English
By the decision of 29 May 2025 establishing that the declarations of assets and interests of dignitaries and civil servants should no longer be published on the website of the National Integrity Agency and of the institution to which the declarant belongs, the Constitutional Court of Romania has removed a possibility of informing the judicial bodies, a possibility provided for primarily in the Criminal Code, which is a constitutional law. In practice, by the decision of the CCR, prosecutors can no longer instigate ex officio proceedings, according to Article 292 of the Criminal Code, based on the information contained so far in press articles that analyzed the clear discrepancies between the declarations of assets of dignitaries and civil servants and the assets they actually have. The decision of the CCR makes the provisions of Article 292 of the Criminal Code inapplicable, at least with regard to the verification of declarations of assets and interests based on articles published in the media.
And to realize the impact that media articles had in triggering criminal prosecutions of dignitaries, we offer you the following examples:
1. Adrian Năstase, who was sentenced in the Trofeul Calităţii and Zambaccian cases to 2 and 4 years in prison, respectively. In the case of the former social-democratic prime minister, the press revealed discrepancies between his declared wealth and his lifestyle, as well as the way he financed his electoral campaigns. Prosecutors took action ex officio based on press articles reporting on the $400,000 donation made by aunt Tamara Cernasov to the account of Adrian Năstase's wife, as well as on the goods and paintings he received from China through Irina Jianu.
2. Relu Fenechiu, former liberal Minister of Transport, about whom press articles reported discrepancies between his wealth and his declared income, as well as preferential contracts with the state. He was sentenced in 2013 to 5 years in prison.
3. Dan Şova, former Social Democratic Minister of Transport. The media reported on his involvement in contracts at the Turceni and Rovinari units, which belong to the Oltenia Energy Complex, an involvement that was not found in the declaration of assets and interests. In 2018, he was sentenced to 3 years in prison for influence peddling.
4. Gabriel Sandu, former Minister of Communications, from the PD-L. Press articles revealed irregularities in public procurement and discrepancies in his declarations of assets. Following these revelations, DNA prosecutors accused him of involvement in the Microsoft file regarding IT licenses. He was definitively sentenced in 2016 to 3 years in prison.
5. Darius Vâlcov, former Social Democratic Minister of Finance. Following press articles that revealed discrepancies between the declared assets and the assets held, DNA prosecutors opened a criminal case and an extensive investigation in which they discovered significant amounts of money whose legal origin could not be proven by Vâlcov, as well as paintings hidden in the walls and even in a cemetery in the municipality of Slatina. Darius Vâlcov was definitively sentenced to 6 years in prison.
6. Marian Neacşu (PSD) - deputy prime minister, former head of the General Secretariat of the Government, former vice president of ANRE. The media revealed discrepancies between the asset declarations and the fact that he employed his daughter in his parliamentary office. He was definitively sentenced in 2016 to 6 months in prison with a suspended sentence.
7. Adrian Merka - former deputy from the Slovak minority. The press reported discrepancies in the asset declarations and the employment of his parents in his own parliamentary office. He was sentenced in 2015 to 1 year and 6 months of suspended imprisonment.
8. Andras-Levente Mate, former UDMR deputy. Journalistic investigations highlighted the conflict of interest he was in due to the fact that he employed his wife in the parliamentary cabinet and discrepancies in his asset declarations. He was sentenced in 2015 to 6 months of suspended imprisonment.
9. Vasile Gliga, former PSD deputy. The press revealed inconsistencies in his asset declaration and the fact that he employed his wife in his parliamentary cabinet. He was sentenced in 2015 to a year of suspended imprisonment.
10. Vlad Oprea, the mayor of Sinaia, prosecuted, indicted and in pre-trial detention. A journalistic investigation carried out by Recorder in May 2024, entitled "The Carpathian Cartel", brought to the public's attention possible discrepancies between the declared assets of Vlad Oprea and the assets actually owned. The investigation revealed that the mayor allegedly owns, through intermediaries, a castle in France and an imposing villa in Sinaia, properties that did not appear in his asset declarations. Following these revelations, DNA prosecutors launched an investigation that included searches at Vlad Oprea's home and at the Sinaia City Hall. The investigation targets allegations of bribery, abuse of office, false declarations and money laundering
CCR: Declarations of assets and interests should no longer be published
The Constitutional Court has ruled that dignitaries and civil servants are no longer required to make their asset declarations public and that they no longer have to declare the assets of their spouses or children at all. In the meeting of May 29, 2025, the "Constitutional Court, within the framework of the a posteriori constitutionality control:
- unanimously admitted the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of art. 3 paragraph (2) of Law no. 176/2010 on integrity in the exercise of public functions and dignities, for the amendment and completion of Law no. 144/2007 on the establishment, organization and functioning of the of the National Integrity Agency, as well as for the amendment and completion of other normative acts are constitutional to the extent that they do not also refer to the rights and obligations of the declarant's spouse, as well as of the adult children in his/her care;
-by majority vote, the Court admitted the exception of unconstitutionality and found that the provisions of art.6 paragraph (1) letter d) and art.12 paragraph (6) of Law no. 176/2010 are unconstitutional”.
Essentially, the Court held, with regard to the provisions of art.3 paragraph (2) of Law no. 176/2010, that they contravene the provisions of art.1 paragraph (5) of the Constitution, in terms of non-compliance with the qualitative requirements that the drafting of legal texts must meet in order to be consistent with the principle of legality. This is because the asset declaration, being a declaration on its own responsibility, engages the criminal liability of the declarant, which is why it can only be made in one's own name, a person cannot be held criminally liable for the act/declarations of another person. However, the criticized legal provisions that establish the obligation to declare not only one's own income, but also the rights and obligations of the spouse and dependent children, do not take into account the legislative amendments made to the Civil Code in the matter of the legal regime of spouses' assets and determine the assumption of criminal liability of the declarant for information that he does not possess/does not know directly, but must obtain it from a third person, respectively from the spouse and the dependent adult children.
With regard to the provisions of art.6 para.(1) letter d) and art.12 para.(6) of Law no.176/2010, taking into account the European concept oriented towards the need to protect privacy and personal data, the Court found that the publication of declarations of assets and interests on the institution's website in which the declarant carries out his activity and that of the National Integrity Agency contravenes art.1 paragraph (5) and art.26 of the Fundamental Law. In this regard, the Court carried out a proportionality test, finding that it is undeniable that the criticized legal provisions were enacted for the purpose of preventing corruption and ensuring the transparency of political life, therefore pursuing a legitimate aim. Capitalizing on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the standards of European Union law in the matter, the Constitutional Court considered that it is sufficient to submit the declarations to the body competent to verify them (ANI) to achieve the purpose of the law, and their publication on the website of ANI and of the institution to which the declarant belongs is not necessary and proportionate to achieving the proposed purpose, violating the right to protection of private life.
The Court emphasized that the solution pronounced should not have the effect of eliminating the obligation of the persons provided for by law to provide asset declarations, but only that these declarations should no longer be published on the aforementioned websites, which will be submitted to the National Agency for Integrity, which will manage them according to the powers provided by law.
The Court's decision has future effects and does not concern declarations of assets and interests submitted prior to the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I. It is up to the legislator to reconcile unconstitutional provisions with the provisions of the Constitution and to codify the rules regarding integrity in the exercise of public functions and dignities.
Euro
Dolar SUA
Franc elveţian
Liră sterlină
Gram de aur
