innovation.  
113   Country visit Romania, ANI. 
114   Last  year,  ANI  reported  that  there  were  five  integrity  inspectors.  However,  the  decrease  in  inspectors  is 
compensated by  the positive impact of IT solutions  which resulted in an approximately 100% increase in 
efficiency in terms of cases resolved per inspector. Romania Government, ANI (2026), written input. 

115   Romanian Government (2026a), written input.  
116   Flash  Eurobarometer  582  on  Businesses’  attitudes  towards  corruption  in  the  EU  (2026).  This  is  8 

percentage points above the EU average. 
117   Figure 59, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

14 

 
 
registered in 2025 concerned suspicions of breaches of public procurement legislation118. A 
National Public Procurement Risk Map launched in 2025 by the Ministry of Justice and the 
National Agency for Public Procurement (ANAP), with OECD support, was published on the 
website of ANAP. It identifies corruption-vulnerable functions, high-risk sectors and critical 
stages  of  public  procurement  procedures  and  serves  as  a  reference  for  policymakers, 
contracting authorities and oversight bodies119. ANI continues to analyse public procurement 
procedures using the PREVENT system120 to identify ex ante conflicts of interest.  It issued 
15  integrity  warnings  in  2025121.  Other  highlighted  high-risk  areas  include  regulatory 
oversight and certification and human resources management122. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

The National Audiovisual Council (CNA) has fewer human resources than reported last 
year,  with  digitalisation  efforts  progressing  slowly.  According  to  the  2025  Rule  of  Law 
report, the CNA carried out its activities with 118 members of staff on average123. This year, 
the  media  regulator  reported  116  members  of  staff  out  of  the  153  approved  positions, 
alongside  increased  tasks  with  regards  to  overseeing  the  digitalisation  project124.  The 
Government  reportedly  considered  a  possible  merger  between  CNA  and  ANCOM,  the 
national  communications and postal  services regulator, as part of austerity policies taken in 
2025, which were strongly opposed by stakeholders125 due to a possible risk of undermining 
CNA’s role. As part of the changes introduced by the Government, the CNA’s 2025 budget 
was  initially  increased  compared  to  2024,  only  to  be  later  adjusted  in  October  2025  with  a 
EUR 250 000 cut126. Digitalisation efforts commenced in 2025 through a EUR 20 million EU 
funded project,  but  this  is reported to  be challenging  and progressing slowly, with  no clear 
timeline for finalisation127. The CNA considers the current sanctions and penalties system in 
the  context  of  orders  for  the  removal  of  audiovisual  content  to  have  a  positive  impact 
overall128,  but  stakeholders  have  criticised  the  Council  for  frequently  failing  to  fulfil  its 
mandate  of  defending  the  public  interest.  However,  they  noted  that  in  2025  the  media 
regulator  showed  more  determination  in  sanctioning  television  and  radio  broadcasters  for 
serious  violations  of  the  audiovisual  legislation129.  A  new  Regulatory  Code  of  Audiovisual 
Content was adopted on 25 June 2025130. The 2026 Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) reports 
a  medium-low  risk  (37%)  for  the  independence  and  effectiveness  of  the  media  authorities, 
remaining stable since last year. 

118   Country visit Romania, Court of Accounts.  
119   Romanian Government (2026a), written input, ANAP. 
120   Ibidem  p.70,  Since  January  2023,  ANI  is  implementing  a  project  entitled  “The  development  of  the 
PREVENT IT system in order to increase the interoperability of the electronic systems of public institutions 
for the ex-ante verification of conflicts of interest in the process of awarding public procurement contracts”, 
financed through Romania’s Recovery and Resilience Plan. 

121   In 10 cases, the leaders of the contracting authority removed the cause of the potential conflict of interest. 

The remaining cases are still pending. Ibidem, p. 68. 
122   Romanian Government (2026a), written input, p. 58. 
123   2025 Rule of Law Report, Romania, p.12. 
124   Country visit Romania, National Audiovisual Council. 
125   Centre for Independent Journalism (Centrul pentru Jurnalism Independent) (2025), open letter. 
126   Reporters Without Borders and Active Watch (2026), written input, p. 15. 
127   Country visit Romania, National Audiovisual Council (Consiliul Național al Audiovizualului). 
128   Ibidem. 
129   Reporters  Without  Borders  and  Active  Watch  (2026),  written  input,  p.  15;  Country  visit  Romania, 

Journalist associations. 

130   The new Code was adopted in the context of the transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 

2010/13/EU. National Audiovisual Council (2026), written input, p.79. 

15 

 
 
Self-regulation  has  still  not  been  completely  agreed  by  media  actors,  though  some 
elements have been established. Whilst various initiatives to introduce ethics codes have so 
far failed to gather enough support among professional journalists131, an alliance consisting of 
over 20 members, to be officially launched later this year, is currently working on a code of 
ethics for journalists132. A form of self-regulation was also reported between the CNA and the 
Romanian  Advertising  Council  who  coordinate  on  advertising  issues.  The  CNA  flags 
problematic advertising to the Advertising Council who analyses them based on their codes 
of conduct133. The Council’s assessment is then used in CNA discussions. 

Initial steps have been taken on the reform to enhance the independent governance and 
editorial  independence  of  public  service  media134.  The  Government  has  set  up  an 
interinstitutional  working  group  to  compare  legal  assessments,  carry  out  technical 
consultations and a comprehensive  evaluation  of the current  legislative framework with  the 
aim  of  improving  the  independent  governance  of  public  service  media  and  aligning  with 
EMFA,  but  a  draft  has  yet  to  be  issued.  A  new  Director-General  of  the  national  TV 
broadcaster TVR was appointed. TVR is currently changing its main news programme, which 
attracted  positive  reactions  from  stakeholders  who  consider  that  it  better  serves  the  public 
interest135.  Journalist  associations  criticised 
the  Government’s 
Spokesperson to the management board of the Romanian national radio broadcaster136. There 
has  therefore  been  limited  progress  on  improving  the  framework  for  the  independent 
governance and editorial independence of public service media. 

the  appointment  of 

There  are  no  developments  on  the  transparency  of  media  ownership.  Access  to  most 
ownership  information  is  still  only  available  through  the  National  Commercial  Registry 
database,  which  requires  the  payment  of  a  fee  and  is  not  readily  searchable.  The 
interinstitutional  group  set  up  by  the  Government  to  identify  legislative  requirements  to 
ensure  further  transparency  has  not  yet  delivered  results137.  The  CNA  continues  to  publish 
information  on  the  shareholding  structure  of  companies  holding  audiovisual  licenses138. 
Stakeholders raised concerns about the lack of legal requirements for assessing media market 
concentrations  that  could  have  a  significant  impact  on  media  pluralism  and  editorial 
independence, particularly as the largest media groups in the country hold dominant positions 
across  TV,  radio  and  online139.  Stakeholders  highlighted  as  most  concerning  in  terms  of 
ownership concentration, a trend towards the convergence and merger of media outlets  and 

131   Reporters Without Borders and Active Watch (2026), written input, p.16. 
132   Alianta a Patra Putere is a newly founded organisation focusing on self-regulation; Country visit Romania, 

Journalist associations. 

133   Country visit Romania, National Audiovisual Council (Consiliul Național al Audiovizualului). 
134   The  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  that  Romania  “steps  up  efforts  to  strengthen  the  rules  and 
mechanisms  to  enhance  the  independent  governance  and  editorial  independence  of  public  service  media 
taking  into  account  European  standards  on  public  service  media”,  p.  13.  No  progress  was  previously 
assessed on this recommendation in 2025, 2024 and 2023. 

135   Country visit Romania, Journalist associations. 
136   Active  Watch  and  Centre  for  Independent  Journalism  Romania  (Centrul  pentru  Jurnalism  Independent) 
(2026), open letter, citing the incompatibility of the position with media independence and risks of political 
influence. 

137   Romanian Government (2026a), written input, p. 80. 
138  List published by the CNA (2026). 
139   Reporters Without Borders and Active Watch (2026), written input, p.20. 

16 

 
 
large  telecommunications  companies140.  According  to  the  Media  Pluralism  Monitor, 
transparency of media ownership is now ranked at very high risk (85%)141. 

The  new  Audiovisual  Code  legislates  the  situation  with  regards  to  the  financing  of 
private  media  by  political  parties  and  state  authorities,  but  certain  related  practices 
remain  an  issue.  Political  parties  reportedly  spent  half  of  their  total  public  subsidies  on 
media and publicity (over EUR 22.2 million) in 2025142, a slight decrease from the amount 
reported last year143. The practice of media presenting statements by politicians as journalistic 
content  and  not  as  paid-for  advertisement  continues  in  the  form  of  paid-for  interviews  and 
debates  conducted  by  journalists  in  programmes  with  an  editorial  appearance144.  However, 
the new Regulatory Code of Audiovisual Content, adopted last year by CNA, that prohibits 
the  sponsoring  of  news  and  political  affairs  programmes,  has  reportedly  helped  reduce  the 
practice on the main television channels  and led to  a better marking  of this type of content 
than  in  the  past145.  Issues  with  state  advertising  remain,  with  public  authorities  awarding 
funds to media outlets without a tender and no general oversight on allocations, according to 
stakeholders146.  

Issues on access to information remain, and the draft of a new Code of Administrative 
Procedures  is  still  pending.  The  Government  reported  no  progress  on  this  file.  Journalists 
and  CSOs  continue  to  express  concerns  about  plans  to  include  civil  society  in  the  Code’s 
scope,  subjecting  them  to  the  same  obligations  as  public  authorities  in  terms  of  access  to 
information. CSOs indicated that the right to information was not always respected by public 
authorities147.  Judicial  review  of  negative  replies  is  described  as  involving  lengthy 
procedures,  which  is  felt  to  discourage  challenging  these  decisions.  Remedies  were  also 
described  as  being  limited  to  modest  fines  rather  than  reversal  of  the  refusal  to  provide 
information. Exceptions for ‘classified’ or ‘commercial secret’ information were considered 
by journalists and CSOs to be overused148. 

An  anti-SLAPP  law  is  in  preparation  as  threats  and  instances  of  harassment  of 
journalists continue. Since the publication of the 2025 Rule of Law Report, three new alerts 
have  been  issued  on  the  Safety  of  Journalists  Platform  of  the  Council  of  Europe.  The  first 
signals  a  smear  campaign  and  death  threats149,  the  second  points  at  defamation  lawsuits150 
and the third raises awareness about a draft law requiring NGOs, including media, to publish 
donor  identities151.  There  are  currently  four  active  Strategic  lawsuits  against  public 

140   IPI-MJRC Report (2025), Media Capture Monitoring Report: Romania, p. 29. 
141   2026 Media Pluralism Monitor, Romania, p. 20-21.  
142   Expert Forum Report (2025), Financing of political parties in 2025 and the need for urgent reform, p. 4. 
143   2025 Rule of Law Report, Romania, p. 14.  
144   Country visit Romania, Journalist Associations. 
145   Ibidem. 2025 Rule of Law Report, p.13. 
146   Reporters Without Borders and Active Watch (2026), written input, p.17; IPI-MJRC Report (2025), Media 

Capture Monitoring Report: Romania, p.25. 

147   Reporters Without Borders and Active Watch (2026), written input, p.22. 
148   Country visit Romania, Apador-CH, Public Innovation, PressHub, Freedom House, Funky Citizens, Civic 

Radauti, Expert Forum, FDSC. 

149   Council of Europe, Safety of Journalists Platform Alert:  Smear Campaign, Death Threats and Harassment 

Against Journalist Emilia Şercan Over Report – no state reply. 

150   Council  of  Europe,  Safety  of  Journalists  Platform  Alert:  Investigative  Journalist  Brîndușa  Armanca  and 

PressHub Face Multiple Defamation Lawsuits Over Reports - no state reply.  

151    Council  of  Europe,  Safety of  Journalists  Platform  Alert:  Draft  Law  requiring  NGOs,  including  Media,  to 
publish donor identities. On the third alert, see also pillar IV. State reply expected 02 September 2026. 

17 

 
 
participation  (SLAPP)  cases  involving  journalists152,  of  which  two  date  back  to  2022. 
Claiming  disproportionate  compensation  for  moral  or  material  damage  allegedly  resulting 
from  defamation  is  the  main  mechanism  by  which  a  civil  dispute  becomes  a  SLAPP-type 
action153.  Journalists  reported  that  they  are  not  always  fully  supported  by  their  employers 
when faced with a court case for their publications, which can deepen their vulnerability to 
SLAPPs154.  Law  enforcement  has  faced  criticism  from  stakeholders  for  slow  action  in 
prosecuting  longstanding  cases  of  harassment  against  journalists155.  Representatives  of  the 
profession  fear  that  this  situation  disincentivises  in  particular  local  media  who  have  fewer 
resources at their disposal to seek justice. Moreover, concerns about the impact on the mental 
health of journalists have also been  raised156. More broadly, SLAPPs continue to be widely 
employed  by  various  actors  not  just  against  journalists  and  media  outlets,  but  also  against 
civic  activists  or  CSOs,  with  over  40  documented  cases  of  civil  actions  with  SLAPP 
characteristics, as well as eight criminal cases157. The Romanian Institute for Human Rights 
(RIHR) was designated by the Ministry of Justice as the national focal point for the follow-up 
to  the  Anti-SLAPP  Recommendation158.  In  this  capacity,  the  RIHR  is  entrusted  with 
organising training programs for media professionals and human rights defenders, conducting 
information  and  awareness  campaigns  regarding  SLAPP  procedures,  providing  information 
on the support available to individuals targeted by SLAPP proceedings, as well as collecting 
judicial statistical data relating to SLAPP procedures159. The draft law transposing the Anti-
SLAPP Directive, which has been finalised and submitted for interinstitutional endorsement, 
covers  both  cross-border  and  domestic  cases160.  The  draft  law  was  approved  by  the 
Government  on  5  February  2026,  adopted  by  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  on  20  April  and 
forwarded  to  the  Romanian  Senate.  The  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  for  2026  ranks  the 
protection and standards of the journalistic profession at medium-low risk (46%)161. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Some  further  progress  has  been  made  to  implement  the  recommendation  on  the 
frequent  use  of  government  emergency  ordinances  and  effective  public  consultations, 
while  a  number  of  shortcomings  remain  in  practice162.  The  number  of  government 
emergency  ordinances  (GEOs)  has  decreased  in  2025,  but  GEOs  continue  to  be  frequently 

152   Romanian Government (2026a), written input, Annex no. 12. 
153  Such claims have reached record amounts: EUR 3,465,000 requested from the independent media platform 
Context, following a journalistic investigation about a businessman and his company. Active Watch report 
(2026): SLAPPS and Freedom of Expression in Romania. 

154   Active Watch report (2026): SLAPPS and Freedom of Expression in Romania, p. 9. 
155   Reporters  Without  Borders  and  Active  Watch  (2026),  written  input,  p.21;  Country  visit  Romania  (2026), 

Journalist associations. 

156   Country visit Romania, Journalist associations. 
157   See Active Watch (2026),  Report on SLAPPs and Freedom of Expression in Romania. FreeEx Digest No 

11. Country visit Romania, Journalism associations. 

158   (EU) 2022/758 of 27 April 2022. 
159   See pillar IV on the resources of the Romanian Institute for Human Rights. 
160   Country visit Romania, Ministry of Justice  
161   2026 Media Pluralism Monitor, Romania, p. 12-13.  
162   The  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  Romania  to  “step  up  efforts  to  address  the  frequent  use  of 
government  emergency  ordinances  and  to  ensure  effective  public  consultations  before  the  adoption  of 
legislation”. While there was no progress on the recommendation to ensure effective public consultations in 
2023  and  2024,  some  progress  had  been  made  in  2025.  On  these  topics,  see  also  in  the  context  of  the 
European Semester, the Commission has proposed that the Council recommends that Romania “improve[s] 
(…) the predictability and quality of decision-making, through appropriate stakeholder consultations, (…)”.  

18 

 
 
used, including for important measures like tax reforms163. In 2025, they accounted for 25,5% 
of all primary legislation adopted164, compared to  29,3% in  2024 and 21,6% in  2023. They 
still represent a challenge for businesses and CSOs and often cover more than one legislative 
area165. The Consultative Council for the Impact Assessment of Normative Acts (CCEIAN) 
examined 34 GEOs considered to have an impact on society and the business environment. In 
26 cases, CCEIAN concluded that there was insufficient justification for the use of a GEO as 
the appropriate legal instrument. The e-Consultare platform, which aims to centralise public 
consultations on draft legislation, was further improved through new features. This platform 
is however still considered non-user friendly by CSOs and businesses166. In their view, public 
consultation  often  remains  a  box-ticking  exercise,  with  very  tight  deadlines  and  little 
consideration for their comments167. Often, the public consultation  is  carried out  too late in 
the drafting process, when political choices have already been made168. The RIHR is rarely 
consulted  on  draft  laws  impacting  human  rights169.  Overall,  however,  while  certain 
shortcomings are noted, some further progress has been made to decrease the use of GEOs in 
practice and ensure effective public consultations before the adoption of legislation. 

Legislative unpredictability, driven by frequent amendments to legislation and a large 
number  of  draft  laws  pending  in  Parliament,  remain  primary  concerns  for  businesses 
and  CSOs.  Businesses,  judges  and  CSOs  consistently  report  that  lack  of  legislative 
predictability is a major concern for them170. Key challenges include frequent amendments to 
legislation171, the lack of impact assessment or insufficient documentation, the frequent use of 
government  ordinances  and  ineffective  consultations172.  Despite  legal  requirements,  the 
potential  impact  of  proposed  legislation  on  human  rights  is  rarely  addressed173.  Legislative 
backlog  amounted  to  2  500  draft  laws  when  the  new  parliament  was  elected  in  December 

163   See  e.g.  Government  Emergency  Ordinance  No.  89/23.12.2025  amending  and  supplementing  Law  No. 
227/2015  on  the  Fiscal  Code,  regulating  certain  fiscal  and  budgetary  measures,  as  well  as  amending  and 
supplementing  certain  normative  acts.  It  modified  the  Fiscal  Code,  the  Fiscal  Procedure  Code  and  other 
laws  and  ordinances.  Other  topics  include  public  procurements,  energy  market,  prices  of  food  products, 
labour law, etc. Country visit Romania, CSOs. 

164   93 Government Emergency Ordinances were adopted in 2025, meaning that every 4 days Romanians were 
in  an  “extraordinary  situation  whose  regulation  [could]  not  be  postponed”  (Article  115(4)  of  the 
Constitution). 

165   Country visit to Romania, Concordia and Romanian Business Leaders; Foreign Investors’ Council Romania 

(2026), written input, p. 2. It is also a challenge for magistrates, see EAJ (2026), p. 42. 

166   All draft laws are not yet uploaded in the system. A possibility for citizens, CSOs and businesses to register 
for notifications on certain topics has not yet been implemented. Ibidem, and Country visit, the Government 
and  CSOs  (Apador-CH,  Public  Innovation,  PressHub,  Freedom  House,  Funky  Citizens,  Civic  Radauti, 
Expert Forum, FDSC). 

167   Country visit, CSOs, FRA(2026), written input, pp. 272-273 and Coalition NGOs for Citizens (2025). 
168   FDCS (2026), written input, p. 20. 
169   ENNHRI(2026) Romania country report, p. 15. Nor are LGBTI organisations: ILGA (2026), written input, 

p. 18. 

170   On  this  aspect,  see  also  OECD(2026),  Report  on  Romania,  which  draws  attention  to  the  high  frequency 
with  which  legislation  is  adopted.  As  a  result,  investors  and  the  businesses  would  face  a  high  level  of 
uncertainty,  which  would  discourage  long-term  decisions.  See  also  result  of  the  consultation  of  judges, 
which  mention  the  legislative  instability  as  their  second  concern  after  the  high  workload,  in  fn.  44. 
FRA(2026), written input, p. 273 and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (2025). 

171   The Romanian Fiscal Code would be the most amended law, with at least one amending law per month. 
172   Foreign  Investors’  Council  Romania  (2026)  written  input,  p.  1.  Concordia,  CNIPMMR  and  Romanian 
Business Leaders (2026), written input to European Semester. Country visit Romania, Romanian Business 
Leaders  and  Concordia.  See  also  FDCS,  written  input,  p.  21  and  American  Chamber  Romania  2025 
Business  Climate  Survey.  Country  visit  Romania,  Apador-CH,  Public  Innovation,  PressHub,  Freedom 
House, Funky Citizens, Civic Radauti, Expert Forum, FDSC. 

173   Resource Centre for Public Participation and Coalition NGOs for Citizens (2026), written input, p. 19. 

19 

 
 
2024174. Leaders of the parliament’s committees decide on the agenda of the plenary and can 
pick  any  draft  law  from  previous  legislatures,  which  contributes  to  the  unpredictability  of 
law-making. In addition, the Government plays a significant legislative role. Out of a total of 
248 laws adopted in 2025, 124 were simple or emergency government ordinances175, which 
are not part of the public policy planning. Thus, 50% of the primary legislation was adopted 
by the executive, in rapid procedures, with no parliamentary debate and limited or no public 
consultation,  reinforcing  the  unpredictability  of  legislation176.  Romania’s  recovery  and 
resilience  plan  includes  the  adoption  of  a  Plan  for  Better  Regulation  2026-2030  aimed  at 
improving public policy planning, impact assessment and stakeholder consultations177. 

More  than  half  of  companies  surveyed  in  Romania  express  confidence  in  the 
effectiveness of investment protection. 53% of companies are very or fairly confident that 
investments are protected by law and courts, a figure which has decreased in comparison with 
2025  (58%)178.  As  regards  authorities  relevant  for  economic  operators,  57%  perceive  the 
level  of  independence  of  the  national  competition  authority  (The  Competition  Council)  as 
very  or  fairly  good,  a  figure  which  has  significantly  increased  in  comparison  with  2025 
(49%)179. The Legislative Council has jurisdiction in several business-related cases, including 
in cases related to public concessions, public contracts and economic regulation. A number of 
judicial  mechanisms  to  improve  efficiency  are  available  in  these  cases,  including  the 
possibility to apply interim measures and joint examination of similar cases180. 

There  has  been  no  progress  on  the  recommendation  on  the  accreditation  of  National 
Human  Rights  Institutions,  as  a  decision  is  still  pending181.  The  accreditation  process  is 
still paused following questions from GANHRI’s182 Sub-committee on Accreditation (SCA) 
pertaining to the accreditation of more than one National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) 
from  one  United  Nations  member  state,  with  the  same  geographical  scope183.  In  addition, 

174   Pending  drafts  automatically  transit  to  the  next  legislature.  Country  visit,  CSOs,  FRA(2026)  and  Konrad 

Adenauer Stiftung (2025). 

175   Figures published by the Chamber of Deputies. 

In 2025, 248 laws were adopted by the Parliament and promulgated by the President of Romania. Out of 
them:  92  were  laws  for  the  approval  of  emergency  ordinances  (37%);  23  were  laws  for  the  approval  of 
simple  ordinances  (9%);  6  were  laws  for  amending  and  supplementing  the  government's  emergency 
ordinances;  2  were  laws  for  empowering  the  government  to  issue  ordinances;  1  was  a  law  rejecting  an 
emergency ordinance. The only difference between GEOs and other ordinances is that the latter are adopted 
when the Parliament is not in session.  

176   Konrad  Adenauer  Stiftung  (2026),  written  input  p.  2.  Liberties  (2026),  written  input,  p.  28.  Centre  for 

Public Innovation (2026), written input, p. 17. 

177   Romanian Government (2026a), written input to the 2026 European Semester. 
178   Figures  52  and  53,  2026  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  34%  and  22%  of  the  surveyed  investors  respectively 
perceive  the frequent  changes  in  legislation  or  concerns  about  the  quality  of  the  law-making  process  and 
concerns  about  quality,  efficiency  or  independence  of  justice  as  a  reason  for  the  lack  of  confidence  in 
investment protection. 

179   Figure 60, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
180   Figures 66 and 67, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. The data presented reflects exclusively the mechanisms in 
place at the level of the highest administrative jurisdictions; the same or other mechanisms may be in place 
at lower instance administrative courts. 

181   The  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  Romania  to  “take  forward  the  process  for  obtaining 
accreditation  for  the  National  Human  Rights  Institutions,  taking  into  account  the  UN  Paris  Principles”. 
While  some  progress  was  assessed  on  this  recommendation  in  2024,  there  was  no  progress  in  2023  nor 
2025. 

182   Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. 
183   2025  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Romania,  pp. 17-18.  So  far,  the  same  Member  State  can  have  several  NHRIs 
when they cover different geographical areas (e.g. NHRIs for different regions). The novelty with Romania 
is that the 2 NHRIs would cover the same geographical area i.e. the whole territory of Romania. 

20 

 
 
while the SCA, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Network for 
National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  identified  non-compliance  issues  with  the 
Paris  Principles  for  both  institutions,  regarding  the  institutional  independence,  sufficient 
resources and institutional capacity, no action has been taken by the public authorities in this 
regard184.  The  resources  of  the  RIHR  have  been  divided  by  two  in  2025  and  have  not 
increased in 2026, leading to important staff cuts, despite the RIHR’s new responsibilities as 
the Anti-SLAPP Focal Point and calls from ENNHRI and UN bodies185. The mandate of the 
Ombudsperson expired in June 2024 and Parliament has not yet launched a new appointment 
procedure. CSOs criticize an untransparent process and the threat to the independence of this 
institution. The mandates of 4 out of 9 members of the Equality Body186 have also expired, 
and their seat remains unoccupied187. Since the process is still paused, no progress has been 
made regarding the accreditation of NHRIs. 

On  1  January  2026,  Romania  had  84  leading  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation,  a  decrease  of  27  compared  to  the  previous 
year188.  At  that time,  Romania’s  rate  of  leading  judgments  from  the  past  10  years  that  had 
been implemented was at 50% (compared to 40% in 2025; 50% remained pending), and the 
average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was 6 years and 7 months 
(compared  to  6  years  and  3  months  in  2025)189.  The  oldest  leading  judgment,  pending 
implementation for 16 years, concerns structural deficiencies in the mechanisms set up for the 
restitution  of,  or  compensation  for,  properties  nationalised  during  the  communist  period190. 
As regards the respect  of  payment deadlines, on  31 December 2025 there were 55 cases in 
total awaiting confirmation of payments (compared to 99 in 2024)191. On 17 June 2026, the 
number of leading judgments pending implementation had decreased to 82192. 

Actions  planned  in  the  framework  of  the  Strategy  for  Open  Government  in  Romania 
2025-2030  remain  to  be  implemented  and  CSOs  report  increasing  restrictions  to  their 
work.  Actions  planned  in  the  Strategy  for  Open  Government  by  the  end  of  2025  have  not 
been  implemented.  Civic  space  continues  to  be  rated  as  ‘narrowed’  by  Civicus193,  with  a 
reported  growing  trend  of  political,  administrative  and  institutional  constraints  on  the 
fundamental  rights  of  association,  expression  and  peaceful  assembly  and  of  intimidation 
targeting civil  society actors, especially  organisations  working  in  areas like minority rights, 

184   Liberties  (2026),  written  input,  p.  29.  ENNHRI(2026)  Romania  country  report,  pp.  4-5  and  its 
corresponding recommendations to Romania. FRA(2026), written input, p. 272. See also 2025 Rule of Law 
Report, Romania, pp. 17-18. 

185   Ibidem. 
186   National Council for Combating Discrimination. 
187   Centre  for  Public  Innovation  (2026),  written  input,  p.  18.  Concerns  have  been  raised  as  to  the  increased 
potential  risk  that  the  lack  of  secure  tenure  accentuates  the  potential  political  influence  over  decisions  of 
some of these authorities. 

188   For an explanation of the supervision process, see the website of the Council of Europe. 
189   All figures calculated by the European Implementation Network (EIN) and based on the number of cases 
that are considered pending at the annual cut-off date of 1 January 2026. EIN (2026), written input, p. 8. 
190   Judgment of the ECtHR, 30767/05, Maria Atanasiu and others v. Romania, pending implementation since 

2010. 

191   Council of Europe (2026), p. 163. See also the December 2025 Council of Europe report, which emphasizes 
that  Romania  continues  to  face  serious  unresolved  structural  problems  in  the  execution  of  ECtHR 
judgments, despite legislative and policy reforms. 

192   Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
193   Romania’s  score  is  61/100.  Ratings  by  Civicus  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed.  

21 

 
 
environment  and  anti-corruption194.  ENNHRI  notes  structural  challenges  for  CSOs  and 
human  rights  defenders,  such  as  barriers  to  participation  in  policy  making,  excessive 
administrative  controls  and  audits  political  and  reputational  pressures,  including  through 
public negative narrative as well as a lack of adequate funding195. CSOs report that attacks by 
media  or  politicians  have  increased,  resulting  in  a  chilling  effect  on  civic  engagement. 
According  to  them,  SLAPPs  are  being  used  against  activists  and  CSOs  working  in  areas 
which  are  seen  as  likely  to  endanger  or  stand  in  opposition  to  corporate  or  state  interests. 
CSOs  report  that  the  draft  law  to  transpose  the  EU  Anti-SLAPPs  Directive196  incorporates 
very  few  of  their  recommendations197.  CSOs  also  raise  concern  that  legislation  simplifying 
certain  procedures  for  their  functioning  is  stalled  in  the  Chamber  of  Deputies,  and  that  the 
draft law to amend the law governing the right to peaceful assembly, is pending in Parliament 
since 2021198.  In February, the Superior Council of Magistracy  (SCM) proposed, as  part of 
discussions  on  the  revision  of  the  Code  of  Administrative  Procedures,  that  CSOs  could  be 
created  and  dissolved  through  administrative  decisions,  and  not  through  court  orders  as  is 
currently  the  case,  thereby  possibly  weakening  oversight199.  The  draft  amendments  would 
also include CSOs in the scope of the Code, subjecting them to the same obligations as public 
authorities in terms of access to information200. In May, the Romanian Senate voted on a draft 
legislation201,  which,  if  adopted,  would  impose  a  general  obligation  on  associations  and 
foundations,  including  media  outlets,  to  publicly  disclose  the  identity  of  their  donors.  The 
draft text triggered important reactions, including from institutional committees and CSOs202. 
In a decision of 9 June 2026, the SCM’s Judges Section203 considered that criticism expressed 
about  the  judiciary  by  some  magistrates’  associations,  media  and  CSOs  would  amount  to 
attacks against judicial independence. A large number of CSOs and media outlets published 
an open letter, considering this decision as an abuse of authority and an attempt to intimidate 
and censor204. A group of  CSOs is  also  challenging the  decision  in  court205.  Finally,  a new 

194   Civicus, Romania (2025), ENNHRI(2026), p. 7; FRA(2026), written input, pp. 267-268. Resource Centre 
for Public Participation and Coalition NGOs for Citizens (2026), written input, p. 22.  Intimidation actions 
consist of claims for damages, the incurring and subsequent recovery of huge legal costs, demands for the 
dissolution or even requests for criminal prosecution. 

195   ENNHRI(2026), pp. 6–7 and its corresponding recommendations; and tracking by the RIHR. 
196   Written input (2026a) Romanian Government, p. 5. 
197   Resource  Centre  for  Public  Participation  and  Coalition  NGOs  for  Citizens  (2026),  written  input,  p.  22. 
Country visit Romania, Apador-CH, Public Innovation, PressHub, Freedom House, Funky Citizens, Civic 
Radauti, Expert Forum, FDSC. 

198   Draft law of 2021 amending Law 60/1991 on public assemblies, approved by the Senate in 2024. Resource 
Centre for Public Participation and Coalition NGOs for Citizens (2026), written input, p. 22. FRA(2026), 
written  input,  pp.  268-269.  several  civil  society  organisations  have  drawn  attention  that  the  imprecise 
legislative mechanism was used to limit the right to peaceful assemblies or to harass participants. 

199   See also pillar 3 on access to information. 
200   Draft law for the approval of the Administrative  Procedure  Code, 3 November 2025. FRA(2026), written 
input, pp. 270-271, Liberties (2026), written input, p. 27. See also 2025 Rule of Law Report, Romania, p. 
14. 

201   Draft  law  supplementing  Government  Ordinance  No.  26/2000  on  associations  and  foundations 

(L233/2026). 

202  A large number of CSOs have expressed strong concerns about the proposed measures, considering that the 
sanctions proposed for not complying with the obligations —i.e., the suspension of activities, followed by 
automatic dissolution- are disproportionate. The Economic and Social Council, the Legislative Council, and 
the Senate Committee on Human Rights, Equal Opportunities, Religions and Minorities also raised concerns 
on the draft law, referring to increased suspicion towards CSOs and  unnecessary administrative burden for 
the CSOs. The President of  Romania indicated that the publication of the names would inhibit support for 
CSOs by citizens and, thereby, affect civil society as a whole. 

203   Decision no. 1348/2026 of 9 June 2026. 
204  Open letter signed by 110 organisations. 
205  Declic website. 

22 

 
 
law of 18 September 2025206 provides for a risk-based supervisory mechanism of the activity 
of  associations  and  foundations,  and  for  monitoring  of  the  measures  that  associations  and 
foundations need to implement in accordance with anti-money laundering and countering the 
financing  of  terrorism  legislation.  This  has  raised  concerns  as  to  the  potential  burden  that 
would be placed on associations and foundations with lower capacity207. 

206 Supervision Mechanism, Order 145/2025 of 18 September 2025 by the National Office for  preventing and 

combating Money Laundering. 

207  FDSC (2026), written input, p. 25. The risk-based supervisory mechanism for associations and foundations 
stems  from  the  implementation  of  Law  No.  129/2019,  which  transposes  the  EU  Anti-Money  Laundering 
Directives (AMLD4 and AMLD5). 

23 

 
 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2026 Rule of Law Report 
can 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2026-rule-law-report-targeted-
found 
stakeholder-consultation_en.  

be 

at 

American Chamber Romania (2025), American Chamber Romania Business Climate Survey 
https://www.amcham.ro/communication/amcham-press-releases/results-of-the-amcham-survey-on-
romanias-investment-and-business-climate-in-2025---7th-edition. 

Consultative  Council  of  European  Judges  (2024),  Opinion  No.  27  on  the  disciplinary  liability  of 
judges. 

Centre  for  Public  Innovation  (2026),  Input  from  Centre  for  Public  Innovation  for  the  2026  Rule  of 
Law Report. 

Chamber of deputies (2026), Figures on emergency ordinances. 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Romania, https://monitor.civicus.org/country/romania/. 

Cluj  Just,  https://www.clujust.ro/procurorul-sandu-din-csm-constat-o-situatie-ingrijoratoare-probele-
sunt-anulate-pe-banda-rulanta/. 

CNIPMMR and Romanian Business Leaders (2026), Input from CNIPMMR and Romanian Business 
Leaders for the European Semester. 

Coalition NGOs for Citizens (2025), The State of Democracy 2025. 

Concordia  and  Romanian  Business  Leaders  (2026),  Input  from  Concordia  and  Romanian  Business 
Leaders for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Romania, Country Factsheet on the Supervision of 
the  Execution  of  Judgments  and  Decisions  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  updated  18 
December 2025, https://rm.coe.int/romania-eng/488029df7f  

Council of Europe (2026), Supervision of the execution of judgments decisions of the European Court 
of Human Rights – 19th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers – 2025, https://rm.coe.int/2025-
annual-report/48802b1633. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2021), CDL-AD(2021)043. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2022), CDL-PI(2022)005. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2023), CDL-AD(2023)015. 

Council  of  European  Bars  (CCBE)  (2026),  Input  from  the  Council  of  European  Bars  for  the  2026 
Rule of Law Report. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 6 October 2021, C-487/19, W.Z., para. 114. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2026),  Flash  Eurobarometer  582  on  Businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU.  

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2026),  Special  Eurobarometer  573  on  Citizens’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

ENNHRI  (2026),  State  of  the  Rule  of  Law  in  Europe:  Romania  country  report,  https://rule-of-
law.ennhri.org/export?country%5B0%5D=42&year%5B0%5D=2026 

EU Fundamental Rights Agency (2026), Civic Space in the EU in 2025. 

European Commission (2025), 2025 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Romania. 

European Commission (2026), EU Justice Scoreboard.  

24 

 
European  Commission  (2026),  Recommendation  for  a  Council  Recommendation  on  the  economic, 
social, employment, structural and budgetary policies of Romania, COM(2026) 223 final 

European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 15 December 2025, Danilet v. Romania, 16915/21. 

European Implementation Network (2026), Input from the European Implementation Network for the 
2026 Rule of Law Report. 

European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (2026), Romania country report. 

European Public Prosecutor's Office (2026), European Public Prosecutor’s Office input for 2026 Rule 
of Law Report. 

European  Commission  (2026),  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  2026  Country  Report  – 
Romania, SWD(2026) 223 final. 

Expert Forum (2026), Input from Expert Forum for the 2026 Rule of Law Report.  

Expert Forum Report (2025), Financing of political parties in 2025 and the need for urgent reform. 

Expert Forum (2025), Priorities of Justice. 

Expert  Forum,  Monitoring  Report  2024,  8  September  2025,  https://expertforum.ro/marii-finantatori-

partide-2024/. 

Expert  Forum  (2026),  „We  call  on  the  Parliament  to  responsibly  elect  the  future  president  of  the 
Permanent Electoral Authority“, https://expertforum.ro/alegeti-noul-presedinte-aep-responsabil/. 

Civil Society Development Foundation (FDSC) (2026),  Input from FDCS for the 2026 Rule of Law 

Report. 

FDCS (2026), Additional Input from FDCS for the Rule of Law Report 2026. 

FDSC  (2026),  Input  from  FDSC  on  INSCOP  Research  survey  on  the  trust  in  the  judiciary  in 
Romania. 

FDSC (2025), Monitoring Action for Civic Space. Country Report – Romania, December 2025. 

Foreign Investor’s Council Romania (2026), Input from Foreign Investors’ Council Romania for the 
2026 Rule of Law Report. 

G4Media, Romania: https://www.g4media.ro/curtea-suprema-inca-un-dosar-de-coruptie-inchis-fostul-
senator-pnl-eugen-pirvulescu-achitare-si-fapta-prescrisa-in-dosarul-angajarilor-trucate-de-la-
ambulanta-teleorman-dna-poate-face-apel.html 

Government Emergency Ordinance No. 89 of 23 December 2025 amending and supplementing Law 
No. 227/2015 on the Fiscal Code, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/305817. 

Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions 

GRECO  (2016),  Fourth  evaluation  round  ‘Corruption  prevention  in  respect  of  members  of 
parliament,  judges  and  prosecutors’  -  Evaluation  Report  Portugal  FOURTH  EVALUATION 
ROUND. 

High  Court of  Cassation  and  Justice,  Decision  574/2025  of  25 March  2026,  COMUNICAT  privind 
suspendarea Deciziei nr.574/2025 emise de prim-ministrul Ilie Bolojan privind înființarea comitetului 
constituit pentru legile justiției – Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție a României 

High Court of Cassation and Justice, Decision 2431/1/2025. 

High Court of Cassation and Justice, Decision 793/1/2025 of 14 May 2025. 

High Court of Cassation and Justice, Decision 182/2024 of 9 September 2024. 

High Court of Cassation and Justice, Decision 815/59/2022 of 12 April 2022. 

25 

 
 
Initiative  for  Justice  Association  (2026),  Input  from  Initiative  for  Justice  Association  for  the  2026 
Rule of Law Report.  

ILGA-Europe (2026), Input from ILGA-Europe to the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

INSCOP Research (2026), survey on the trust in the judiciary in Romania, January 2026. 

Judicial Inspection (2026), Input from the Judicial Inspection to the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

report  of 

Final 
https://sna.just.ro/en/a/rapoarte-de-audit/2021-2025#pdf. 

the  evaluation  of 

the  2021-2025  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy: 

Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (2026), Input from the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung for the 2026 Rule of Law 
Report. 

Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (2025), Warning! Democracy collapse. How do we combat the democratic 
regression in Romania in the long term? 

Liberties (2026), Input from Liberties for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Ministry of Justice, Strategy for the development of the judicial system and justice as a public service 
2025–2029, HOTARARE 390 16/04/2025 - Portal Legislativ. 

Movement for the Defence of Prosecutors’ Status Association  (2026), Input from Movement for the 
Defence of Prosecutors’ Status Association for the 2026 Rule of Law Report.  

National Union of Romanian Bar Associations (2026), Input from the National Union of Romanian 
Bar Associations for the Rule of Law Report 2026. 

OECD (2026), OECD Economic Surveys: Romania 2026 https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-
economic-surveys-romania-2026_4844067e-en/full-report.html. 

Parliament, Chamber of Deputies, statistics on legislative acts, 
https://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/legis_acte_parlam?cam=0&tip=1&an=2025. 

President of Romania (2025), Summary of the comments submitted by magistrates and other actors in 
the judicial system on the functioning or justice, the independence of magistrates and the mechanisms 
the  career  of  magistrates,  https://www.presidency.ro/ro/media/comunicate-de-
regarding 
presa/sinteza-observatiilor-transmise-de-magistrati-si-alti-actori-din-sistemul-judiciar-
privind-functionarea-justitiei-independenta-magistratilor-si-mecanismele-privind-cariera-
magistratilor.  

ProTv, Romania : https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/actualitate/darius-valcov-eliberat-din-inchisoare-dupa-ce-
instanta-suprema-a-stabilit-ca-faptele-s-au-prescris.html 

Resource  Centre  for  Public  Participation  and  Coalition  NGOs  for  Citizens  (2026),  Input  from 
Resource Centre for Public Participation and Coalition NGOs for Citizens for the 2026 Rule of Law 
Report. 

Romanian Chamber of Deputies (2021), Draft Law amending and supplementing Law No. 60/1911 on 
the organisation and conduct of public assemblies (Proiect de Lege pentru modificarea şi completarea 
Legii nr.60/1991 privind organizarea şi desfăşurarea adunărilor publice), 1 February 2021. 

Government of Romania, Chancellery of the Prime Minister, Report on the work of the Committee on 
the  Review  and  Revision  of  the  Justice  Laws.  Raport_final_2026.03.16.pdf  (website  of  the 
Government). 

Romanian Government (2026), Input from Romania for the 2026 European Semester. 

Romanian Government (2026a), Input from Romania for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Romanian Government (2026b), Input from Romania for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Romania  Government  (2025),  National  Office  for  the  Prevention  and  Combating  of  Money 
Laundering (ONPCSP - Oficiul Național de Prevenire și Combatere a Spălării Banilor) (2025), The 

26 

 
mechanism for supervising the activity of associations and foundations established under Government 
Ordinance  No.  26/2000  on  associations  and foundations  (Mecanismul  de  supraveghere  a  activității 
asociațiilor și fundațiilor înființate în baza Ordonanței Guvernului nr. 26/2000 cu privire la asociații 
și fundații), 18 September 2025. 

Romanian Government (2025),  Draft law for the approval of the Administrative Procedure Code, 3 
November 2025, Proiect de lege pentru aprobarea Codului de procedură administrative.  

Romanian Judges' Forum Association (2026), Input from the Romanian Judges’ Forum Association 
for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Romanian Judges' Forum Association (2025),  Some Effects of the New Justice Laws. Judges Forum 
Review (nr. 1/2025). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5419694.  

Superior Council of Magistracy, Decision of the Section for Judges no. 144/06.02.2026 to consult the 
judges on main issues faced in the judiciary, see SCM - INFORMATION on the methodology of the 
questionnaire completed by judges on current issues in the judicial system and EMAP Portal. 

Superior Council of Magistracy, Questionnaire sent to judges in December 2025, EMAP Portal. 

Updated media ownership transparency list for audiovisual providers, published by the CNA (2026) 
www.cna.ro/a-situatii-privind-licentele-audiovizuale-avizele-de-furnizare-a-serviciilor-media-
audiovizuale-la-cerere-avizele-de-retransmisie-si-autorizatiile-de-re-fl7wut28fqxu5c0y94sohaf7/     

27 

 
 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Romania 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in February 2026 with: 

•  Active Watch 
•  Agentia Nationala pentru Achizitii Publice (ANAP) 
•  ANABI 
•  Asociația Forumului Judecătorilor din România 
•  Asociația „Inițiativa pentru justiție” 
•  Asociația Judecătorilor pentru Apărarea Drepturilor Omului 
•  Asociația Magistraților din România  
•  Asociatia Mișcarea pentru apărarea statutului procurorilor 
•  Asociaţia Procurorilor din România 
•  Centrul de Resurse Juridice 
•  Center for Public Innovation 
•  Civic Radauti Association 
•  Consiliul National al Audiovizualului 
•  Court of Accounts 
•  Expert Forum  
•  Freedom House 
•  Fundația pentru Dezvoltarea Societății Civile (FDSC) 
•  Funky Citizens 
•  G4Media 
•  High Court of Cassation and Justice 
•  Judicial Inspection 
•  Legislative Council 
•  Ministry of Justice  
•  National Directorate against Corruption (DNA) 
•  National Institute of the Magistracy 
•  National Integrity Agency 
•  National Radio (RRA) 
•  National TV (TVR) 
•  Ombudsperson 
•  Prosecutor General attached to the HCCJ 
•  Romanian Business Leaders 
•  Romanian Institute for Human Rights (IRDO) 
•  Secretariat General of the Government 
•  Superior Council of the Magistracy  
•  Uniunea Nationala a Judecatorilor din Romania (UNJR) 

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

•  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
•  Civil Society Europe 
•  End FGM EU 
•  European Civic Forum 

28 

 
 
 
•  European Partnership for Democracy 
•  Human Rights Watch 
• 
ILGA-Europe 
• 
International Federation for Human Rights 
•  Philea - Philanthropy Europe Association 
•  Transparency International EU 

29