23 / 69
The preventive role of the judiciary in protecting the financial interest of the European Union.
A comparative analysis for improved performance
21
subsequently changed four times until 2017, the most recent amendments being adopted in May 2017
34
.
In the field of anticorruption, a special law on corruption offences and crimes against the financial interest
of the European Union, which complements and circumscribes the provisions of the Criminal Code, was
adopted in 2000 (Law no. 78/2000) and several laws amending both the provisions on corruption offences
and regulations regarding declarations of assets and declarations of interest have been subsequently
approved by the government and the Parliament.
35
A new Criminal Code and a new Criminal Procedure
Code entered into force in 2014, regulating the bribe and the influence peddling as corruption offences
and other fraud offences under titles referring to the abuse of trust, electronic (IT) frauds and office
offences. As a consequence of the ‘fast-forward’ procedure used for drafting
36
and adopting
37
the codes,
several provisions of both codes have been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.
Taking all these into account, the Romanian legal framework concerning the criminal prosecution of
corruption, money laundering, fraud and crimes against the financial interest of the European Union have
been constantly improving since the beginning of the 2000. But one can also find the same legal
framework as being unstable and unpredictable.
34
Law no. 656/2002 on preventing and sanctioning Money Laundering as well as for the introduction of measures
to prevent and combat terrorist financing, subsequently ammended. Superior Council of Magistracy and National
Institute of Magistracy. 2015.
Ghid pentru combaterea spălării banilor destinat judecătorilor și procurorilor,
available online
: http://www.inm- lex.ro/fisiere/d_1443/Ghid%20combatere%20spalare%20bani_judecatori%20si%20procurori.pdf (last accessed:
30/10/2017).
35
For more comprehensive assessments of the
National report on corruption
of Transparency International
Romania: 2004-2011, available online at:
https://www.transparency.org.ro//politici_si_studii/studii/national_coruptie/index.html(last accessed:
30/10/2017).
36
Drafting the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code did not comply with the provisions of the law on
decisional transparency no. 52/2003, open debates being avoided by the government in order to speed up the law
making process. A civil society initiative:
Stope the Codes
was initiated in 2009 against these procedures, but,
despite civil society opposition, the codes drafted in this manner were adopted.
37
The Criminal Code was adopted through a special Parliamentary procedure of Government Assumed
Responsibility (art. 114), a procedure that doesn’t allow for any debate on the legislation proposed by the
government. The proposed legislation can be either adopted or rejected, and if rejected, the Government is also
dismissed.