Brussels, 27/06/2007 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday, the Commission called on Bulgaria and Romania to do more in order to achieve better results when it comes to fighting corruption. It did not, however, trigger the sanctions mechanism against the two new EU member states. Bulgaria and Romania have made progress but much remains to be done to tackle reform of justice and to fight corruption, the Commission notes in its assessment report on these two countries. Bulgaria and Romania are to inform the Commission of any further progress made by 31 March 2008 and a new report will be drafted by the Commission mid-2008.
Accession by Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007 was accompanied by a series of flanking measures to fill the shortcomings in certain areas including reform of the legal system and the fight against corruption and organised crime (only in Bulgaria). This follow-up may lead to sanctions, mainly through the application of safeguard measures that should be taken within three years (EUROPE 9335). Given progress made by Romania and Bulgaria in the justice and home affairs chapter, the “Commission does not believe it is justified at this stage to involve safeguard clauses”. Such clauses should only be triggered in “exceptional” circumstances, when things are not moving forward at all, said Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini. He went on to justify this by saying that “we do not believe there has been a situation of this kind over the past six months”, expressing confidence that Sofia and Bucharest would “comply with the criteria fixed by summer 2008”. Nonetheless, the president of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, pointed out that, despite everything, the Commission would “remain vigilant”.
In the field of reform of the judicial system and the fight against corruption and organised crime, a cooperation and verification mechanism has been set in place, allocating to Bulgaria and Romania six and four reference objectives respectively, as necessary, for following up progress made. The report reviews progress made for each of these objectives. The Commission notes that both countries have moved forward “unequally” in achieving the reference objectives and considers that more tangible proof of implementation on the ground must be given to demonstrate that changes are well and truly “irreversible”. Bulgaria: 1) Bulgaria has adopted amendments to its Constitution to ensure that the judiciary is independent. This objective, however, is not fully met as no legislative provision has yet been adopted or set in place, Mr Frattini pointed out. 2) In reform of the judicial system, it is still too early to assess whether the new body of law will produce the desired effect, all the more as measures such as the civic code of procedure is still on the discussion table. 3) On the whole, progress has been made concerning the heightened responsibility, professionalism and effectiveness of the judicial system. 4) Progress in the way high level corruption affairs are dealt with in Bulgaria remains insufficient. 5) Generally speaking, the fight against corruption has made substantial progress at the borders and in local administrations, although inexplicable cases involving sudden procurement of wealth currently go uninvestigated. 6) On the whole, the fight against serious forms of organised crime remains insufficient. For example, there are too few prosecutions in cases of contract killings. Romania: 1) On the whole, Romania has made progress in reforming its judicial system, although there are still shortcomings when it comes to the policy for personnel recruitment. 2) The forthcoming creation of an agency for integrity, responsible for preventing corruption among senior officials and elected representatives, seems to be well on track, but more time is needed before it is fully operational (October 2007) and before it shows its worth. 3) Generally speaking, reform in the judicial treatment of high level corruption is a “weak point”, Mr Frattini said. Judicial decisions reflect a lack of rigour when it comes to prosecution, sanctions are not dissuasive (1-2 years' imprisonment) and there is a very high number of suspended sanctions. The Commission notes that a series of recent events could have adverse consequences on the fight against corruption, such as the de-criminalisation of banking fraud, the parliament's intention to reduce the maximum duration of criminal investigations and the call for dismissal of a key member of the national anti-corruption organisation. 4) The fight against corruption with the local administration has benefited from several projects such as the “green” phone line for denouncing cases of corruption and the National Integrity Centre. Nonetheless, there is no detailed local strategy for combating corruption. Following the release of the report, reactions were as to be expected. Elmar Brok MEP (EPP-ED, Germany) said that the Commission had not been strict enough with Romania and Bulgaria. In a press release he declared, “despite the serious deficits in justice and the fight against corruption, the Commission has not drawn the necessary lessons about the affair, namely activation of safeguard clauses”. The president of the EPP-ED group, however, Joseph Daul from France was pleased with the Commission's “wise decision” but restricted his delight to the Romanian result. The final report adopted on Wednesday by the College of Commissioners was a moderate version compared to the different proposals in the report prepared earlier by the Commission's services. Nevertheless, Commissioner Frattini said that he could not compare a final report with technical working documents from the preliminary phase and that the final decision was up to the College. (bc)