How the CCR changed its mind regarding the asset declarations of dignitaries and civil servants; Reactions of officials

And if only those cases were included. There's something else: the CCR changed its mind with the decision of May 29, 2025.Why do we say that the institution that must ensure compliance with the constitutional framework has changed its mind? Because the Constitutional Court has already ruled on the same case, 11 years before. More precisely, through Decision 309/2014, the Constitutional Court decided that it is mandatory to publish the asset and interest declarations of dignitaries and civil servants. In that decision, in paragraph 31 of the reasoning it is stated: "The Court found, on the one hand, that the legislative solution of publishing the declarations of assets and interests is justified in light of the legal purpose of the National Integrity Agency of ensuring integrity in the exercise of public dignities and functions and preventing institutional corruption, and on the other hand, that the publication of these declarations is carried out, according to art. 6 para. (1) letter e) of Law no. 176/2010, by anonymizing personal data, thus ensuring guarantees against arbitrary interference. Under these conditions, the Court found the criticism regarding the violation of the provisions of art. 26 of the Constitution and art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to be unfounded".

Thursday, May 29, 2025, the CCR decided otherwise, completely opposite to the text above. In civil law, a common law court that had previously tried the same case was not even allowed to rule because the principle of res judicata was violated. In contrast, at the CCR, anything is allowed, because the law on the organization and functioning of the public institution and constitutional law do not prohibit changing one's mind. This allowed the CCR magistrates to validate the first round of the presidential elections of November 24 on December 2, 2024, only to annul it on Friday, December 6, arguing with the declassified documents presented at the CSAT meeting of November 28. Similarly, in 2014, the CCR decided that declarations of assets and interests must be published, but with the anonymization of personal data, so that on May 29, 2025, they said that they no longer need to be published. However, without having an explosive situation like the one from December last year. Although, even then, it is possible that the CCR was immediately informed about what was discussed in the CSAT meeting on November 28. And, if that is the case, then why did it validate the first round of the presidential elections on December 2?

In common law, such situations are regulated by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which clarifies the legislative content and says which of the two contradictory decisions is valid. In constitutional law, there is no such thing. And this allows the magistrates of the CCR to change their minds. And to establish a dictatorship in the interpretation of domestic legislation starting from special pensions, moving on to declarations of assets and interests and reaching constitutional conflicts.

Let us not forget that the same CCR ordered on May 30, 2018 that the president of the country is obliged to dismiss the chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate at the request of the Minister of Justice. And Klaus Iohannis complied and, on July 9, dismissed Laura Codruţa Kovesi from the position of chief prosecutor of the DNA, at the request of Minister Tudorel Toader. Subsequently, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that Toader's decision and the decision of the CCR violated Laura Codruţa Kovesi's right to defense. The CCR did not change its mind, and even later mentioned, in a press release, that the effects of the CJEU decision do not affect the decision of the Constitutional Court, but strictly concern the disciplinary procedure initiated by the Ministry of Justice based on the legislation on the status of magistrates, on the Superior Council of Magistracy and the law on judicial organization and functioning.

Basically, the CCR does not admit that it was wrong. Nor that it is changing its mind. We will also see this in the reasoning of the decision of May 29 - after it is drafted and published, reasoning in which the current magistrates will probably say that the factual and legal conditions are different from the decision pronounced in 2014 and that is why they decided that the publication of declarations of assets and interests is unconstitutional.

• The President of the country criticizes the CCR decision, the presidential advisor agrees with it

It is curious that last week, before the CCR judges pronounced the respective decision, the presidential advisor Dragoş Anastasiu stated on a show that many people of businesses do not want to enter politics because the declarations of assets and interests are published on the website of ANI and public institutions and that this publicity must end. During the show "Proiect de şară: România” on the Prima News TV channel, Dragoş Anastasiu said: "let's get the hell out of this nonsense with the declaration of assets made public”.

In contrast to the presidential advisor's statement, we have the statement of President Nicuşor Dan after the CCR decision, in which he claims: "The surprising decision of the Constitutional Court is in contradiction with an essential principle of democracy - transparency in the exercise of public functions. Citizens' access to information regarding the declarations of assets of dignitaries is a guarantee of integrity and responsibility in the public space, and this principle must be firmly defended. If the reasoning of the decision identifies technical deficiencies in the current legislative framework, it is the responsibility of Parliament to promptly correct them”.

• Reactions from pro-European parties

Some PSD leaders, such as Victor Negrescu and Titus Corlăţean, also took the same side. Victor Negrescu wrote on his official Facebook page: "As Vice-President of the European Parliament responsible for transparency and the fight against corruption, I consider the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the declarations of assets and interests to be regrettable. Citizens' and the press' access to information is essential for trust in democracy. The Romanian Parliament must quickly analyze the Constitutional Court's motivation and act swiftly to ensure all the principles of transparency and integrity.”

For his part, Senator Titus Corlăţean stated: "I was truly surprised by the Constitutional Court's decision. I have never encountered any difficulties in completing the Declaration of Assets, as provided for by the Romanian legislation in force - a declaration in Romanian format, much more rigorous and even restrictive than the models used in many other European countries, including consolidated democracies. My wife is a teacher and speech therapist at a special school in Bucharest, where she works with children with special needs. We have not had and do not have any businesses. I also teach at a university in Bucharest, an activity permitted by law and the Statute of Parliamentarians. I believe in the need for transparency, especially in the case of those elected or appointed to public positions and dignities. Therefore, I will continue to publish the Declaration of Assets, including the salary that Mădălina brings to the family. I hope that ANI will not modify the form too soon, so that I will not have to add what the Constitutional Court eliminated through this unfortunate decision.”

Ilie Bolojan, the president of the PNL, offered some clarifications regarding the CCR decision: "I have not commented, in general, on the decisions of the Constitutional Court or the courts. Even if, at European level, there is no unitary procedure regarding the transparency of asset declarations, the experience accumulated in Romania over these years shows that the transparency of publishing these declarations, when you hold a public position, has been a gain. Ensuring transparency is an essential element for regaining trust in institutions. In addition, there are numerous areas in public institutions where things have gotten out of control - from the accumulation of earnings to unjustified allowances - and the transparency of the declaration acts as a kind of brake to prevent the horse from jumping. We unfortunately see what is happening in some state-owned companies, where earnings "have been secreted”. In any system, transparency is an effective administrative tool that limits corruption. After the publication of the reasoning of the Constitutional Court's decision, it is necessary to analyze the situation to see to what extent necessary changes can be made to further ensure transparency and public access to relevant information. I will support this.”

Dominic Fritz, the interim president of the USR, said: "Many are outraged by the CCR decision. The Constitutional Court has ruled that dignitaries and civil servants are no longer required to make their wealth declarations public and that they no longer have to declare the wealth of their spouses or children at all. The decision is final. But the anti-corruption fight is not over. Now we focus our energy on what we have to do: the USR proposes to quickly revise the legislation so that this vital tool in the fight against corruption, the transparency of dignitaries' wealth, is not lost. But the truth is that wealth and interest declarations have become too much of a water gun in the fight against corruption. Unfortunately, for years, the National Integrity Agency (and also ANAF) has applied the law partisanly or turned a blind eye. It is time to open their eyes. We all know the press investigations about colossal wealth that was not found in wealth declarations. ANI and ANA reform now! Let's make sure they have the tools to do their job. Let's use technology to automatically and accurately verify the assets of dignitaries. They must be run by honest people. And, yes, we are rewriting the law to achieve transparency with the constitutionality standards imposed by the CCR, after we analyze the reasoning”.

Regarding these statements, we believe that, before making the legislative amendment requested by the CCR through last Thursday's decision, the current Parliament must amend the law on the organization and functioning of the CCR in order to no longer leave room for such contradictory interpretations and abuses.

Read Citizen control over corruption was amputated by the Constitutional Court