Interview with one of the people who wrote the law of the National Integrity Agency on the impact of the CCR decision: “We are in front of a deep earthquake that affects the basic principles”

Laura Stefan, the anti -corruption expert who worked on the elaboration of the law of the National Integrity Agency (ANI), catalogs the decision of the Constitutional Court as a “absurd” one, which returns Romania three decades ago in the fight for integrity in public office. It emphasizes, in an interview for the public Hotnews, that, while other states extend control mechanisms, Romania invokes the right to private life to allow politicians to keep their wealth secret.

• Laura Stefan is the coordinator of anti -corruption activities for the Forum Expert. Between 2005 and 2007, he was director in the Ministry of Justice, responsible for anti -corruption policies.
• He elaborated and pleaded for the adoption of the anti -corruption legislation, worked on public awareness programs and at the reform of the Office of Public Prosecutors.

On Thursday, May 29, the Constitutional Court of Romania decided that the statements of wealth and interests will no longer be published on the website of the National Integrity Agency (ANI) and not to include the revenues and goods of the spouses and children in maintenance.

“I wrote the law of the National Integrity Agency and I am deeply attached to this public policy of transparenting and increasing integrity in the public sector. At this moment, we are in front of a profound earthquake that affects the basic principles, those of integrity in the public sector and transparency, based on which this public policy was built.”

She says she is now waiting for a response from society, which she cataloged more important than one from international organizations. “We are heading for social chaos in Romania and we must not be surprised that the extremist and isolationist pole will grow on this background. It is an absolutely natural result because people are already exasperated,” she says.

“There is no logical argument and any legal argument”

HotNews.ro: Can you explain to us the effects that the Constitutional Court's decision will produce?
Laura Stefan: First, statements this year will not be published and will not include family information. It seems to me a logical error to say that the statements are no longer published tomorrow, but those that have been published so far remain published.

In my opinion, I think we have to wait at this time to motivate the decision to see exactly what the judges will write in the decision, because what they have published is logically and legal confusing. It also remains to be seen if they will prohibit the publication only on the website of the National Integrity Agency or will prohibit the publication on the sites of the institutions where the respective works. There is no logical argument and no legal argument to prohibit the publication on a site, but to allow publication on another site.

In general, I have pessimistic expectations from this motivation and I doubt that we will have argumentation in the sense of allowing these statements to be published. As the RCC statement writes, the things that judges look at are fundamental issues, principles, and in no case are minor technicalities that can be resolved in Parliament. So it is a principle question whether or not we agree that the statements of wealth of the Romanian rulers include family information.

We must wait for the motivation. For now, we only have a press release. It would not be for the first time that the press release of the Court differs substantially from the motivation in the decision.

– What impact can the RCC decision have on the files now working at the years or sent to court by the Agency?
– The CCR decision will certainly be invoked. It remains to be seen if this decision, when it is motivated, will also go in the direction of banning the right to control the assets by the National Integrity Agency. That is, if the judges will be limited to aspects regarding the statements or they will go further and they will say that as long as the family's financial elements are not declared, the control cannot go on these financial elements and it is limited to what is on his behalf. This does not result in the statement at the moment. From the statement it seems that the judges did not intervene in the area regarding the duties of the National Integrity Agency.

However, you realize, the defenders naturally will try to use this decision in the interest of their customers and it is absolutely normal to do this as long as the Constitutional Court's decision is indeed a jurisprudential revival.

“We are in front of a deep earthquake that affects the basic principles”

-I am at this moment in a legislative vacuum, with two articles declared unconstitutional. What could Parliament do to remedy this situation?
– I wrote the Law of the National Integrity Agency and I am deeply attached to this public policy of transparenting and increasing integrity in the public sector. At this moment, we are in front of a deep earthquake that affects the basic principles, that of integrity in the public sector and transparency, based on which this public policy and this institution was built. We can be dissatisfied about the performance of the National Integrity Agency, but I can tell you that this agency has hardly built and that there were not many models from which we could inspire in 2007.

– What would be the steps to be followed now in Parliament?
– Sure, I can tell you directly that you have to put the legislation in accordance with the Court's decision. But the question is whether it can be a preservation of the public policy of integrity and transparency in the public function following this decision of the Constitutional Court. I remind you that we went through an earthquake in 2010, when the control procedure was declared unconstitutional and we were forced to return completely to a 1996 control procedure, which we combined with the control procedure that exists at that time in the law. We have reached this ostrich-mile with the National Integrity Agency, which verifies the wealth and then sends the file to the court and is analyzed by a commission made up of two judges and a prosecutor from the courts of appeal, after which they gave the agreement we go further.

“The world goes in a direction and Romania takes it back and arrives in 1996”

If constitutional judges will decide that statements should not include the revenues and properties of family members, I ask you what we could repair in Parliament? That is, what kind of legislative measure can you make after such an absurd decision?

At this moment, in the wide world we discuss how to broaden the sphere of wealth statements so as to include the financial elements related to the public dignitary. Specifically, let's catch the family, in fact, not just the husband/wife. Let us include the cohabitation there, to include there the goods held as a real beneficiary, although they are on behalf of other people. The integration of the mechanism of control of assets with elements from what the mechanisms of countering money laundering means means the integration of the control mechanism. The world goes in a direction and Romania takes it back and arrives in 1996.

If the CCR decides that ANI should not publish the statements of wealth of the dignitaries even in the form in which they do not include family information what is to be repaired here? What can you say if they say that this violates the right to privacy? We are now learning that the right to privacy is not an absolute one and that, as a person in the public sector increases, the elements of private living are affected.

It seems to me a very controversial decision. As long as the law has been to the Court countless times, I think we do not happen to have this decision just before the declarations of wealth (the term is June 15 -NR).

“People are angry, they are tired of thieves, they are tired of lie and demagoguery.”

– Can we now expect reactions from the European Union and other international organizations where Romania is a party?
– Yes, of course, we can expect, but I think the most important thing is how the citizens of Romania will react. And I am absolutely dismayed by the fact that it seems we understand nothing. People are angry, they are tired of thieves, they are tired of lie and demagoguery.

I was barely coming out of some absolutely terrifying choices for all parties involved. At a time when politicians tell us with candor that we are on the verge of economic crisis, that we have to take drastic measures, let go of people and cut benefits or increase taxes, at the same time we have this absolutely amazing decision from the Constitutional Court through which the politicians and the important people in this practical state secrete their financial aspects again.

We are heading for social chaos in Romania and we must not be surprised that the extremist and insulation pole will grow over this background. It's an absolutely natural result because people are already exasperated.

To come in 2025, after having 20 years of public wealth statements with information about your spouse and children, and say that you have private life if you are a minister or mayor, I find it suicidal. The fact that the EU or OECD will draw an alarm signal or increase the interest in which in Romania it borrows internationally, it seems much less serious than the earthquake that will be felt in society. This decision only gives water to the narrative that says “you have to take your country in their hands and politicians lie to you, steal you and then you have to put your hand on the forks and axes.” It's a very bad moment and this decision only puts gas on fire.