Corruption in Romania

Although there are significant improvements, corruption remains a problem in Romania . Despite the fact that Romanian law and regulations have been introduced to prevent corruption, enforcement has been weak. This has been started since 2014, as the National Anti- Corruption Directorate (DNA) continues to investigate and prosecute corruption cases involving medium-and high-level political, judicial, and administrative officials. [1] According to Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index , Romania is the fifth most corrupt country in the European Union, after Bulgaria, Greece, and Italy, and at the same level with Hungary (as of 2016). [2] Transparency International’s 2016 Corruption Perception Index ranks the country 57th place out of 176 countries. [3]

Corruption was cited among many issues that provoked the 2012-15 social unrest , the 2015 protests following the Colectiv nightclub fire , and the 2017 protests .

Notable corruption cases

Corruption in Romania ranges from military, health care, church to low ranking bureaucracies and private businesses.

Further information: List of bribery scandals in Romania

Anti-corruption drive

In 2014, 1,138 leading public figures, including top politicians, businessmen, and prosecutors, were indicted by the National Anti- Corruption Directorate (DNA). [4] The number of court decisions on corruption cases has decreased in 2014, but with 80% of indicted persons receiving at least a suspended sentence, the rate of sentencing remains proportionally high. In addition, the number of high-level politicians and businessmen saw a significant increase, a shift in the anti-corruption drive that has continued into 2015 and has had a substantial social impact.

In 2015, 1,250 people were indicted by the DNA, including Prime Minister Victor Ponta , 5 ministers and 21 parliamentarians. [5] There have been 970 final convictions throughout the year. [5] The amount of damages has risen to € 431.6 million. [5]

In 2016, 1,270 people were indicted by the DNA, including 3 ministers, 17 parliamentarians, 47 mayors, 16 magistrates and 21 CEOs. [6] There have been 879 final convictions throughout the year. [5] The amount of damages has risen to € 667 million. [5]

Enhancing Civil Society Participation

Citizens’ participation and the values ​​of integrity, accountability, and transparency are crucial components of fighting corruption. Therefore, it is important to develop programs to change the understanding of corruption and help citizens act against abuses [7] .

Background and extent

Due to the EU accession, Romania has achieved transparency and accountability in the public sector . However, the European Commission still considers the government’s reform weak and slow of implementation of laws on transparency of information and decision-making process. [8] Judicial translation of the judiciary, judicial system is considered to be ineffective in fighting against corruption. [8]Public procurement procedures, especially at local level, to the extent of the effects of corruption and conflict of interests. This has had consequences for the absorption of EU funds. However, it is also true that there are many other factors, including the administrative capacity of public purchasers, the lack of stability and fragmentation of the legal framework, and the quality of competition in public procurement. [9]

The image of Romania was badly affected by the 2012 political crisis , when the European Commission was concerned about the rule of law , pointing to the power struggle between Prime Minister Victor Ponta and President Traian Băsescu . [10] [11] The Commission also criticizes Romania for failing to root out corruption and political influence in its state institutions. [12] One year later, in the Chamber of Deputies passed, without parliamentary debate, several controversial amendments to the Penal CodePresident, senators, members of the lower chamber, are no longer to be considered “public officials”. [13] [14] This in turn means clustering They Can No follow be held-to account for abuse of office , bribery , conflicts of interest and other corruption crimes. [15] The amendments were sharply criticized by the Romanian opposition parties and European leaders, [16] while the Constitutional Court of Romania cataloged this move as unconstitutional. [17]In the latest report of the US Department of State published in May 2015, corruption in Romania remains a serious problem despite some improvements. The Romanian government continues to use the provisions of the law, bypassing normal legislative procedures, including economic impact analysis and consultations with stakeholders. Corruption at all levels remains endemic and the country’s leaders have effectively dealt with this issue. Romanian law and regulations contain provisions intended to prevent corruption, but enforcement is generally weak. However, the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) continued to investigate and prosecute corruption cases involving both medium and high-level political, judicial, and administrative officials throughout 2014. Conflicts of interest, respect for standards of ethical conduct, and integrity in the public service in general. Individual executive agencies were slow in enforcing sanctions, and agencies’ own inspection bodies were under-resourced.[18]

In August 2017, the Justice Minister announced that the ruling Social Democratic party was preparing a judicial overhaul, a widely thought to curb the judiciary’s independence. [19] The new law would change, among other things, the way in which chief prosecutors are appointed. [19] The law led to poular protests, and was criticized by the European Commission and foreign diplomats. [20] [21]

The fact that ministers continue in office after indictment on criminal charges, and parliamentarians with final convictions for corruption to stay in office. The rejection of the law by the Parliament in November 2014 gave a positive signal in terms of a law that would effectively result in exonerating individuals sentenced for corruption crimes. Nonetheless, the idea of ​​a new draft law on collective bargaining has not yet been closed. The increase of activity also concerns cases of corruption within the magistracy, recognized as a particularly corrosive form of corruption. According to DNA, This high figure does not reflect an increase in corruption within the magistracy, but rather an increase in the number of signals from the public. Such cases are complex and a new special feature with this remit. In recent years, CVM (EU Commission’s Co-operation and Verification Mechanism) reports have found it difficult to identify a track record in tackling cases of corruption in society at large. Key areas for action. Some recent cases have shown substantial bribery cases which may have been determined by the scrutiny of the records, but which has been relied on by the public. but rather an increase in the number of signals from the public. Such cases are complex and a new special feature with this remit. In recent years, CVM (EU Commission’s Co-operation and Verification Mechanism) reports have found it difficult to identify a track record in tackling cases of corruption in society at large. Key areas for action. Some recent cases have shown substantial bribery cases which may have been determined by the scrutiny of the records, but which has been relied on by the public. but rather an increase in the number of signals from the public. Such cases are complex and a new special feature with this remit. In recent years, CVM (EU Commission’s Co-operation and Verification Mechanism) reports have found it difficult to identify a track record in tackling cases of corruption in society at large. Key areas for action. Some recent cases have shown substantial bribery cases which may have been determined by the scrutiny of the records, but which has been relied on by the public. s Co-operation and Verification Mechanism) reports have found it difficult to identify a track record in tackling cases of corruption in society at large. Key areas for action. Some recent cases have shown substantial bribery cases which may have been determined by the scrutiny of the records, but which has been relied on by the public. s Co-operation and Verification Mechanism) reports have found it difficult to identify a track record in tackling cases of corruption in society at large. Key areas for action. Some recent cases have shown substantial bribery cases which may have been determined by the scrutiny of the records, but which has been relied on by the public.[22]

See also

  • List of corruption scandals in Romania
  • Microsoft licensing scandal corruption
  • Crime in Romania

References

  1. Jump up^ “2015 Investment Climate Statement – Romania” . The US Department of State . The US Department of State . Retrieved August 17, 2015 .
  2. Jump up^ “Corruption Perceptions Index 2016” . Transparency International . Retrieved 25 January 2017 .
  3. Jump up^ eV, Transparency International. “Corruption Perceptions Index 2016” . www.transparency.org . Retrieved 2017-12-15 .
  4. Jump up^ “Romania anti-sleaze drive reaches elite” . BBC News . February 19, 2015.
  5. ^ Jump up to:e “Raport de activitate 2015” . National Anticorruption Directorate . Retrieved 25 January 2017 .
  6. Jump up^ “Raport of activitate 2016” . National Anticorruption Directorate . Retrieved 3 May 2017 .
  7. Jump up^ “Increase in the number of civil complaints against acts of corruption.” [Social Impact] ALACs: Promotion of Participation and Citizenship in Europe through the Advocacy and Legal Advice Centers (ALACs) of Transparency International (2009-2012) Framework Program 7 (FP7) ” . SIOR, Social Impact Open repository .
  8. ^ Jump up to:b “Romania praised again in EU justice monitoring report but weaknesses remain” . EURACTIV.com . Retrieved 2017-11-13 .
  9. Jump up^ “Snapshot of the Romania Country Profile” . Business Anti-Corruption Portal . GAN Integrity Solutions . Retrieved 17 November 2013 .
  10. Jump up^ Andrew Gardner, Toby Vogel (11 July 2012). “Romanian power struggle Europe’s leaders” . European Voice .
  11. Jump up^ Cage Sam, Luiza Ilie (22 November 2012). “Populism takes spotlight in Romania power struggle” . Reuters .
  12. Jump up^ “EU Commission chides Romania over state corruption” . BBC News . July 18, 2012.
  13. Jump up^ Raluca Besliu (18 January 2014). “Legally corrupt: Romanian politicians chase ‘super-immunity ‘ ” . Aljazeera .
  14. Jump up^ “Transparency International Romania statement on recent immunity decision by Chamber of Deputies” . Transparency International . December 12, 2013.
  15. Jump up^ Valentina Pop (11 December 2013). “Romanian MPs decriminalize political corruption” . EUobserver .
  16. Jump up^ Luiza Ilie (22 January 2013). “Romania parliament boosts criminal immunity, may irk EU” . Reuters .
  17. Jump up^ Wendy Zeldin (23 January 2014). “Romania: Court Finds Immunity Law Unconstitutional” . Library of Congress .
  18. Jump up^ “2015 Investment Climate Statement – Romania” . US Department of State . Retrieved May 2015 . Check date values ​​in:( help ) |access-date=
  19. ^ Jump up to:b “US Concerned over challenges to Romanian judicial independence”. Reuters . November 15, 2017 . Retrieved 2017-11-28 .
  20. Jump up^ “Thousands of Romanians rally against ruling party’s judicial overhaul” . Reuters . November 26, 2017 . Retrieved 2017-11-28 .
  21. Jump up^ “Romania: Proposals Affecting the Independence of the Judiciary” . US Department of State . Retrieved 2017-11-28 .
  22. Jump up^ “Cooperation and Verification Mechanism” . European Commission . Published 28 January 2015.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright electio2014.eu 2018
Shale theme by Siteturner