Decisions and recommendations regarding Romania’s justice system
The Council of Europes Anti-corruption Group has stated that Romania has made little progress with regard to implementing its recommendations.
Roxana Vasile, 19.01.2018, 13:41
Since 2007, the European Union has used its Cooperation and Verification Mechanism as a means to monitor the Romanian justice system. The latest report, issued in autumn, shows that progress has been made in the field, but it also underlines Brussels’s concern over the global pace of reform, which was rather flat in 2017.
The same concern has been voiced this week in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), according to which Romania has made little progress in implementing the Group’s recommendations with regard to preventing and combating corruption among parliamentarians, judges and prosecutors.
More precisely, Bucharest has fully complied with just 2 of the 13 recommendations included in a previous assessment, has implemented only partially 4 recommendations and totally ignored 7. GRECO has stressed that the main initiative adopted in Romania with regard to parliamentarians was a Code of Conduct, in October 2017, with the aim of regulating the issue of gifts and other benefits received by MPs, as well as the management of conflicts of interest.
The anti-corruption group has also underlined the fact that the provisions included in the Code are too general and its rule of application rather inconsistent, therefore the code cannot provide a 100% satisfactory framework.
Another cause for concern for GRECO is the legislative process as such, given the ongoing controversies and accusations telling of insufficient consultations, excessive use of expedited procedures and lack of transparency.
GRECO has stressed the fact that the year 2017, against the background of high tensions triggered by the political power’s intention to amend the justice laws, was marked by a number of proposals and counter-proposals regarding appointments and disciplinary procedures, some of which were perceived as an attempt to undermine the independence of the Romanian judiciary.
One of the arguments put forward by the Social Democratic Party and its junior ruling partner, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats was that, in their current form, the laws left plenty of room for abuse on prosecutors’ and judges’ part.
In order to guarantee the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, the Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday that the evidence obtained illegally and declared null in a criminal trial must be removed from the case’s files. According to the Constitutional Court, the permanent access of a judge to evidence declared null would bring to their attention information that might influence them as to the potential guilt or innocence of the defendant. Once declared null, such evidence can no longer be used in trying the case.
