The explanatory memorandum of the Sovereignty Constitution: the legal basis, the European precedents and the argument for every article of the draft revision.
The full text of the draft — see here. The Facebook notes on this project: no. 156; no. 160; no. 167; no. 169; no. 213; no. 214; no. 215; no. 219; among others.
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Section 1 — Title of the draft normative act
“The Constitution of Sovereignty” —
Draft revision of the Constitution of Romania
Section 2 — Reason for the adoption of the normative act
Description of the current situation
In recent years, a series of norms have been adopted in Romanian legislation which contravene, either in particular respects or as a whole, the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of Romania, republished. This state of fact and of law is such as to affect gravely and directly the sovereignty of the Romanian State laid down in Article 1(1) of the Constitution — sovereignty understood both as the right of the nation to identity and self-determination and as a state of legality consistent with the constitutional order.
The response to the strain to which the Romanian State and the Romanian citizen were subjected as a result of the pandemic from March 2020 until 2022, followed by the war on the country’s border from 2022 to the present, both economically and socially, has revealed a series of dysfunctions within the institutions of the Romanian State such as to affect directly, fundamentally and irreversibly the rights and freedoms of the citizen as well as national sovereignty.
In fact, this situation — which has become the “normality” of recent years, but which has certainly been encountered, if less frequently, throughout the 33 years since the adoption of the 1991 Constitution — is caused by a constitutional framework that has proved over time insufficiently clear, at times outright lacunary, and which has left room for interpretations and deviations dangerous to the rights and freedoms of the Romanian citizen, to sustainable economic and social development, and to the coherence and proper functioning of Romania’s security institutions, with the result that the “spirit”, if not also the letter, of the constitutional provisions in force has been infringed.
In view of the above, there follows the immediate necessity of adopting the present legislative initiative for the revision of the Constitution, in order to remedy the situation described and to re-centre the attention and the priorities of the State upon the Romanian citizen and upon the need to secure the physical, cultural and spiritual continuity of the Romanian nation — all of this leading to the building of a new constitutional order that may be called a “Third Republic”, while at the same time observing the “Limits of revision” laid down by Article 152 of the Constitution.
To that end, starting from the principle that national sovereignty is the right of the people to decide their own future and to set the priorities of the State, its organisation and its functioning, as well as the right of the people to control and regulate the activity of the State — Article 2(2) of the Constitution of Romania, republished, providing that “National sovereignty belongs to the Romanian people…” — the normal and immediately necessary solution is a broad revision of the Constitution which corrects the state of fact and of law described above by laying down and establishing at constitutional level general measures having the value of constitutional principles, designed to consolidate the fundamental rights of the citizen and national sovereignty, and likewise to restore the balance of powers within the State through a redrawing and rearrangement of the specific competences of the powers and of the fundamental institutions of the Romanian State.
For all these reasons, and not least in order to restore to the citizen his fundamental rights and to the people the sovereignty guaranteed by the Constitution, certain constitutional amendments have become necessary.
1¹. In the case of drafts transposing Community legislation or creating the framework for its direct application, only the Community acts concerned are to be specified, together with their identifying particulars — No documents were identified in Community legislation in this field.
2. Envisaged changes
The amendments and additions made to the present Constitution by the draft entitled “The Constitution of Sovereignty” have as their object of regulation the consolidation and guarantee of the fundamental rights of the citizen and the restoration of sovereignty and of the rule of law, as laid down in Article 1(1) of the Constitution of Romania, having as their effect a structural rearrangement of the institutions of the Romanian State:
1. Separation and Balance of Powers within the State. Article 1(4) and (5) propose an organisation of the State founded on the principles of separation, balance and loyal cooperation between the powers of the State: legislative, executive and judicial. This is an essential premise of democratic functioning, providing a solid framework for preventing abuses of power and for ensuring effective mutual control among the branches of government. Reaffirming the binding force of the Constitution, of the laws and of judicial decisions, as well as of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, strengthens the rule of law and helps to consolidate citizens’ confidence in justice and in the institutions of the State.
2. Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Another aspect of the utmost importance is the revision of the articles that consolidate and protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. For example, the amendments proposed to Article 21(3), which guarantees the right to a fair trial, or to Article 22(2), which prohibits torture and experimental treatments, are vital for aligning Romanian legislation with international human rights standards.
3. Clarity and Precision in the Constitutional Text. The new paragraphs proposed bring greater clarity to the constitutional text — for instance by specifying the rights relating to the sexual identity of the child, the inalienable rights of the human person, or by limiting the possibility of interfering with the physical and mental integrity of the individual. These are sensitive matters in modern society and constitute a step forward in protecting individuality and human dignity in the face of emerging technologies and abusive practices.
4. Reform of Justice and Safeguarding the Independence of the Judiciary. The amendments to the articles concerning justice — such as those to Article 23, which governs the conditions of pre-trial detention, or to Articles 124, 125 and 133, which concern the independence and integrity of magistrates — reflect society’s wish for an impartial and effective judicial system. These revisions are intended to prevent political influence and to ensure that all citizens are equal before the law.
5. Strengthening Social and Economic Rights. A series of proposed amendments concern social and economic rights, such as those relating to education and health. Article 32(8), which provides for the allocation of a minimum percentage of GDP to the financing of national education, and Article 34(4) and (5), which guarantee the financing of national health care, are measures underlining the Romanian State’s commitment to improving the quality of life of its citizens. They reflect the awareness that education and health are essential pillars of a nation’s development and progress.
6. Transparency in the Political System and Accountability of Elected Representatives. The revision of the articles concerning the functioning of the political system — such as Article 62 on representation in Parliament, or Article 70, which introduces the possibility of removing members of Parliament by local referendum — signals a trend towards greater transparency and accountability of elected representatives. These changes may lead to more active civic involvement in the democratic process and to a better calibration of citizens’ representation within the structures of power.
7. Consolidation of the Rule of Law and of the Supremacy of the Law. The revisions proposed to the articles concerning the status of magistrates — such as Article 133, which redefines the structure and functioning of the Superior Council of Magistracy, and Article 134, which governs the procedure for appointing magistrates — promote a judicial system that is more robust and more resistant to political pressure or corruption. These are essential for guaranteeing a rule of law under which the law is applied uniformly and equitably. In conclusion, the revision of the Constitution of Romania is a process requiring judicious analysis and active participation from across the whole social and political spectrum. The proposed amendments reflect a natural evolution and an adaptation to the changes in contemporary society, with the aim of securing a solid legal framework for future generations. Through these revisions Romania can consolidate its democracy, better protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens and secure an independent and impartial justice — all of which contribute to the achievement of a more equitable and more prosperous society.
In essence, the revision of the Constitution is not only about changing certain articles, but about reaffirming the fundamental values of the Romanian State: democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and good governance. The novel elements introduced by the proposals for revision are consonant with democratic trends worldwide and with the European values Romania has undertaken to promote. They likewise respond to citizens’ demands for greater integrity in the exercise of public office, for a fair justice system and for the protection of human rights. Incorporating these changes into the fundamental text of our nation will help consolidate the sense of trust in the institutions of the State and in the mechanisms of social and legal protection. This is essential in order to maintain social cohesion and to encourage the personal and professional development of every Romanian citizen.
The revision of the Constitution is an act of balance between tradition and innovation, between established values and the needs of a society in permanent change. Every proposal for amending the Constitution carries within it the potential for a significant transformation.
For example, the introduction of clearer provisions concerning the interception and surveillance of citizens (Article 23(14) and (15)) not only strengthens the protection of private life but also underlines the importance of transparency and of the limits imposed on the authorities in the exercise of power. This is fundamental in a healthy democracy, where the right to privacy and to the protection of personal data is essential.
At the same time, the provisions aimed at better representativeness in Parliament (Article 62) and those allowing citizens to initiate referendums for the removal of members of Parliament (Article 70) are examples of direct democratisation of the political process, giving citizens a more active role in the governance of the country.
In addition, the emphasis placed on education and health reflects a deep understanding of the fact that national well-being depends on investment in human capital. The minimum budgetary allocations established for these essential fields (Articles 32 and 34) are therefore not merely financial commitments but also moral commitments towards the future of Romanian society.
Furthermore, the revision aimed at consolidating rights concerning property (Article 44(10)) and the family (Article 48(1) and (2)) aligns with the principles of a society that respects individual freedom and traditional values, while at the same time promoting a modern and inclusive view of these fundamental institutions.
Not least, the reform of the judicial system and of the structure of the Superior Council of Magistracy (Articles 125, 132 and 133) will help increase public confidence in the capacity of the courts to administer justice independently and impartially.
These changes are essential for improving the perception of justice and for securing a legal framework that is at once firm and flexible, adapted to the realities and challenges of society. The present draft law for the revision of the Constitution points towards a Romania more mature in democratic terms — a Romania that knows and makes use of its potential, that respects its citizens and that assumes an active and responsible role on the European and international stage. It is a commitment we make not only to ourselves but also to future generations, who will benefit from an updated legal and governmental system capable of protecting their rights and securing them a dignified life.
For these reasons, the Constitution of Romania, the fundamental law of the State, has been subjected to the most extensive process of revision since its adoption in 1991. This undertaking was prompted by vigorous debates, both among specialists in constitutional law and in the public sphere, concerning the direction in which Romanian society wishes to evolve. For that reason the draft revision has brought to light a series of changes aimed at strengthening the rule of law, consolidating democratic principles and adapting legislation to the realities and challenges of the twenty-first century.
In total, amendments have been proposed to no fewer than 51 articles — more precisely, 1 paragraph repealed, 67 paragraphs amended and 30 newly introduced — which underlines the scale and complexity of the legislative undertaking.
The process of revision begins with Article 1 of the Constitution itself, paragraphs 4 and 5, which, as revised, underline the principles of the separation of powers within the State and the binding force of the Constitution and of judicial decisions. This reflects a wish to strengthen the role and independence of each power of the State — legislative, executive and judicial — and to ensure that none of them may undermine the rule of law.
The next article of interest is Article 19(2), which has been repealed. This removal simplifies and clarifies the law, eliminating redundancies and possible confusion arising from the interpretation of the constitutional text to the detriment of the Romanian citizen, who until the present revision could be extradited to third States.
Another key point is the reformulation of Article 21(3), which now guarantees the right to a fair trial and to the resolution of cases within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court, thereby underlining the State’s firm commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens.
The amendments to Article 22 are likewise significant, in particular the introduction of new paragraphs addressing such matters as the sexual identity of the child and the protection of the individual physical or mental integrity of the person. These are additions that respond to current social debates and reflect the concern to guarantee individual rights in the face of possible abuses.
Article 23, which concerns fundamental rights and freedoms in the context of criminal proceedings, has also been amended so as to restrict the use of pre-trial detention and to ensure protection against the unauthorised pursuit or monitoring of citizens. Another relevant element is the changes made to Article 24, which strengthen the right to a defence and access to the acts of the criminal investigation. These amendments address a sensitive problem in the Romanian judicial system, underlining the need for transparency and fairness in criminal proceedings. → the text of the article
Article 27, concerning searches, reconfigures the conditions under which they may be carried out, underlining the need for a well-founded search warrant and for strict observance of the purpose for which it was issued. Greater emphasis is thereby placed on protecting the private life of the individual and on limiting the State’s power of arbitrary interference. → the text of the article
In the fields of education and health, Article 32 and Article 34 respectively introduce provisions on the allocation of a minimum percentage of GDP to the financing of these vital sectors, evidencing a concern for the development and consolidation of the education and health systems.
The amendments to Articles 40 and 44 concern transparency and integrity within political parties and in matters of property, precluding judges, prosecutors and other categories of public officials from belonging to political parties or from holding elected or appointed public office for a period of 5 years from the cessation of their office. This may be read as a measure to prevent conflicts of interest and to consolidate the independence of the judiciary.
Article 48, concerning the family, introduces a stricter definition of marriage, limiting it to the union between two human beings of opposite sex whose sexual identity acquired at birth is unchanged. This amendment has aroused controversy, being regarded by some as a step backwards in matters of civil rights, while the majority of Romania’s population sees it as a defence of traditional values. → the text of the article
As regards justice, Article 52 has been revised and now underlines the right of a person injured by a public authority to obtain recognition of the right or legitimate interest concerned and compensation for the damage, reflecting an improvement in the mechanisms protecting citizens against abuses by the State.
Article 62 reconfigures the threshold for representation in Parliament, encouraging a more diversified political spectrum and facilitating the access of minorities and independents to the legislative process. This may have a positive impact on pluralism and representativeness within Romanian democracy. → the text of the article
The changes made to the articles concerning the judicial authority and the functioning of the Superior Council of Magistracy, such as Articles 125 and 133, concern the independence and accountability of magistrates, establishing stricter mechanisms of selection, appointment and sanction, and clarifying the role of the Council in guaranteeing the independence of justice. These amendments are intended to consolidate public confidence in the judicial system and to secure a fair and effective administration of justice.
In addition to the above, the revision of the Constitution also introduces a new Title VI — “Romania’s participation in international bodies and alliances” — which lays down the procedures by which Romania may accede to, amend the treaties of, or withdraw from international bodies and alliances, underlining the supremacy of the Constitution and of the sovereign interest of the Romanian people in these processes.
In conclusion, the draft revision of the Constitution of Romania proposes substantial amendments capable of significantly influencing the political and social structure of the country. These changes reflect an attempt to strike a balance between the need for modernisation and adaptation to the present context and the need to preserve certain traditional values. The present revision combines articles that open the way to modern principles of governance and human-rights protection with other amendments that consolidate conservative aspects of society. Every revised article and paragraph carries within it the potential to reshape Romania’s future, and the decisions taken today will echo over the long term in the political, social and individual life of every citizen.
The process of constitutional revision is, in essence, a dialogue between past, present and future — a dialogue that must be open, honest and inclusive. By taking an active part in this dialogue, every citizen (among the hundreds who took part in the open debates over the past year and a half) has contributed to the shaping of a more just and more balanced Romania: a nation that respects its past, engages with its present and looks to the future with hope and confidence. The debates on the revision of the Constitution were not confined to political circles or to experts in constitutional law but took place openly, both at public meetings and online, on the principle that every voice counts and must be heard, since the decisions taken now will echo through the decades to come.
Romania stands at a point of inflection, where every decision may tip the balance between stagnation and progress. The revision of the Constitution offers us the chance to choose progress, to align ourselves with the best democratic practices and to ensure that our State will be prepared to navigate the complexities of the contemporary world. This undertaking presupposes not only legislative changes but also a cultural transformation, an openness to new forms of governance and a firm commitment to the rule of law and to social justice. The revision of the Constitution thereby strengthens our capacity to function as a society founded on respect for every individual and on the promotion of the common interest. It is a reaffirmation of the fact that in Romania every citizen counts and that his voice is fundamental in determining the course our nation will follow.
The revision of the Constitution thereby strengthens our capacity to function as a society founded on respect for every individual and on the promotion of the common interest. It is a reaffirmation of the fact that in Romania every citizen counts and that his voice is fundamental in determining the course our nation will follow.
Through the present revision of the Constitution a high standard of democratic governance is established, institutions are consolidated and the protection and observance of human rights in Romania are guaranteed.
It is a process governed by the principles of equity, justice and transparency, ensuring that every citizen feels represented and protected by the law. This constitutional revision is not merely a responsibility of the political class but also an opportunity for every citizen to contribute to the shaping of a better society. It is a call to civic action and to active participation in public life, proof that democracy is alive and that every person has a part to play in its development.
This is the true meaning of the revision of the Constitution — not a formal act, but a renewal of commitment to the principles of democracy and the rule of law, a reaffirmation of the values on which our society rests. Through revision by this popular legislative initiative, Romania makes concrete the opportunity to demonstrate its democratic maturity and to lay a new cornerstone in the building of a modern and prosperous State. These amendments constitute the means by which democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law are consolidated in Romania. The draft revision of the Constitution starts from the rigour of the principle already stated in the present Constitution, according to which sovereignty belongs to the Romanian people, and proposes a set of amendments whose purpose is:
the strengthening and guaranteeing of the rights of the citizen (Articles 1, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 34, 44 and 48 of the Constitution will be amended and supplemented), namely:
the express mention of the equality of the three powers confers on them, in addition, a constitutional guarantee, and, at the level of cooperation among them, excludes any tendency towards a possible hierarchy between them;
the essence of the rule of law is compliance with judicial decisions; the practice of recent years and the conduct of those called upon to comply with a judicial decision have confirmed that a constitutional enshrinement of this obligation is also needed;
internationally, the expression “optimal and predictable” has been used since 2004; it is more current and more consistent with the reality of legislation, with its application and with the actual dysfunctions — namely the heavy workload, the shortage of staff and logistics, and unstable legislation;
— the prohibition of subjecting citizens to experimental medical treatments or to any medical treatment whatsoever without the written, full and honestly informed consent of the patient;
— the protection of children’s sexual identity as acquired at birth;
— The warrant of pre-trial detention is issued by the judge of rights and freedoms. It is important that this measure be taken only by a judge of the court having material jurisdiction to try the merits of the case, so as to avoid the situation in which detention is ordered by a judge of another court situated within the same territorial area as the prosecutor’s office making the application, while the trial is conducted by a different court (a situation existing in current judicial practice). The provisions on pre-trial detention (including those on jurisdiction) must be regulated at constitutional level, since individual liberty must be protected from arbitrariness at that level;
— The prohibition of monitoring the Romanian citizen without the prior authorisation of the court;
— Without express mention of a sanction by law, the constitutional text does not require the enactment of binding rules to prevent the possible use of unlawfully obtained evidence;
— The principle of equality of arms between prosecution and defence is a necessity, being a guarantee of the parties’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR, a guarantee imposed as a mandatory requirement by the European Court in all the cases ending in the conviction of the Romanian State;
— The additional guarantee of the inviolability of the home must be taken into account, since a search is sometimes ordered by the tribunal in a case in which jurisdiction to try the merits belongs to the court of appeal;
— A practice has taken root which has wrongly become the rule, namely that of issuing authorisations at the stage of preliminary acts, whereas, in order to guarantee citizens’ rights, the requirement of the commencement of the criminal investigation ought to be imposed. Not infrequently, recourse is had to special laws (the National Security Act) with more generous limits in this matter as regards the conditions of the authorisation given by the judge. In that latter case the system of random allocation — mandatory in all other cases brought before a court — is circumvented, since the judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice who issue national-security warrants are “specially designated” judges and are not subject to the principle of random allocation;
— The strengthening and guaranteeing of the right to a defence, free from interference and conditions imposed by the State;
— The prohibition of limiting or making conditional the obtaining, holding and use of any currency in cash;
— The family founded on the freely consented marriage between two human beings of opposite sex, born male and female;
— The right of the person to self-determination and to develop in freedom according to his own free will;
— The prohibition of increasing, diminishing, disturbing or altering the individual physical or mental integrity of the person by technological means without that person’s consent;
the limitation of the power and influence of the intelligence services over society (Articles 40, 116, 118 and 119 will be amended and supplemented), namely:
— members and former members of the intelligence services may not hold appointed or elected public office for a period of 5 years from the cessation of the exercise of those functions;
— The intelligence services and those assimilated to them shall be organised exclusively as civilian bodies, under the conditions laid down by law, which means the demilitarisation of the intelligence services;
— The heads of the intelligence services shall be appointed by Parliament in joint sitting of the two chambers;
the increase of Parliament’s power (Articles 62, 65, 72, 74, 75, 108, 115, 118, 119 and 146 will be amended and supplemented), namely:
— The strengthening of democracy and the increase of Parliament’s representativeness by imposing at constitutional level an electoral threshold of 1% for entry into Parliament;
— Parliament shall appoint the Prosecutor General and the chief prosecutors of the National Anticorruption Directorate and of the Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism;
— We are of the opinion that the final sentence concerning the revocation by the Chamber of the measure taken in the case of flagrante delicto should be removed. Interference by the Chambers, by revoking such measures in the course of criminal proceedings, infringes the principle of the separation of powers within the State and the independence of the judiciary;
— The reduction of the number of signatures required for a citizens’ legislative initiative from 100,000 to 30,000;
— The abolition of the tacit adoption of laws;
— The limitation of the executive’s legislative delegation;
— Parliament’s exclusive right to give prior consent for foreign troops, in peacetime, to enter, be stationed in or conduct operations on the territory of Romania;
— The inclusion in the Supreme Council of National Defence of the presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament;
— The reduction of the number of members of Parliament who may refer a matter to the Constitutional Court, from 50 to 20 deputies and from 25 to 10 senators respectively;
the diminution of the President’s power (Articles 83, 90, 94, 103 and 142 will be amended and supplemented), namely:
— the reduction of the President’s term of office from 5 to 4 years;
— The limitation of the President’s right to organise referendums;
— The President shall confer the ranks of marshal, general and admiral only with the binding opinion of the specialised committees of Parliament;
— The President shall be required to designate as candidate for the office of Prime Minister the candidate designated by the party holding the largest number of members of Parliament;
— The President shall no longer appoint judges to the Constitutional Court;
the strengthening and guaranteeing of the independence of the judiciary (Articles 124, 125, 126, 132, 133, 134, 146 and 147 will be amended and supplemented), namely:
The increase of administrative control within the courts through the enlargement of the powers of court presidents (evaluation, designation to other management positions, delegation, secondment, transfer) is a manifest danger to the independence of judges — an independence that must be guaranteed at the highest level;
The non-involvement of judges in, and their non-membership of, the secret services, as well as of occult, secret or discreet associations and societies, is mandatory;
The exclusion of the political factor — namely the President of Romania — from the appointment of judges; this mechanism must be rethought, given that the proposals for appointment belong to the guarantor of the independence of justice, that is, the Superior Council of Magistracy; for prosecutors, the proposal for appointment may be made by the Public Ministry, whose functions are currently exercised through the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice;
In addition to teaching positions in higher education, the presence of judges must also be guaranteed in teaching positions at the National Institute of Magistracy (which may in future be rethought as the National Institute of Judges) and at the National School of Court Clerks. Similar additions may be made as regards the presence of prosecutors in teaching positions at the National Institute of Magistracy (which may in future be rethought as the National Institute of Prosecutors) and at the National School of Court Clerks;
The independence of justice can be guaranteed only by judges, since only they enjoy real independence. It is therefore necessary to rethink at constitutional level the authority that provides guarantees of independence to the judiciary and thus consolidates the rule of law — namely the Superior Council of Magistracy, of which prosecutors will no longer be members;
The Superior Council of Magistracy may comprise a maximum of 10 judges, each elected by the general assemblies of judges throughout the country, a circumstance capable of ensuring full representativeness of those elected (who in any event represent all judges and not only those of the court from which they come). The structure of the number of judges corresponding to each court must be rethought in relation to the number of courts and of judges existing at national level;
The duration of members’ terms of office must be rethought, since the six-year period has not always produced the best results, but rather a consolidation of influence and an excess of power;
It must likewise be expressly stated at constitutional level that the term of office of the president of the Superior Council of Judges is one year, and that this term of managerial office may not be extended, renewed or subjected to any other “legal innovation”;
The provision concerning the participation of the President of Romania in the sittings of the Council, introduced by the 2003 revision, must be repealed;
The procedural rules concerning the decisions given by the Superior Council of Judges must be removed and readapted as regards their legal nature and the remedy available against them;
The Constitutional Court will be able to find a treaty unconstitutional even after its ratification;
Failure by judges and prosecutors to comply with the decisions of the Constitutional Court will constitute a disciplinary offence and will be sanctioned under conditions laid down by an organic law;
the defence and increase of the national wealth (Articles 116, 136 and 140 will be amended and supplemented), namely:
— Minimum and maximum budgets established by the Constitution: 6% — education, 9% — health, 2% — defence in peacetime.
— Appointed public offices, or offices and capacities filled by direct designation, shall be held for a maximum of 2 terms of a maximum of 4 years each;
— The royalties due under concession contracts shall be updated to the level of the prices practised in the European Union every five years;
— The Court of Auditors shall audit the management of public resources and shall report its findings to Parliament at least once a year, the Report being public;
the strengthening of democracy, the guarantee of national sovereignty and the defence of the supremacy of the Constitution and of the sovereign interest of the people in the conduct of international relations (Articles 70, 97, 120, 148 and 149 will be amended and supplemented), namely:
— The possibility of removing by referendum those elected by direct vote: the President, members of Parliament, mayors and presidents of county councils;
— the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by Romania under treaties only in compliance with the Constitution of Romania and in the higher and sovereign interest of the Romanian people;
— Romania’s accession to, and withdrawal from, international bodies and alliances shall take place only by a law adopted through the sovereign decision of the Romanian people expressed by referendum.
A Complete Guide to the Amendments Made to the Romanian Constitution in the Draft Revision
This is why, although the Constitution of Romania, the supreme law of the State, is the document that defines the fundamental structure of Romanian society, the principles by which it is governed and the rights of its citizens, like any living document it requires periodic updating in order to remain relevant and effective amid social, political and technological change. For these reasons, the present draft revision of the Constitution of Romania brings a series of significant changes across a wide range of fields, from the separation of powers within the State to fundamental human rights and freedoms, justice, public administration and rules in the sphere of national defence and international relations.
In total, the draft proposes the revision of 51 articles, through the addition, amendment or repeal of specific paragraphs. In order to grasp the scale and depth of these changes, we shall review each article affected, together with the paragraphs concerned, explaining at the same time their content and implications.
We begin with Article 1, which is amended in paragraphs 4 and 5, establishing the principles of separation, balance and cooperation among the powers of the State and the binding force of the Constitution and of judicial decisions.
Within Article 19, paragraph 2 is repealed, and Article 21 undergoes a change in paragraph 3, emphasising the right to a fair trial and to the resolution of cases within a reasonable time.
Article 22 is revised in paragraph 2 so as to prohibit torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, and after paragraph 3 three new paragraphs (4–6) are added protecting the biological sexual identity of the child and the individual physical or mental integrity of the person. → the text of the article
The amendments continue with Article 23, in which paragraph 4 underlines the exceptional conditions for investigating and trying a person deprived of liberty, and after paragraph 13 two further new paragraphs (14 and 15) are added governing the surveillance of citizens and the limitation of individual liberty.
Article 24 receives three new paragraphs (3–5) which secure the right to a defence free from conditions, prohibit the use of classified documents in judicial proceedings without access for the persons concerned and their lawyers, and guarantee the principle of equality of arms in criminal proceedings. → the text of the article
As regards education and health, Article 32 and Article 34 respectively are supplemented with new paragraphs stipulating the percentage of GDP allocated annually to these fields and the autonomy of education and health establishments in the use of their own revenues. These additions are crucial for securing an adequate level of financing and for improving the quality of the services provided to citizens.
Other important amendments concern Article 40, where paragraph 3 lays down the prohibition on members of certain professions belonging to political parties, and
Article 44, which introduces a new paragraph (10) guaranteeing the citizen’s right freely to dispose of his property. → the text of the article
In the field of justice, Article 125 underlines the irremovability of judges and the legal conditions for their appointment, promotion or sanction, and
Article 133 sets out in detail the structure and powers of the Superior Council of Magistracy, including its role as guarantor of the independence of justice. → the text of the article
Another particularly relevant aspect is the amendments to the articles governing the structure and functioning of the Constitutional Court. Thus Article 143 lays down the new conditions applicable to the judges of that court, and
Article 146 sets out in detail the powers of the Court, including ruling on the constitutionality of laws and of international treaties. These changes have a significant impact on the manner in which fundamental rights and freedoms are protected, as well as on the separation of powers within the State. → the text of the article
Article 147, for its part, defines the effects of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, while the newly added article, → the text of the article
Article 148, underlines the supremacy of the Constitution and of the sovereign interest of the people in the conduct of international relations, laying down a clear framework for accession, for the ratification of the revision of the founding treaties and for Romania’s withdrawal from international bodies and alliances, all of which must be done by referendum. → the text of the article
In order better to understand the context and the necessity of these amendments, it is essential to bear in mind the developments of recent years and the way in which they have influenced the structure of Romanian society. The proposed changes reflect the wish to bring national legislation into line with international standards, to respond to citizens’ needs and to consolidate the institutions of the State.
One example is the introduction of the new paragraphs in Article 22 which, besides prohibiting torture, also address contemporary problems such as the rights of persons in the context of technological advance, protecting their physical and mental integrity against possible abuses connected with the use of technology. This demonstrates an awareness of digital realities and of the impact of emerging technologies on human rights.
At the same time, the increase in budgetary allocations for education and health indicates a recognition of the importance of these sectors, vital to the sustainable development of society. By establishing minimum percentages of GDP to be invested in these fields, the draft revision seeks to secure the resources needed to improve citizens’ quality of life.
On the other hand, the amendments concerning the functioning of the Constitutional Court and of the Superior Council of Magistracy serve to strengthen the independence of justice and to secure a better balance among the powers of the State. This is essential in a democracy, where compliance with the law and the guarantee of citizens’ rights depend on an impartial and effective judiciary.
Likewise, the approach taken to elections and to the terms of certain public offices, such as those of mayor or president, reflects an attempt to increase the accountability of elected representatives to the electorate through the possibility of removing them by referendum. This could lead to greater civic involvement in the democratic process and to increased accountability on the part of public officials. The new legislative framework proposed by this draft revision of the Constitution undoubtedly brings profound changes to Romania’s legal and institutional structure. They are intended to update and align national legislation with societal developments and international standards, to consolidate fundamental rights and freedoms and to secure a more stable balance among the powers of the State.
In conclusion, the draft revision of the Constitution of Romania represents an important step in the continuing process of perfecting the legal framework within which Romanian society functions. Through these amendments the aim is not only to consolidate the structure of the rule of law and to secure better protection for citizens, but also to adapt to the complex changes of the contemporary world.
What follows is a presentation of the amendments and additions to the constitutional provisions and of the reasons for their adoption, in the order in which they appear in the law revising the Constitution and in the constitutional text as it will stand after revision:
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 1 shall be amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(4) The State is organised according to the principles of separation, balance and loyal cooperation among the three equal powers — legislative, executive and judicial — within the framework of constitutional democracy. The legislative power is represented by Parliament; the executive power is represented by the Government and by the other specialised bodies of the central public administration; and the judicial power is represented by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and by the other courts of law.”
“(5) In Romania, compliance with the Constitution and its supremacy and with the laws, as well as compliance with judicial decisions and with the decisions of the Constitutional Court, is mandatory.”
The Imperative of the Balance of Powers within the State. The Constitution of Romania, adopted in 1991 and revised in 2003, was the cornerstone of post-communist democracy and of the rule of law in Romania. Article 1, which establishes the foundations of the political and State system, is the subject of a proposed revision designed to consolidate the principles of separation, balance and loyal cooperation among the powers of the State.
Article 1(4) currently reads as follows: “(4) The State is organised according to the principle of the separation and balance of powers — legislative, executive and judicial — within the framework of constitutional democracy.”
The addition of the sentence “The legislative power is represented by Parliament; the executive power is represented by the Government and by the other specialised bodies of the central public administration; and the judicial power is represented by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and by the other courts of law.” is intended to make explicit what each power is, thereby excluding by omission the President from among the three powers. This amendment also anticipates and specifies the manner of interpreting and applying the second sentence of Article 80(1), which provides that “The President shall exercise the function of mediation among the powers of the State, as well as between the State and society.” According to the “spirit” and the “letter” of that article, the function of mediator places the President outside and above any of the three powers. For that reason, the implicit participation of the President in the activity of one or more of the powers of the State, even in the capacity of “Head of State”, transforms the President from mediator, from “arbiter” between State and society and among the powers of the State, into a party involved in the “game of power” — into a player-referee and captain of one of the “teams”, at present of the “executive team” — which distorts the functioning of democracy by breaking the balance among the powers of the State in favour of the executive, and also undermines the power and sovereignty of the Romanian people, since under the interpretation and application of the Constitution prevailing before the present amendment society was left without a “mediator” and “representative” before the State.
To paragraph 5, which before the amendment reads “In Romania, compliance with the Constitution and its supremacy and with the laws is mandatory”, the clause “as well as compliance with judicial decisions and with the decisions of the Constitutional Court is mandatory” is added. This clarification, although it ought to have been implicit in the earlier wording of the Constitution, is necessary and must be introduced into the revised constitutional text precisely in order to give effect and concreteness to the principle of the balance of powers within the State mentioned above, and likewise to the binding force of the laws and to the supremacy of the Constitution.
Compliance with judicial decisions is the guarantee of the direct application, effectiveness and concreteness of the state of legality in a society — a state also known by the more commonly used name of “the rule of law” — which is why introducing as a constitutional principle the binding force of judicial decisions is a necessary measure.
At the same time, introducing into the Constitution the binding character of the Decisions of the Constitutional Court is the manifestation and direct application of the first part of this paragraph 5, which states explicitly that “In Romania, compliance with the Constitution and its supremacy… is mandatory”; compliance with the decisions of the Constitutional Court is the concrete expression of the supremacy of the Constitution and the most important means of guaranteeing national sovereignty.
The amendments to Article 1 of the Constitution itself, although apparently redundant and repetitive by comparison with the earlier wording, serve to specify and reinforce the principles and rules governing the functioning of the Romanian State; these new guarantees are necessary also in the light of the deviations and dysfunctions observed over the past 33 years of application of the 1991 Constitution, the essence of the rule of law being compliance with judicial decisions. For these reasons, the express mention of the equality of the three powers confers on them, in addition, a constitutional guarantee, and, at the level of cooperation among them, excludes any tendency towards a possible hierarchy between them.
The Importance of Revising Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 1. The revision proposed for paragraphs 4 and 5 of
Article 1 of the Constitution of Romania is not merely a formal exercise but a necessity in the present context, in which political practices and legal interpretations have often shown the need for clarification and consolidation of the constitutional text. These amendments may serve as a mechanism for preventing conflicts of competence among the powers of the State and for ensuring its harmonious functioning.
The adoption of more explicit formulations within the Constitution is consistent with trends observed in other European States which have chosen to set out explicitly the powers of, and the relations among, the powers of the State. For example, the German Constitution, known as the Grundgesetz, clearly stipulates the role and functions of the various State bodies as well as the principle of the separation of powers, which serves as the basis for the country’s institutional organisation. Such clarity helps avoid ambiguity and consolidates the rule of law by providing a well-defined framework for institutional action. Examining the revised articles of the Romanian Constitution in a comparative European context, we observe that the effort to elaborate and consolidate the principle of the separation of powers is a general trend. For example, the Constitution of France ensures a clear separation between executive and legislative functions, providing specific mechanisms for resolving the disputes that may arise between them. This approach helps maintain a stable balance and avoid overlap or conflicts of interest among the various branches of government.
In the same spirit of clarity and stability, the Constitution of Spain defines in precise terms the roles of, and relations among, Parliament, Government and the judiciary, placing particular emphasis on the independence of the judicial power as the foundation of citizens’ liberties and rights. Through this structure the Spanish Constitution seeks to protect democratic principles and to secure a durable balance among the powers of the State, thereby avoiding the excessive centralisation of power or the risk of an authoritarian drift. Returning to the Romanian context, the proposed revision of Article 1 of the Constitution of Romania likewise reflects the experience accumulated and the challenges encountered in the process of consolidating democracy and the rule of law.
This legislative initiative may be regarded as a necessary step in Romania’s institutional maturing and in its alignment with European democratic practice, providing a firmer basis for the functioning of institutions and for respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. Moreover, the proposed revision of paragraphs 4 and 5 is in harmony with the provisions of Article 16 concerning equality of rights. The equality of the powers of the State, as redefined, consolidates the idea of citizens’ legal equality, since it guarantees that no power may prevail over or undermine the authority of another, thereby securing an equitable legal framework for all.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 1 of the Constitution of Romania — by clarifying and reinforcing the principle of the separation of powers and by making explicit the binding force of judicial decisions and of the decisions of the Constitutional Court — constitutes an essential stage in the country’s democratic evolution. This process of revision not only ensures alignment with European standards but also consolidates citizens’ confidence in the mechanisms of the State, creating the conditions for effective and equitable governance. Through these changes, the Constitution of Romania will become a more adaptable and clearer instrument for defining the role of each power and for governing the relations among them, which will help prevent and resolve potential institutional conflicts. Thus not only the harmonious functioning of the State but also the protection of democratic values and of the rule of law in Romania will be secured. The revision of Article 1 is, in essence, a reaffirmation of commitment to the fundamental principles of constitutional democracy. It is not merely an adaptation to contemporary social and political realities but also a preventive measure against abusive interpretations or usurpations of power that could undermine the institutional balance established by the country’s fundamental law. Reinserting and elaborating these principles in the text of the Constitution not only strengthens the democratic foundation of the Romanian State but also reiterates the commitment to the rule of law and to unrestricted respect for judicial and constitutional decisions. This provides the framework for an independent and impartial judiciary, essential to the functioning of any democratic State.
In conclusion, the revision of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Constitution of Romania is a manifestation of political maturity and of an understanding of the need for a robust constitutional framework. It is a recognition of the fact that a strong democracy is built not only through laws but also through guaranteeing compliance with them in a spirit of loyal cooperation among all branches of power. It is at the same time a signal that the Romanian State is strengthening its foundations so as to ensure that future developments will take place within a consolidated democratic tradition respectful of the will of the citizen and of the supremacy of the law. The revision of paragraphs 4 and 5 is thus more than a mere textual update; it is an affirmation of institutional maturing and a consolidation of Romania’s democratic structure, in keeping with the dynamics of society and with its citizens’ aspirations for transparent and effective governance. In this process of revision Romania reaffirms its commitment to following the best European practices and standards, thereby ensuring the alignment of national legislation with the democratic principles and values underlying the European Union.
This constitutional change is, in essence, a step towards consolidating a State in which each power exercises its role independently but in a spirit of collaboration, contributing to a healthy balance and to the proper functioning of the whole political system. It will strengthen citizens’ confidence in the capacity of institutions to protect their rights and freedoms and to respond adequately to their expectations. The proposed revision is therefore not merely a technical necessity but a profound commitment to the basic principles of democracy and the rule of law. Improving the clarity of the constitutional text will result in a better understanding of institutional roles and will eliminate the ambiguities that can lead to conflicts of competence or erroneous interpretations of the law. This will contribute to greater institutional stability and to the consolidation of public confidence in the integrity and effectiveness of government. In conclusion, the proposed revision of Article 1 of the Constitution of Romania is a fundamental step towards strengthening the democratic structure of the State and securing a solid balance among its powers.
2. Article 19(2) is repealed. → the text of the article
Article 19(2) currently reads as follows: “(2) By way of derogation from the provisions of paragraph (1), Romanian citizens may be extradited under the international conventions to which Romania is a party, under the conditions laid down by law and on a reciprocal basis.”
The repeal of Article 19(2) removes the derogation established from the principle stated in paragraph 1 of the same article, namely that “(1) A Romanian citizen may not be extradited or expelled from Romania.”
In this way the possibility of a Romanian citizen being extradited to third countries where he might be subject to criminal investigation or conviction is removed.
The principal reason for removing the possibility of extraditing a Romanian citizen to third States is the need to consolidate the Romanian citizen’s right to a fair trial — a right guaranteed by Article 21(2) of the Constitution — conducted in the official language of Romania, which under Article 13 of the Constitution is Romanian, and likewise to benefit from the right to a defence granted and guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution.
These rights find their full exercise only where the Romanian State guarantees the Romanian citizen access to a national court, the trial being conducted in Romanian and on the basis of the only laws that the Romanian citizen is required (and presumed) to know — the laws of Romania — and, not least, in the presence of a lawyer “chosen or appointed of the court’s motion” with whom he can consult in the official language of the State without the need for intermediaries such as interpreters and translators.
Not least, the great or very great distances from the Romanian citizen’s home at which the countries requesting the extradition of a Romanian citizen extraditable under the present constitutional rules may lie constitute a major, often insurmountable, obstacle to the exercise of family relations, all the more so since there exists the possibility of the Romanian citizen being held in confinement for long or sometimes very long periods, which flagrantly infringes the obligation imposed by Article 26 of the Constitution for the Romanian State to protect the family life of its citizens.
The secondary reason for removing the derogation provided for in Article 19(2) of the Constitution is the need for the Romanian State to assume in full the costs of trying and, where appropriate, defending, detaining and rehabilitating the Romanian citizen — which is an essential part of the Romanian State’s responsibility in its relations with its international partners, and likewise of Romania’s sovereign right to try and punish, in accordance with its own laws, Romanian citizens as well as foreign citizens who commit offences on Romanian territory.
The aim pursued in this way is the strengthening and guaranteeing of the rights of the citizen.
From the perspective of its relation to other articles of the Constitution, the repeal of Article 19(2) would produce greater coherence between the fundamental principles concerning citizens’ rights and their application. For example, Article 22, on the right to life and to physical and mental integrity, would sit better with a legal regime that does not permit extradition, thereby reiterating the Romanian State’s commitment to protecting these rights against any external threats, including judicial ones.
By comparison with other European constitutions, the repeal of this paragraph would place Romania within a group of countries that have opted to guarantee the non-extradition of their citizens as a constitutional principle. For example, the German Constitution provides in Article 16(2) that “no German may be extradited to a foreign country”. That provision reflects an approach similar to the one Romania would adopt by repealing Article 19(2), placing the emphasis on national sovereignty and on the protection of citizens against foreign legal systems.
In the light of debates on national sovereignty and the globalisation of criminal justice, the repeal of paragraph 2 might be seen by some as a step back in international criminal cooperation, but it is a strengthening of national sovereignty and of the Romanian State’s responsibility towards its citizens as well as towards its international partners.
3. Article 21(3) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) The parties shall have the right to a fair trial and to the resolution of their cases within a reasonable, optimal and predictable time, by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
The present wording of Article 21(3), “The parties shall have the right to a fair trial and to the resolution of their cases within a reasonable time”, has been supplemented with the words “optimal and predictable, by an independent and impartial tribunal”, the aim being to establish as a constitutional principle the Recommendation contained in the Framework Programme of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). The Commission adopted the Framework Programme entitled “A new objective for judicial systems: the processing of each case within an optimum and foreseeable timeframe”, in which it maintains that the “reasonable time” is only a condition — the “lower limit” of the right to a fair trial — and must therefore be replaced by another term, “optimal and predictable”, as a more stimulating and effective standard.
The present amendment of Article 21(3) responds to the CE-CEPEJ recommendation adopted on 8 December 2006, known as the “Compendium”, by which national judicial systems were recommended to establish framework timeframes for judicial proceedings in application of the new concept of an “optimal and predictable timeframe”. In several European States (Finland, Slovenia, Norway) solutions have been adopted for establishing framework durations of judicial proceedings in relation to the complexity of cases, even fixing certain set periods in criminal matters and, separately, in civil matters; but no intervention was made at constitutional level, so that Romania would be the first country to implement the CE-CEPEJ recommendation at that level.
This amendment answers the rhetorical question posed by Professor Ion Deleanu at the time of the adoption of the laws amending the procedural codes: “Does the enshrinement in the law of civil procedure of the phrase ‘optimal and predictable timeframe’ not amount to an implicit and inadmissible revision of the constitutional provisions, which refer to a ‘reasonable time’?” In this way the concept of an “optimal and predictable timeframe” — a new and more demanding variety of the “reasonable time” — is implemented at constitutional level and provides a constitutional justification for such expressions as “expeditious resolution of cases”, “resolution as a matter of urgency and with priority”, “short time-limit”, “urgently”, “forthwith” and the like.
The same article also adds the phrase “an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”, the aim being to harmonise the Constitution with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 of which provides that “Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law (…)”.
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the right to a fair trial is guaranteed only where the case is heard by an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. In support of the necessity of implementing this amendment to the constitutional text, we shall mention certain points already established in the case-law of the ECtHR:
“Independence means independence vis-à-vis the other powers (executive and legislative) (Beaumartin v. France, § 38) and independence vis-à-vis the parties (Sramek v. Austria, § 42). Compliance with this requirement is assessed in particular on the basis of statutory criteria, such as the manner of appointment and the duration of the term of office of the members of the tribunal, or the existence of sufficient guarantees against outside pressure.”
For the purposes of Article 6 § 1, the tribunal must be impartial. Impartiality is normally defined as the absence of prejudice or bias, and must be assessed [Micallef v. Malta (GC), §§ 93-101; Nicholas v. Cyprus, § 49]:
i. according to a subjective approach, having regard to the personal conviction and conduct of the judge — that is, whether he displayed personal bias or prejudice in the case; and also
ii. according to an objective approach, which consists in determining whether the tribunal offered, in particular through its composition, sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to its impartiality.
“The Court has emphasised that appearances too may be of importance or, as the English saying goes, ‘justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done’. In a democratic society the courts must inspire confidence in those subject to their jurisdiction. Any judge in respect of whom there may be a legitimate fear of a lack of impartiality must therefore withdraw [Micallef v. Malta (GC), § 98]. As regards an application for withdrawal, the court must respond to the arguments advanced in support of the application (Harabin v. Slovakia, § 136).”
In the light of all the case-law cited above, the constitutional text must be supplemented with the provisions laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and consistently established in the Court’s case-law, thereby instituting at constitutional level new guarantees for the exercise of the rights and freedoms of the Romanian citizen.
Article 21 of the present Constitution of Romania provides that every person may have recourse to the courts for the protection of his rights, freedoms and legitimate interests. No legal act may impede the exercise of this right. The amendment of paragraph 3 further underlines the need for accessible and effective justice, a fundamental pillar of a democratic society that respects the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Besides aligning with European standards, this revision is consistent with other articles of the Constitution of Romania. For example, Article 16 affirms the equality of citizens before the law and the public authorities, without privileges and without discrimination. A fair, optimal and predictable trial is therefore a natural extension of that equality before the law. By comparison with other European constitutions, the new text of Article 21(3) of the Constitution of Romania is in line with the principles established at European Union level. For instance, the German Constitution provides in Article 101 that “No one may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful judge”, while Article 103 guarantees the right to a fair hearing. These provisions reflect a commitment to the principle of the rule of law and to the protection of individual rights, similar to the revision proposed for Article 21 in Romania. The revision of Article 21 and its alignment with European standards therefore not only strengthens Romania’s commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law but also helps consolidate citizens’ confidence in the judicial system. This is an essential reform which will also foster greater predictability in national case-law and support the efficiency of judicial proceedings, thereby reducing the excessive length of trials, a frequent problem in the Romanian judicial system. → the text of the article
In addition, bringing Article 21(3) into line with European standards will have a positive impact on the Romanian business environment, since investors and companies will benefit from greater legal certainty and a predictable legal framework. This may stimulate economic growth and improve the investment climate, thereby attracting more foreign capital and generating new employment opportunities for citizens.
The revision of Article 21 and the adoption of the concept of an “optimal and predictable timeframe” also reflect a proactive approach to managing the increased caseload of the courts. This approach can significantly reduce the number of adjourned cases and ensure that citizens do not suffer from unjustified delays. In essence, swift justice is justice closer to the ideals of fairness and efficiency that any judicial system ought to embody.
It is important to note that the proposed revision is not confined to improving the time taken to resolve cases but extends also to the quality of the judicial process as a whole. By including the requirements of independence and impartiality of the tribunal, it is guaranteed that every case will be tried on the basis of the facts and of the applicable law, without outside influence or prejudice. In this way both the integrity of the judicial process and public confidence in the justice system are secured.
In conclusion, the amendment of Article 21 of the Constitution of Romania is a crucial stage in the evolution of the justice system and of the rule of law in Romania. By implementing the notion of an “optimal and predictable timeframe”, it is ensured that citizens’ rights to a fair trial are observed in accordance with the highest European standards. The principles of independence and impartiality of the judiciary — elements vital to a modern and effective judicial system — are likewise consolidated.
The revision must be seen in the broader context of judicial reform and of the need to increase the transparency, efficiency and accountability of the judicial system. Such a constitutional change represents not merely an alignment with European directives but also an affirmation of Romania’s commitment to democratic values and to respect for human rights.
This is not only a step forward for the Romanian judicial system but also a powerful message that Romania is dedicated to protecting and promoting the rule of law, thereby securing a stable and equitable environment for all its citizens. In the light of these considerations, the revision of Article 21 is not merely necessary but imperative for the progress of Romanian society as a whole.
In conclusion, the amendment of Article 21 of the Constitution of Romania is an essential step towards consolidating a transparent and effective justice system that is, above all, consistent with European and international fair-trial standards. This constitutional reform has the potential significantly to improve public perception of the judicial system and to increase confidence in the mechanisms of law enforcement.
In essence, through this revision Romania embarks on a path of modernising and improving justice, a central pillar in the functioning of a healthy democracy. This initiative must be accompanied by other reform measures securing the effective application of the principles enshrined in the new paragraph of Article 21. These may include investment in judicial infrastructure, continuing training for magistrates and the implementation of information technologies to make case management more efficient. In addition, it is essential to promote a culture of accountability and integrity among justice professionals, so as to guarantee that the new constitutional standards are observed with the utmost seriousness.
Ultimately, the revision of Article 21 should not be regarded as a mere act of compliance with European recommendations but as a reaffirmation of Romania’s commitment to the basic principles of justice and of the rule of law. It represents a commitment to citizens and a promise to provide them with justice that not only observes the letter of the law but is also prompt, effective and fair towards every individual.
Constitutional revision is therefore a cornerstone in the building of a judicial system capable of inspiring trust and respect, and of ensuring that the rights and freedoms of every Romanian citizen are protected and promoted in accordance with the highest international standards. It is a courageous and necessary step on the path of Romania’s democratic evolution, towards a society in which justice is truly for all — justice that is not merely pronounced but applied concretely and visibly in the daily life of every citizen.
Through this revision Romania assumes the responsibility of aligning its judicial system not only with the expectations of its own citizens but also with the dynamics of legislative change worldwide, ensuring that its constitutional law keeps pace with international legal innovation. This effort will not only improve the quality of justice but will also contribute to Romania’s image as a Member State of the European Union dedicated to respecting and promoting human rights and democratic values.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that the revision of Article 21 is more than a mere legal adjustment; it is a reflection of a people’s aspirations towards better justice and a fairer society. It is a step forward in consolidating citizens’ confidence in the institutions of the State and a signal that Romania undertakes to ensure that justice is not merely theoretical but practical and accessible to every person.
4. Article 22(2) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(2) No one may be subjected to torture or to any kind of inhuman, degrading or experimental punishment or treatment.”
In a State governed by the rule of law, the constitution is the foundation on which the whole legal and social edifice is built. Like any foundation, it must be solid but also adaptable to the dynamics of the society it supports. The revision of constitutional articles is thus not merely a right but an obligation where those articles no longer correspond to the realities or aspirations of citizens. In this sense, Article 21 of the Constitution of Romania, which addresses the right to a fair trial, requires particular attention and updating to contemporary European standards.
To the present wording of Article 22(2) — “No one may be subjected to torture or to any kind of inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.” — the term “experimental” has been added, so that the prohibition of “subjecting” a person to torture, to any kind of punishment or to any “inhuman or degrading treatment” is extended also to experimental treatments.
In this way there is instituted at constitutional level the prohibition of “subjecting a person” — that is, of forcing that person against his own will — to any kind of experimental treatment. Since the constitutional text is written in simple language, capable of being understood by any speaker of Romanian, both the term “treatment” and the term “experimental” have strictly their ordinary conceptual scope, as given by the dictionary definition.
Thus the term “treatment” may be understood both as “The way of behaving towards someone; attitude, conduct towards someone” (synonyms: conduct, behaviour) — as the conceptual scope of this term was often (baselessly) restricted in the ordinary interpretation of the old constitutional text — and as “The totality of dietary, pharmaceutical, balneo-climatic and hygienic means of combating an illness”, in the sense of medical care; the set of hygienic, dietary, pharmaceutical, balneal, climatic and other means by which an illness is treated (synonyms: cure, therapy), or “A mode, method or therapeutic means used in combating illness”, and also “A set of operations carried out on a material or an organism etc. in order to obtain changes of quality, form, structure etc. for industrial, economic or scientific purposes.”
Likewise, the term “experimental” is understood in its ordinary sense, namely “by way of trial”.
In this way there is instituted at constitutional level the categorical and unequivocal prohibition of subjecting or forcing any person to be administered any dietary, pharmaceutical, balneo-climatic or hygienic means of combating an illness, any mode, method or therapeutic means used in combating illness, or any “set of operations carried out on a material or an organism etc. in order to obtain changes of quality, form, structure etc. for industrial, economic or scientific purposes”, “by way of trial” — any “dietary, pharmaceutical, balneo-climatic or hygienic means of combating an illness” that has not already been proved effective and safe in treating the illnesses for which its administration is recommended.
The measure is absolutely necessary in order to strengthen the citizen’s right to life and to physical and mental integrity, in accordance with freedom of conscience. Each of these is an element indissolubly bound up with the sovereignty of the people, seen as the totality of citizens whose rights and freedoms must be guaranteed.
Paragraph (2), as now worded, categorically excludes subjecting a person to treatments that do not respect his human dignity and integrity, thereby consolidating protection against abuses that may arise from medical or scientific experiments. This amendment is in full harmony with the humanist values promoted by the European Union and with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3 of which lays down the “Right to the integrity of the person”.
According to that article, everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity, and in the fields of medicine and biology there must be respected, among other things, the free and informed consent of the person concerned, the prohibition of eugenic practices and the prohibition on making the human body and its parts a source of financial gain. It is important to note that the revision of Article 22 of the Constitution of Romania is also consonant with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Article 3, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. This alignment with international standards reflects Romania’s commitment to promoting and protecting human rights within its domestic legal framework, thereby consolidating its status as a member of the European and international community.
Comparing the revised text of Article 22 with those of other European constitutions, it may be observed that most Member States of the European Union include in their fundamental documents similar provisions prohibiting torture and inhuman treatment. For example, the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) affirms in Article 1 the inviolability of human dignity and emphasises that “to respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority”. That provision is supplemented by Article 104, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment during detention. Similarly, the Constitution of Spain guarantees in Article 15 the right to life and prohibits torture and any form of inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The proposal to revise the Constitution of Romania so as to include the prohibition of experimental treatments is therefore not only a domestic necessity but also an alignment with internationally recognised and adopted human-rights standards.
This change will consolidate confidence in the justice system and will ensure that medical and scientific practices are conducted with respect for the dignity and fundamental rights of every individual.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 22 so as to make explicit the prohibition of experimental treatments is an important step in updating and adapting the Constitution of Romania to the values and principles governing modern society. It will serve not only as a guarantee of respect for individual rights but also as a platform for developing a more robust legal framework in the medical and scientific fields, ensuring that progress does not sacrifice human integrity.
By adopting such an amendment, Romania reaffirms its commitment to the protection of human rights and consolidates its position as a democratic State aligned with international values and norms in the field of fundamental rights.
5. After Article 22(3) there are inserted paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(4) The biological sexual identity of the child acquired at birth may not be altered before the age of 18.
(5) The right of the person to self-determination and to develop in freedom according to his own free will and with respect for his status as a responsible person, as attributes of human dignity, are inalienable human rights and are guaranteed and protected by the Romanian State.
(6) No authority, institution or individual may, by any technological mechanism, increase, diminish, disturb or alter the individual physical or mental integrity of a person without that person’s written, express, informed and freely expressed consent or, in the case of a person under judicial interdiction or of a patient unable to express his will, without the written, express, informed and freely expressed consent of the legal representative.”
Article 22 of the Constitution of Romania also receives two further paragraphs intended to guarantee and reinforce the protection of the Romanian citizen’s “right to life and to physical and mental integrity” in the light of the new challenges and dangers brought by the social and technological developments of recent years — developments impossible to anticipate in the years when the Constitution was adopted (1991) or revised (2003).
Thus the newly inserted paragraph 4 prohibits, up to the age of 18, any form of intervention on the body of the minor for the purpose of altering the sexual identity acquired at his birth. In adopting these amendments, account is taken both of the best interests of the child and of his right to decide and dispose of his body in full knowledge of the facts after reaching psychological maturity, so as to eliminate any premature influences on the normal physical and mental development of the Romanian citizen. Not least, account is taken of the irreversible character of any premature gender modification — modifications that will have a negative effect both on the development of the minor and, directly, on the birth rate in Romania through gender changes carried out during minority, an aspect that directly affects both the rights of the person and national sovereignty.
Thus paragraph (4) raises a sensitive and at the same time crucial subject: the biological sexual identity of the child and the prohibition of its alteration before majority. This point has profound implications for the rights of the child, continuing to balance his right to personal autonomy with his proper protection during the formative period. It is important to note that this rule is not intended to limit individual rights but rather to secure a stable framework for the harmonious development of the child, without his being subjected to pressures or decisions that could have long-term consequences for his physical and mental health. In that sense the revision must be seen as a precautionary measure protecting minors from premature decisions that could irreversibly affect the natural course of their development. This aspect is also consistent with Article 49 of the Constitution of Romania, which provides for the special protection of children and young people, underlining the need to secure optimal conditions for their physical, intellectual and social development.
This protection is not merely a moral responsibility but also a legal one, the State having the duty to create an environment in which children can grow and develop in safety, without being exposed to the risk of taking decisions that exceed their emotional and cognitive maturity.
At the same time, the newly inserted paragraph 5 lays down “the right of the person to self-determination and to develop according to his own free will”, a right born of the citizen’s very status as a responsible person presumed fully capable and mentally sound.
This amendment took into account the doctrinal evolution of recent decades in the study of personal liberties, an evolution driven by the latest technological developments, which pose great challenges to man’s status as a free and rational being — impeccably summarised by the German Federal Constitutional Court in the concise formulation: “The protection of human dignity rests on the idea that man is an intellectual-moral being disposed to determine himself and to develop in freedom. The inalienable dignity of man lies precisely in the necessity that his status as a responsible person be respected” (BVerfGE 45, 187 — Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe).
In this way “free will”, a fundamental principle of Christian and European thought, has been brought within the sphere of the right to mental integrity — “free will” being the principle and root of all human rights and freedom, summarised in man’s freedom to choose between good and evil according to his own conscience: a universal right that contains within it the principle of all civic liberties and in particular freedom of conscience (governed by Article 29 of the Constitution), as well as freedom of expression (Article 30), individual liberty (Article 23) and freedom of movement (Article 25).
Moreover, paragraph (5) emphasises a fundamental principle — human dignity and the inalienable right of every individual to self-determination. This is an extension of Article 30, which protects freedom of expression.
By protecting the human right to self-determination, the Romanian State reaffirms its commitment to democratic values and to respect for human rights. This new paragraph reflects a modern understanding of human dignity, in which every person is regarded as capable of managing his own destiny, within a legal framework offering protection and respect for individual decisions.
As a continuation and concretisation of the principle stated in paragraph 5, the newly inserted paragraph 6 takes into account both the technological developments of recent years and the latest findings of the most advanced research laboratories in the field, all of which create the conditions for possible technological intrusions liable to disturb the physical or mental integrity of the person, which may be effected including, but not limited to, through the use of neurotechnology. In view of the potential risks posed by the absence of regulation in a field capable of having direct effects on the Romanian citizen as an individual and on communities as a whole — both of which may cause uncontrolled influences on society and hence on national sovereignty — the constitutional provision implicitly prohibits the use of any device whose purpose is to increase, diminish or disturb the individual physical or mental integrity of the person, which also entails the prohibition of accessing or manipulating neuronal activity, or of diminishing the autonomy of the will or the capacity of citizens to take decisions freely. Nevertheless, consistently with the principle laid down by Article 26(2) of the Constitution (“A natural person has the right to dispose of himself, provided he does not infringe the rights and freedoms of others, public order or morality”), the constitutional text leaves the citizen free to make use of such technological means if there is first obtained “the written, express, informed and freely expressed consent of the person or, in the case of a person under judicial interdiction or of a patient unable to express his will, the written, express, informed and freely expressed consent of the legal representative.” The anticipatory regulation of this field must be introduced at constitutional level for the preventive defence of the social values protected by the Romanian State and for the defence of the rights and of the physical and mental integrity of the Romanian citizen, as fundamental elements of national sovereignty.
Along these lines, paragraph (6) addresses a contemporary concern: the impact of technology on personal integrity. Amid rapid and often unpredictable technological advance, it is essential that legislation provide guarantees against technological abuses that could violate the physical or mental integrity of an individual. This provision is consistent with Article 26 of the Constitution, which protects the right to intimate, family and private life, thereby consolidating the legal basis for the protection of citizens against invasive techniques that could penetrate the private sphere without the express consent of the person. Comparing the revised text of Article 22 with other European constitutions, we may observe a general trend towards updating and adapting fundamental texts to the realities of the twenty-first century.
For example, the German Constitution recognises and protects gender identity but does not impose a specific age for the recognition of gender changes. The Constitution of Spain, on the other hand, treats the right to physical and moral integrity as inviolable, without referring explicitly to technologies that might affect these aspects of individual integrity.
In the context of the revision of Article 22 of the Constitution of Romania, the adoption of specific measures for the protection of children’s biological sexual identity and of the physical and mental integrity of persons reflects a proactive and forward-looking approach. This undertaking is consistent with the human-rights principles promoted at European and international level and with the need to protect citizens against possible abuses arising from the improper use of new technologies. It should be noted that, although the revision of Article 22 brings necessary clarifications in the present context, it must be carried out with particular attention to the balance between the protection of minors’ rights and respect for fundamental human rights.
6. Article 23(4) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(4) Exceptionally and with reasons stated, investigation and trial in criminal proceedings shall take place with the person deprived of liberty. Pre-trial detention shall be ordered by the judge of the court having jurisdiction to try the merits of the case, under the conditions laid down by law, only if it is strictly necessary for the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings and only in the course of those proceedings, after the criminal action has been set in motion.”
The present wording of Article 23(4) — “Pre-trial detention shall be ordered by a judge and only in the course of criminal proceedings.” — is amended so as to institute new procedural guarantees for Romanian citizens.
The first such guarantee is the stipulation of the exceptional character of the deprivation of a person’s liberty: “Exceptionally and with reasons stated, investigation and trial in criminal proceedings shall take place with the person deprived of liberty.” The principal aim of this amendment is the protection of the individual against arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty. There is stipulated at constitutional level both the exceptional character of the measure of deprivation of liberty and the requirement that it be reasoned, which reinforces the principle of the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty from both a procedural and a substantive point of view, thereby requiring scrupulous observance of the principle of the supremacy of law.
Another procedural guarantee instituted at constitutional level is that “Pre-trial detention shall be ordered by the judge of the court having jurisdiction to try the merits of the case”, which is such as to guarantee a thorough knowledge of the case before the court and of the necessity of taking an exceptional measure in respect of the person investigated or tried.
A further condition is that pre-trial detention be ordered under the conditions laid down by law — a further reinforcement and confirmation of the principle of the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty. To satisfy the condition of lawfulness, any detention must be applied “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”. That is why, in the case of a deprivation of liberty, it is particularly important that the general principle of legal certainty be observed. It is therefore established at constitutional level that it is essential for all the conditions of deprivation of liberty to be clearly defined in national law and for the law itself to be foreseeable in its application, so as to satisfy the requirement of “lawfulness” laid down by the Constitution — a standard requiring rules of law to be sufficiently precise to enable a person, if need be with appropriate advice, to foresee to a reasonable degree the consequences which a given course of conduct may entail in the particular circumstances of his case. Implementing at constitutional level the principle of the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty — the “quality of the law” — entails the imperative that a rule of law authorising deprivation of liberty be sufficiently accessible, clear and foreseeable in its application. The factors relevant to assessing the “quality of the law” — sometimes also called “safeguards against arbitrariness” — will include the existence of clear legal provisions for ordering detention, for extending it and for defining its duration, as well as the existence of effective remedies by which the applicant may contest the “lawfulness” and “length” of the detention, as is likewise established in the settled case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
The last two conditions complete the series of procedural guarantees established at constitutional level, namely that the deprivation of liberty be ordered “only if it is strictly necessary for the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings and only in the course of those proceedings, after the criminal action has been set in motion” — all of which impose new standards for the application of citizens’ rights both on the legislature and on the national judge.
It is essential to note that these constitutional amendments are not isolated but form part of a broader context of adaptation to the provisions and principles set out in other fundamental documents, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In that sense, the revision of Article 23 must also be viewed in terms of alignment with European standards of human-rights protection.
Examining other European constitutions, we observe that the principle of proportionality and necessity in deprivation of liberty is a common standard. For example, the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) expressly provides that “the liberty of the individual may be restricted only pursuant to a law and only in compliance with the forms prescribed therein”. Similarly, the Constitution of France stipulates that “no one may be arbitrarily detained” and that deprivation of liberty must be based on legally defined grounds and comply with established legislative procedures. These rule-of-law principles are also reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which underlines the right of every person not to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty. By comparison, the amendment proposed for Article 23 of the Constitution of Romania incorporates these fundamental values, consolidating the premises of a judicial system that respects human rights and the principle of lawfulness. Through this revision Romania takes important steps towards harmonising its legislation with European standards and practices in matters of justice and human rights.
In addition to these comparisons with the constitutions of other European States, it should be emphasised that such a constitutional rule on pre-trial detention contributes significantly to consolidating public confidence in the justice system. This is because, in accordance with international recommendations, it is recognised that deprivation of liberty must be a measure of last resort, applied only where other, less intrusive measures are insufficient to attain the legitimate aims of the criminal proceedings.
7. In Article 23, after paragraph 13 there are added paragraphs 14 and 15, reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(14) No Romanian citizen may be followed or monitored, nor may his conversations or communications be intercepted, without the prior authorisation of a judge in accordance with the law, and such measures shall be carried out only by the criminal investigation bodies. It is prohibited to use in proceedings documents and recordings obtained in breach of the legal rules governing them or made by bodies other than the criminal investigation bodies.
(15) In no situation and for no reason may the existence of a collective right be invoked in order to limit individual liberty.”
Article 23 of the Constitution of Romania, headed “Individual liberty”, receives 2 new paragraphs introducing additional guarantees for the protection of the individual liberty of the citizen — guarantees adapted to new technological developments and to certain deviations that have appeared in recent years at the political and social level.
Paragraph 14, newly inserted by the present revision, introduces the absolute prohibition on following or monitoring the Romanian citizen or intercepting his conversations or communications of any kind without prior authorisation by a court. This constitutes a concrete guarantee and an active and reactive means of protecting the citizen’s right to intimate and private life, as governed by Article 26(1) of the Constitution — “The public authorities shall respect and protect intimate, family and private life.” — while at the same time giving concrete form to the constitutional obligation of the authorities to respect and protect intimate, family and private life through an obligation to refrain from certain activities that erode civic rights and freedoms. This provision counteracts a temptation on the part of the State authorities to institute a general presumption of guilt and of social danger cast upon every citizen and upon society in general through the establishment of arrangements and the installation of integrated technical means of “preventive” mass surveillance.
In an age in which technology advances by giant strides and information travels at the speed of light, the protection of personal data and of privacy has become a burning issue on the public agenda. In that context, the revision of Article 23 of the Constitution of Romania is not merely a necessity but an obligation towards the modern citizen, who sees his right to private life threatened by technological possibilities unheard of in the past. Article 23, which deals with individual liberty and the security of the person, underpins the rule of law and guarantees that no citizen may be deprived of his liberty without observance of the legal procedures.
Paragraph 15, as laid down by the present revision, reaffirms and reinforces the individual rights of the citizen, giving them absolute priority over any supposed “collective right”. This provision serves to halt any totalitarian temptation on the part of those who govern, it being historically known and acknowledged that “collective rights” were invoked by fascist and communist regimes in order to annul individual rights. This measure is all the more necessary in that “collective rights”, not being regulated and exhaustively enumerated at constitutional level, cannot be set up against, or given priority over, the body of rights and freedoms expressly provided for the individual by the Constitution. The need for immediate regulation of this assertion at constitutional level is reinforced by the increasingly frequent appearance over the past four years of the phrase “collective rights” as a justification for implementing liberticidal public policies, and serves to reinforce the principle stated in the Oviedo Convention (to which Romania is a party), according to which “The interests and welfare of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science.”
For that reason the present context calls for careful analysis and for the adaptation of the constitutional provisions to the realities of national security and to the dynamics of transnational threats. The revision of Article 23 protects both the security of citizens and their inalienable rights and freedoms, requiring that no real or supposed threat to national security have the effect of undermining fundamental rights in the name of a supposed national-security interest.
It is essential to note that the addition of paragraphs 14 and 15 to Article 23 of the Constitution of Romania resonates with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to respect for private and family life, which provides that any interference by a public authority with the exercise of these rights may be made only in accordance with the law and must be necessary in a democratic society. The proposed constitutional amendments are therefore fully consistent with the criteria of necessity, proportionality and lawfulness imposed by European human-rights standards.
Examining the revised text also by comparison with other European constitutions, we observe that many Member States of the European Union have adapted their constitutional framework to reflect these principles. For example, in Germany Article 10 of the Grundgesetz guarantees the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications, underlining the need for a judicial warrant for restrictions. Similarly, Article 18 of the Constitution of Spain protects the right to personal and family privacy and to the inviolability of the home, as well as the secrecy of communications, and provides that the restriction of these rights is permitted only by judicial decision. These examples demonstrate the alignment of the proposed amendments with international standards and with established democratic practice.
The revision of Article 23 of the Constitution of Romania is not a mere legislative adjustment but a reaffirmation of Romania’s commitment to democratic values and fundamental human rights. Reflecting on the experience of other European nations while integrating national specificity, this revision is a necessary step towards consolidating an authentic rule of law in which individual liberty and the protection of private life are regarded as immovable pillars of democracy.
In conclusion, the proposed revision has the potential to strike an effective balance between the State’s need for security and respect for citizens’ fundamental rights, constituting a landmark in Romania’s legal and democratic evolution. It is a commitment to the citizen and a recognition of the evolution of society in the digital age, which calls for enhanced protection against illegitimate intrusions into private life.
Through these amendments Romania aligns itself with European and international standards, honouring the commitments assumed under the treaties and conventions to which it is a party. Moreover, these legislative changes also reflect a maturing of civil society, which is becoming ever more conscious of the importance and the fragility of civil rights in the face of technological advance and surveillance measures.
This balance between liberty and security is the key to the sustainable development of a society in which every individual feels protected and free to express his opinion, to communicate and to live without fear of unjustified surveillance. Moving beyond legal barriers and into the sphere of ethics and social morality, the revision of Article 23 also serves to educate and alert public opinion and those in power to the importance of personal integrity and human dignity. It is a call to observe the principle that every person has the right to be left alone — a fundamental right in a society claiming to be free and democratic.
8. In Article 24, after paragraph 2 there are added paragraphs 3 to 5, reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) The right to a defence may be exercised directly or through a chosen defence counsel, without any possibility of making access to the documents forming part of a file pending before the prosecutor’s offices and the courts conditional upon the holding of an authorisation or certificate issued by any public authority.
(4) It is prohibited for the criminal investigation bodies, for any court or for any authority or institution to use classified documents or information to which a person or his chosen lawyer does not have access, without any prior authorisation being required, where by or on the basis of such documents any right of that person is restricted or any legitimate interest of his is affected.”
(5) Throughout the criminal proceedings the principle of equality of arms between prosecution and defence is guaranteed at the highest level.”
The introduction of a new paragraph after Article 24(2) of the Constitution of Romania — an article headed “The right to a defence” — expressly lays down the right of every citizen to defend himself directly or through defence counsel “without any possibility of making access to the documents forming part of a file pending before the courts conditional upon the holding of an authorisation or certificate issued by any public authority”.
There is thereby prohibited any justification for, or possibility of, impeding the access of the citizen concerned to the documents of a file pending before the courts; the authorities may not make the study of the documents and the mounting of an effective and concrete defence, in the manner and by the defence counsel freely chosen by the citizen who is a party to the proceedings, conditional upon the prior obtaining or holding of an authorisation or certificate issued by any public authority. This newly introduced constitutional rule will make it impossible to justify limiting or conditioning the right to a defence by reference to the nature of the information constituting the evidence in files pending before the courts, irrespective of whether, before being constituted as evidence, that information carried a particular classification or degree of secrecy. Likewise, this constitutional rule makes it impossible to classify defence counsel and lawyers according to the level of authorisation for access to classified information that they hold, which will make it impossible for the State to “select” “approved” lawyers to take part in particular cases and will strengthen the right to a defence of every citizen, whatever the nature of the case to which he is a party.
These guarantees are reinforced and confirmed by the express stipulation in the Constitution of “the principle of equality of arms between prosecution and defence at the highest level”, a principle which before the present revision had no reflection at constitutional level. The right to equality of arms was first enshrined by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 27 June 1968 in Neumeister, and the first finding of a violation of that right was made by the judgment of 16 July 1971 in Ringeisen v. Austria. The essence of this guarantee lies in the fact that each party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent, so that the court must create equal, sufficient and appropriate opportunities for the use of all procedural means to support each party’s position.
We observe that judicial practice and the evolution of international human-rights standards suggest that the time has come to update this constitutional text.
The proposals for revising Article 24 seek to improve access to justice and to guarantee a fair trial through three important additions.
The first addition, paragraph (3), stipulates that the right to a defence may be exercised directly or through a chosen defence counsel, without conditions relating to access to the documents of the file. This is a significant change, since it removes bureaucratic barriers capable of impeding a fair trial.
The second proposed paragraph, (4), raises the question of classified information and access to it in judicial proceedings. Prohibiting the authorities from using classified information to which the accused or his defence counsel does not have access is a crucial measure for securing transparency and a fair trial.
Finally, paragraph (5) consolidates the principle of equality of arms, thereby guaranteeing that neither party is placed at a disadvantage in the proceedings.
Examining the relation of the new paragraphs to other articles of the Constitution of Romania, we observe coherence and alignment with the general principles of the rule of law and of human-rights protection. For example, Article 21, which guarantees free access to justice and the right to a fair trial, is reinforced by these additions. Likewise, Article 53, which governs the restriction of the exercise of certain rights or freedoms, is now better balanced by Article 24(4), thereby protecting the right to a defence against possible abuses through the excessive classification of information.
The proposed revision of Article 24 must also be viewed in the international context. Comparison with other European constitutions shows that many of them contain similar provisions underlining the importance of the right to a fair trial and to an adequate defence. For example, the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) guarantees in Article 103 the right to a fair hearing, and the Constitution of Spain in Article 24 secures the right to a defence and to a public trial without undue delay.
These findings underline a common European trend towards guaranteeing fundamental rights in judicial proceedings. Moreover, these comparisons reveal a general commitment to respecting and protecting human rights as understood and applied in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. This alignment not only strengthens the national legal system but also consolidates Romania’s position within the European community, showing an openness to democratic standards and respect for the fundamental rights of citizens. In conclusion, the revision of Article 24 of the Constitution of Romania is an imperative measure for securing a fair trial and for guaranteeing the right to a defence without unjustified restrictions. The proposed amendments reflect not only a domestic necessity but also a harmonisation with the practices and principles of European law. It is essential that Romania align itself with these standards in order to promote a transparent and equitable judicial system protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of every citizen. In that sense the revision of Article 24 is of strategic importance, contributing to the consolidation of citizens’ confidence in the justice system and to the improvement of the international perception of Romania as a Member State of the European Union respectful of the values and principles of the rule of law.
9. Article 27(3) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) A search shall be ordered by the judge of the court having jurisdiction to try the merits of the case and shall be carried out under the conditions and in the forms prescribed by law and only for the purpose and within the limits set out in the search warrant. The information and goods sought shall be expressly individualised in the search warrant, which shall be issued only with reasons stated and only if the search is absolutely necessary for the detection of the offences under investigation at the date on which authorisation is sought.”
The present wording of the revised constitutional text — “A search shall be ordered by a judge and shall be carried out under the conditions and in the forms prescribed by law.” — has been amended and supplemented having regard to the current context of socio-political change and rapid technological development, and above all to the fact that the protection of individual rights and freedoms is a central pillar of any self-respecting democracy. Given the everyday judicial practice in which countless abuses may be encountered that have become accepted interpretations and applications of the present constitutional text, a revision of Article 27(3) of the Constitution of Romania is not merely a necessity but an obligation arising from the dynamics of modern society and from the commitment to the principles of the rule of law.
Article 27(3) of the Constitution of Romania governs a crucial aspect of human rights — the search. The present text provides: “A search shall be ordered by a judge and shall be carried out under the conditions and in the forms prescribed by law.” In the light of the new challenges of the twenty-first century, however, it is imperative to examine whether this constitutional provision still suffices to secure an adequate balance between the State’s need for security and respect for the inalienable rights of citizens.
One of the principal arguments in favour of revising this provision is the need to reinforce the principle of proportionality and specificity within the search procedure. In the form proposed for revision, emphasis is placed on the idea that searches must be strictly linked to the purpose and limits of the search warrant, and on the requirement that the information and goods sought be clearly individualised in the warrant.
This more detailed and circumscribed approach ensures that the fundamental rights of the persons concerned are strictly observed, thereby avoiding the abuses that can arise where legal provisions are vague or excessively general. By requiring that the search warrant be issued “only with reasons stated and only if the search is absolutely necessary”, a further guarantee is provided that the actions of the authorities will always be justified and proportionate to the gravity of the offence investigated.
Moreover, the proposed revision of Article 27(3) underlines the importance of the jurisdiction of the judge who orders the search. By specifying that a search must be ordered by “the judge of the court having jurisdiction to try the merits of the case”, it is ensured that the decision is taken by a body with a thorough knowledge of the details and complexity of the case. This leads to a higher level of accuracy and lawfulness in the judicial process, thereby consolidating public confidence in the justice system.
Likewise, in the digital age in which we live, the specific and detailed character of the search warrant becomes all the more relevant. Given the large volume of personal data and information stored in digital media, it is essential to ensure that searches are carried out with respect for private life and individual confidentiality. The explicit individualisation of the information and goods sought in the search warrant is therefore a crucial step in protecting these rights in the digital context.
In addition, the proposed revision brings the Constitution of Romania into line with international standards and with the judicial practice of other democratic States, where the protection of data and of private life is regarded as an essential component of the rule of law. Romania would thus demonstrate a firm commitment to democratic values and improve its standing in the international arena.
Another aspect worth considering is that the revision of this constitutional article could prevent potential human-rights violations capable of being brought before the European Court of Human Rights. It is well known that Romania has been found in breach in the past for failing to respect the right to private life on account of the improper conduct of searches. A clearer and more restrictive formulation could therefore reduce these risks and consolidate respect for human rights in national law.
On the other hand, critics may argue that the revision of Article 27(3) could limit the capacity of the authorities to act swiftly and effectively in combating crime. It is essential, however, to recognise that any security measure must operate within the limits of respect for fundamental rights. A mature democracy must find the right balance between the protection of citizens and the protection of individual liberties.
In conclusion, the revision of the text of Article 27(3) of the Constitution of Romania is a necessary step to ensure that the country’s legislation keeps pace with technological and social developments
and to reflect an unchanged commitment to the protection of human rights in the information age. This revision is about finding a balance between national security and personal integrity, between the authority of the State and individual liberty. Ultimately, it is about consolidating the rule of law in a society that places ever greater hopes in fair and impartial justice.
Through this change the Constitution would become a more living document, better adapted to the complex realities of the world in which we live, and a stronger guarantor of citizens’ rights. The revision of Article 27(3) is not merely a matter of legal updating but also a declaration of principle, a commitment that Romania will continue to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens — not merely as a measure of normative updating but also as a measure consolidating public confidence in the institutions whose role is to defend justice and legality. In the end, the proposed amendment is a guarantee that human rights and the fundamental principles of democracy remain anchored in the realities of our century, securing effective protection adapted to the challenges of the time.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 27(3) of the Constitution of Romania represents a necessary development to ensure that citizens’ rights are adequately protected in the face of the new challenges of society. This legal undertaking reflects a deep understanding of the need to balance judicial authority with respect for the private sphere of the individual. If adopted, the new wording of the article will represent an important step towards consolidating a judicial system that places human rights at the centre of its concerns, thereby reflecting the values of a society that wishes to progress in accordance with democratic principles and respect for human dignity.
The proposed amendments serve not only to strengthen the existing legal framework but also to provide greater clarity in the application of the law, thereby facilitating a uniform and predictable interpretation. This is essential in order to avoid arbitrariness and to ensure that every case is treated fairly and according to clear standards, thus reducing legal uncertainty and consolidating confidence in the justice system.
Ultimately, a search constitutes a significant intrusion into a person’s private life, and the framework within which it is conducted must be defined as precisely as possible in order to protect against any form of abuse. The revision of Article 27(3) is therefore not merely a legal necessity but also a manifestation of social responsibility and of dedication to the fundamental values of a society that respects its citizens.
10. After Article 28(1) there are inserted three new paragraphs, namely 2, 3 and 4, as follows: → the text of the article
“(2) The public authorities shall guarantee the secrecy of correspondence.
(3) The interception and recording of conversations or communications made by telephone or by any other electronic means of communication, ambient recording, location or tracking by GPS or by other electronic means of surveillance, the recording of images, the obtaining of the list of telephone calls or other such techniques provided for by law shall be ordered by the judge of rights and freedoms of the court having material jurisdiction to try the merits of the case, only on well-founded grounds, if such measures are absolutely necessary in order to prove the offence in respect of which there is reasonable suspicion, and shall be carried out only by the criminal investigation bodies.”
(4) Where there is particular urgency in taking one of the measures provided for in paragraph (2), the prosecutor may, provisionally, order by ordinance, in compliance with the conditions laid down by law, that the measure be taken for a period of not more than 48 hours. Immediately after the measure has been taken, the prosecutor shall apply to the competent court, which shall rule on the measure ordered by the prosecutor and, if so requested, on its continuation. If the measure ordered by the prosecutor is set aside, the court shall order, where appropriate, the destruction of the evidence obtained, which shall be carried out by the prosecutor on the basis of a report to be lodged with the court.”
In recent years Romanian society has witnessed vigorous debates on the need to revise the Constitution, the fundamental document underlying the functioning of the entire apparatus of State. Among the many articles that might be revised, Article 28, concerning the secrecy of correspondence, has particularly caught the attention of public opinion and of legal specialists.
This section therefore sets out to explain the reasons why it is necessary to insert three new paragraphs — 2, 3 and 4 — into Article 28 of the Constitution of Romania. In the digital age in which we live, the protection of personal data and of private life has become a central concern. Electronic correspondence, telephone conversations and other forms of communication by electronic means are now fundamental to everyday life.
In that context, the proposed paragraph (2) serves to consolidate in the constitutional text the guarantee of the secrecy of correspondence, thereby providing a more robust legal framework for the protection of this fundamental right. The text as proposed brings within the protected sphere every form of correspondence, whatever the means by which it is conducted, covering all the ordinary meanings of the word as set out in the dictionary: I.1. The (regular) exchange of letters between two or more persons. ♦ The totality of the letters exchanged between two persons. ♦ The content of a letter. 2. An account of events occurring in a locality, made by the correspondent of a newspaper, a magazine, a radio or television station, etc.
Paragraph (3), for its part, responds to contemporary challenges connected with electronic surveillance and to the need to balance the right to private life against the requirements of national security and crime prevention. Paragraph 3 covers the interception and recording of conversations or communications made by telephone or by any other electronic means of communication, ambient recording, location or tracking by GPS or by other electronic means of surveillance, the recording of images, the obtaining of the list of telephone calls or other such techniques provided for by law — the phrase “by other means” giving the enumeration a non-exhaustive character and leaving it flexible in the face of future technological developments impossible to anticipate at the date of drafting this addition to the constitutional text. By providing that surveillance measures may be ordered only by the judge of rights and freedoms, strict judicial control is ensured and the abuse of such measures by the criminal investigation bodies is prevented.
Paragraph (4) introduces an emergency mechanism, recognising that in certain exceptional situations time is of the essence in preventing an offence or protecting public safety. This provision affords the prosecutor the possibility of acting swiftly, while at the same time maintaining the supremacy of judicial control, the court having the final word in validating or invalidating the measures taken. It should be noted that these proposed amendments are not without precedent. Other European States with solid democratic traditions have similar rules enabling their authorities to act effectively in combating crime while respecting the rights and freedoms of citizens.
Revising the Constitution in this sense would therefore align Romania with international standards and demonstrate the country’s commitment to the protection of human rights. In conclusion, the insertion of paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) into Article 28 of the Constitution of Romania is not only necessary but imperative in the present context. These constitutional amendments will create a balance between the need to ensure the security of citizens and the need to protect individual rights and freedoms. Through this revision Romania will be able to respond adequately to the challenges of the twenty-first century, to consolidate the rule of law and to affirm its commitment to democratic values and to respect for the private life of every citizen.
Besides strengthening the national legal framework, the revision of Article 28 and the insertion of the new paragraphs will also have a positive impact internationally. Romania will be able to demonstrate that it keeps pace with technological developments and that it is capable of adapting its legislation to respond effectively to the new challenges of cybersecurity and data protection. Such a step could also increase the confidence of international partners in Romania’s commitment to respecting and promoting European and international standards in the field of fundamental rights.
Redefining and adapting the Constitution to the realities of the twenty-first century is an undertaking that demands responsibility and vision. In this process we must have regard not only to the present context but also to possible future developments, so as to ensure that citizens’ rights will be protected against any emerging technologies capable of endangering private life.
Finally, the revision of Article 28 and the addition of the new paragraphs constitute an opportunity to consolidate democracy and the rule of law in Romania. It is a necessary step to ensure that the country’s legislation reflects and protects the fundamental values of society in the information age. Through this updating it will be guaranteed that human rights, and in particular the right to private life, are respected and firmly defended. This revision must be regarded not merely as a legal necessity but also as an ethical commitment to citizens. It is essential to understand that protecting personal data and private life does not mean preventing the authorities from fulfilling their role in preventing and combating crime, but ensuring that any measure taken to that end is proportionate, necessary and in accordance with the law.
The revision of the Constitution and, in particular, of Article 28 is evidence of the maturing of Romanian society and of its legal system. It reflects the awareness that individual rights and collective security are not antagonistic concepts but, on the contrary, can reinforce one another within a well-defined and balanced legislative framework. In that sense, the proposals to amend Article 28 are a step forward towards consolidating a society that places as much value on the safety of its citizens as on the respect for and protection of individual liberties. It is a natural development in a State governed by the rule of law, which must be prepared to respond dynamically to technological and social change.
In conclusion, the revision of the Constitution and the addition of paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) to Article 28 constitute an imperative necessity in order to secure a balance between fundamental freedoms and national security in accordance with democratic norms. This legislative updating will reflect Romania’s commitment to human rights, adapting to the realities and challenges of the digital era.
This revision is thus not a mere updating of the text but also a reaffirmation of commitment to a democratic, modern society adapted to new technologies. It is a turning point in Romania’s constitutional history, which will undoubtedly mark a step forward in consolidating democracy and respect for human rights. With a Constitution revised and adapted to present requirements, Romania will take a decisive step towards securing a future in which civic rights are protected and respected, thereby consolidating confidence in the institutions of the State and in the mechanisms of legal protection. Such an initiative will contribute to strengthening the rule of law and to promoting transparent, accountable governance responsive to citizens’ needs. In order better to understand the context and importance of these changes, we must look beyond the text of the law and analyse the practical impact on the daily life of each individual. In a world in which technology advances rapidly and information circulates globally at unprecedented speed, it is essential to have a legal framework that effectively protects fundamental rights. The amendments proposed to Article 28 are a response to these challenges and represent a necessary step in adapting legislation to present and future realities. They are intended to guarantee that any form of surveillance is justified, proportionate and limited by judicial safeguards, thereby ensuring that respect for private life remains a pillar of Romanian society. These provisions will help create a framework of legal certainty in which citizens can feel protected against possible abuses and in which individual liberty is not sacrificed in the name of security. By introducing clear limits and effective judicial control, the aim is to prevent any infringement of fundamental rights. Not least, it is essential to recognise that constitutional revision is a dynamic process that must reflect the evolution of society and be prepared for the challenges of the future. In that sense, the addition of paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) to Article 28 is an example of legislative progress supporting the adaptability and sustainability of the Romanian legal system in the face of technological innovation. Through this updating the aim is not only to protect individual rights but also to consolidate public confidence in the mechanisms defending those rights. It is a sign of democratic maturing and of an understanding that national security and human rights need not be in contradiction but must coexist in a balance beneficial to society.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 28 is a step forward in aligning Romania with international standards on the protection of human rights and private life. It is a measure that reaffirms the commitment to democratic values and provides additional guarantees that any action by the State in the field of surveillance is carried out in accordance with the principles of lawfulness, necessity and proportionality.
11. In Article 32, after paragraph 7 there is added paragraph 8, reading as follows: → the text of the article → the text of the article
“(8) For the financing of national education there shall be allocated annually from the State budget and from the budgets of the local public authorities a minimum of 6% of the gross domestic product of the year concerned. In addition, educational establishments and institutions may obtain and use autonomously their own revenues.”
After paragraph 7 of that article we propose the addition of a new paragraph, paragraph 8, providing: “(8) For the financing of national education there shall be allocated annually from the State budget and from the budgets of the local public authorities a minimum of 6% of the gross domestic product of the year concerned. In addition, educational establishments and institutions may obtain and use autonomously their own revenues.” This proposal is not a mere legislative adjustment but an imperative measure for securing the development and modernisation of the Romanian education system.
In the present context, the insufficient financing of education has become a worrying reality, affecting the quality of teaching and limiting access to adequate educational resources. Implementing paragraph 8 would guarantee that national education benefits annually from a minimum percentage of GDP, providing a solid basis for long-term planning of investment in infrastructure, educational technology, teacher-training programmes and research initiatives.
Moreover, by granting financial autonomy to educational institutions, they would be able to manage resources more efficiently, encouraging innovation and adaptability to the specific needs of each educational context. Financial autonomy could also stimulate competitiveness and improve the quality of the educational services provided to pupils and students. It is important to emphasise that in many developed countries investment in education is regarded as a national priority, directly correlated with social and economic progress. One example is the Nordic States, which allocate a significant percentage of GDP to education and, as a result, enjoy education systems among the best in the world. Furthermore, a figure of 6% of GDP is not an arbitrary number but is recommended by UNESCO as the minimum necessary to secure quality education and to attain the sustainable development goals in the field of education. In Romania’s case this figure represents not only an alignment with international standards but also a firm commitment to the future of the country’s education and youth. It is essential to note that adequate financing of education contributes to reducing social disparities and to creating equal opportunities for all citizens. Without access to quality education, children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are deprived of the chance to fulfil their potential and to contribute effectively to the society in which they live.
Revising the Constitution so as to include paragraph 8 in Article 32 would send a powerful signal to society about the value we place on education and would lay the foundations for a positive change in institutional mentality and in political priorities. It is an investment in human capital, in innovation and in the sustainable future of Romania. In conclusion, it is imperative to recognise that education is not merely a constitutional right but also a strategic necessity for national development.
The revision of Article 32 so as to include paragraph 8 would therefore provide the framework necessary for a robust education system capable of responding to the challenges of the twenty-first century and of contributing actively to improving the quality of life in Romania.
12. In Article 34, after paragraph 3 there are added paragraphs 4 and 5, reading as follows: → the text of the article → the text of the article
“(4) No one may be subjected against his will to any prophylactic or medical treatment, nor to the removal or transplantation of organs. Medical treatments are possible only with written, full and honestly informed consent.
(5) For the financing of national health care there shall be allocated annually from the State budget and from the budgets of the local public authorities a minimum of 9% of the gross domestic product of the year concerned. In addition, health establishments and institutions may obtain and use autonomously their own revenues.”
The insertion of paragraph 4 into Article 34 of the Constitution, headed “The right to the protection of health”, is intended to establish at constitutional level the right of every citizen to receive or refuse certain prophylactic or medical treatments and to institute the obligation, already existing at sub-constitutional level, to administer medicines “only with written, full and honestly informed consent”, and constitutes an additional guarantee of the right of the natural person to dispose of himself, a right already guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution.
This new paragraph at the same time integrates at constitutional level certain principles set out in the Oviedo Convention, ratified by the Romanian State by Law No 17 of 22 February 2001.
Article 5 of the Convention provides that “An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks. The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time.” → the text of the article
Implementing at constitutional level these principles and values, already recognised by the Romanian State, constitutes a means of reinforcing and guaranteeing them, while at the same time being the most effective means of implementing, raising awareness of and popularising rules fundamental to the protection of the right to health.
Article 34(4) serves to reinforce and to raise to the level of a constitutional norm a fundamental principle of bioethics: patient autonomy. In an age in which medical technology advances rapidly, the capacity of the individual to decide about his own body and health cannot be ignored.
This proposed amendment ensures that no person will be subjected to a medical or prophylactic treatment without his informed consent. The requirement of written, full and honestly informed consent is a pillar of modern medical ethics. It not only protects the right to autonomy but also strengthens trust between patients and health professionals.
In addition, the proposed paragraph underlines the importance of respecting the will of the individual as regards the removal and transplantation of organs — a medical procedure capable of saving lives but requiring a profoundly personal decision.
Paragraph (5), for its part, raises an often neglected but vitally important matter: the financing of the health system. By establishing a minimum threshold of 9% of the country’s gross domestic product for health, a solid basis is provided for the continuing improvement of medical services.
A well-financed health system is an essential pillar of a healthy society and of the guarantee of the right to health for all citizens. In addition, the paragraph proposes a dual source of financing, combining the State budget with that of the local public authorities. This would allow better adaptation to the specific needs of each community and would ensure a more equitable distribution of resources.
Likewise, the possibility for health establishments and institutions to obtain and use autonomously their own revenues opens the way to greater flexibility and efficiency in the management of funds. Let us now focus on the impact these changes could have on society. First, with a legislative framework placing greater emphasis on informed consent, patients will enjoy greater decision-making power and will be better protected against abuses. Second, establishing a clear financial threshold for health will compel the government to prioritise this vital sector, which could lead to shorter waiting times, improved quality of medical services and greater access to new technologies and treatments. This could have a positive effect on life expectancy and on the general state of health of the population.
Likewise, adequate financing could address the problem of medical staff migration. In recent years Romania has faced a brain drain in the health field, with many doctors and nurses choosing to practise in other countries. More generous financing could help retain these qualified professionals by improving working conditions and offering competitive salaries. Moreover, Article 34(5) could stimulate innovation and efficiency in the health sector. With the possibility of generating and using their own revenues, hospitals and clinics could invest in state-of-the-art equipment and in continuing training programmes for staff. This is crucial in order to keep pace with rapid advances in medicine and to offer patients the best treatment options available worldwide. By way of example, consider the health systems of other countries, where the financial autonomy of medical institutions has led to improved service quality and to significant innovation in the field. International experience shows that when health establishments are empowered to manage resources efficiently, the results benefit both patients and the health system as a whole.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 34 of the Constitution through the addition of paragraphs (4) and (5) represents a necessary development reflecting the present values and needs of Romanian society. These amendments would place Romania among the States that respect and promote human rights in the field of health, while at the same time securing adequate and sustainable financing of the medical system. It is a step in the right direction towards guaranteeing a healthier and more prosperous future for all citizens.
13. Article 40(3) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) The judges of the Constitutional Court, the Ombudsman, national judges and prosecutors and staff assimilated to them, European magistrates, active members of the armed forces and of the intelligence services, police officers and other categories of public officials established by organic law may not belong to political parties. These professional categories may not belong to political parties and may not hold appointed or elected public office for a period of 5 years from the cessation of the exercise of those functions.”
The original text of Article 40(3) of the Constitution of Romania has been amended by adding to the professional categories that may not belong to political parties the members of the intelligence services. This addition is necessary because, under the present law revising the Constitution, the intelligence services have become demilitarised institutions, a situation entailing the need to supplement and amend Article 40(3) so as to name the members of the intelligence services among the categories affected by this prohibition — all the more so since in the text of the Constitution prior to revision the members of the intelligence services were included among “active members of the armed forces”.
At the same time, a further amendment to Article 40(3) of the Constitution is the imposition on the professional categories mentioned above of a prohibition on “holding appointed or elected public office for a period of 5 years from the cessation of the exercise of those functions”. This provision is inspired by United States legislation and is intended to make it impossible for appointed or elected politicians and officials to maintain privileged links with the structures to which they belonged, the passage of time causing the personal connections and influence that persons in the listed professional categories might retain with former colleagues and subordinates to fade.
The undertaking of revising Article 40(3) starts from the premise that at the heart of democracy lies the principle of the separation of powers, a foundation guaranteeing the balance and proper functioning of any State governed by the rule of law.
The revision of Article 40(3) of the Constitution is not a mere legislative amendment but an imperative necessity responding to the need to consolidate the independence and impartiality of certain public offices and institutions. The necessity of revising this constitutional text has its roots in the history of problems connected with the excessive politicisation of key State functions.
The judges of the Constitutional Court, the Ombudsman, magistrates, prosecutors and other categories of public officials must be genuine guarantors of impartiality and even-handedness before the law, and their membership of political parties may cast a shadow over that fundamental obligation. In recent years we have witnessed cases in which the lines between the judicial power and the executive or legislative power have blurred, endangering the principle of the separation of powers and, by implication, democracy itself. The purpose of these prohibitions is to prevent conflicts of interest and to ensure that the decisions taken by these persons are entirely for the public good and not for the interests of a party or of groups of influence.
The amendment proposed for Article 40(3) seeks to reinforce this barrier between public officials and political parties, so as to avoid any suspicion of partiality. The prohibition on belonging to the structures of political parties for a period of five years after the cessation of public office serves to consolidate this idea, providing a temporal buffer allowing a return to a state of neutrality perceptible in society.
This revision is not without precedent. Many consolidated democracies have similar rules designed to protect the integrity and independence of State functions. For example, in countries with a long democratic tradition it is well understood that certain roles — in particular judicial ones and those connected with national defence — must remain apolitical, in order to secure citizens’ confidence in their impartiality and effectiveness.
Moreover, the restriction on holding appointed or elected public office for a period of five years after leaving service is essential in order to avoid the “revolving door” phenomenon, whereby former members of the public authorities may rapidly reintegrate into politics or into other offices capable of influencing decisions and policies improperly. This measure further consolidates the wall between a career in public service and political activity, thereby ensuring that decisions are taken with the common good in mind and not with a view to personal advantage or political loyalties. In this way it is guaranteed that the expertise accumulated during the exercise of office is not used for partisan purposes but remains in the service of the State and its citizens.
It is important to note that this revision not only protects the integrity of public office but also consolidates public confidence in the institutions of the State. When public officials and magistrates are seen as standing above political battles, respect for and confidence in their decisions increase. This is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy, in which citizens must be convinced that laws and decisions are applied equitably and objectively.
That said, the proposed revision of Article 40 may also generate controversy. Critics may argue that the restrictions imposed could limit the individual rights of public officials, including their right to freedom of association. That view, however, fails to take into account the fact that the offices covered by this revision are of particular importance to the power structure of the State and therefore require a greater degree of restriction in order to preserve the impartiality and integrity of the system.
The revision of Article 40 of the Constitution as proposed represents an important step in consolidating the principle of the separation of powers and in protecting the rule of law. Through this clear separation between a career in public service and political activity, the Romanian State can strengthen its democratic foundation and build a more transparent and accountable environment of governance.
In conclusion, the proposed revision of Article 40 of the Constitution is a necessary undertaking in order to secure the integrity and effectiveness of the institutions of the State. It marks the recognition that certain public offices must be exercised in absolute independence from any political influence. By implementing this amendment Romania aligns itself with international standards of good administrative practice and ensures that its democratic pillars are strengthened for the future.
This constitutional reform is not confined to a change of letters in the fundamental text but represents an evolution in political and administrative thinking. It underlines the commitment to sound democratic principles and to clean governance, free from partisan temptation or corruption. Through this revision a clearer and safer framework is created for those who serve the public interest, thereby helping to consolidate citizens’ confidence in the institutions that shape their daily lives. It is a crucial step towards the political and institutional maturing of Romanian society, which will benefit from an administration devoted to the principles of justice and equity. In that context it is vital that the revision be understood not as a restriction but as a guarantee of the independence and neutrality essential to the proper functioning of the State.
Ultimately, this separation between the political sphere and the administrative-judicial sphere is the cornerstone of a democracy that respects itself and its citizens. It is our collective duty to ensure that the amendments to the Constitution are not merely reflections of abstract ideals but concrete transformations bringing real benefits to citizens’ daily lives.
This revision helps create a society in which justice and administration are truly at the service of the individual and not at the disposal of group or political interests. In the end, the amendment of Article 40 of the Constitution is more than a legislative change. It is a commitment to a fairer, more equitable and ultimately more prosperous Romania. It is a step towards ensuring that the foundations of our democracy are not merely protected but strengthened against the challenges of the future. Such constitutional revisions are vital in a world of continual change, where institutional adaptability and resilience become the key to progress and stability.
With this proposed revision Romania reaffirms its commitment to respecting and promoting democratic values, to separating clearly the political sphere from the administrative and judicial spheres, and to ensuring that every citizen can trust in the impartiality and integrity of those holding public office. The revision of Article 40 is therefore not merely a necessity but also an opportunity to align ourselves with the highest democratic standards and to consolidate confidence in our structures of governance. It is a sign of the maturing of Romanian society and of the wish to build a future in which the basic principles of democracy are not merely respected but vigilantly defended.
14. In Article 44, after paragraph 9 there is added paragraph 10, reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(10) The Romanian citizen has the right to keep, use and dispose of his property freely and unconditionally, according to his own will. The obtaining, holding and use of any currency in cash may not be limited or made conditional.”
The paragraph added to Article 44 of the Constitution of Romania, headed “The right of private property”, expressly lays down the right of the Romanian citizen to keep, use and dispose of his property freely and unconditionally, excluding any legal condition or limitation in that respect.
At the same time, the paragraph added to Article 44 lays down the right of the Romanian citizen to obtain, hold and use any currency in cash — a right now made constitutional, which may not be limited or made conditional.
These provisions introduced into the revised Constitution constitute a direct application and a natural consequence of individual liberty and a means of protecting the security of the person, as governed at constitutional level by Article 23(1), which provides that “Individual liberty and the security of the person are inviolable”, and are likewise a direct effect of the provision of paragraph 1 of that same Article 44, which provides that the right of property is guaranteed.
These amendments are absolutely necessary in view of certain unconstitutional and abusive initiatives seeking to limit the right to obtain, use and keep in ownership various goods and currencies.
Economic freedom is a fundamental pillar of a democratic and prosperous society. It secures not only individual well-being but also collective development. In the present context, however, marked by rapid transformation and global challenges, national legislation must be not only adaptable but also anticipatory. In that sense, the revision of Article 44 of the Constitution of Romania by the addition of a new paragraph is intended to consolidate the economic freedom of the Romanian citizen.
The present context and economic challenges: in a globalised world, where financial transactions and the movement of capital are rapid and voluminous, rules in the economic field must offer security but also flexibility.
Romania’s economy, in the process of growth and integration into European and international structures, faces various challenges: from the volatility of financial markets to the need to attract foreign investment. In this landscape citizens must be able to manage their property with maximum freedom, in order to react effectively to economic dynamics.
The addition of paragraph (10) to Article 44 of the Constitution of Romania is an essential step towards consolidating economic freedom. It responds not only to the need to protect the citizen’s right to dispose of his goods but also to the need to secure a stable and predictable legal framework for economic transactions. In essence, the revised text guarantees that no external factor — whether State or private — may impose arbitrary restrictions on the manner in which citizens exercise control over their own financial resources.
The addition of paragraph (10) to Article 44 of the Constitution took several arguments into account. First, this new paragraph reaffirms the principle of personal autonomy in the economic sphere, an inalienable right in a free society. Second, it secures protection against possible abuses by the State, which might seek to limit access to certain currencies or means of transacting. Third, by guaranteeing the right to use any currency in cash, paragraph (10) promotes diversity and competitiveness within the financial system. Finally, the proposed paragraph (10) may serve as a catalyst for broader economic reforms, stimulating a robust and open financial market, essential for attracting investment and for sustainable economic growth.
The inclusion of paragraph (10) in the Constitution of Romania will have a profound impact on society, promoting an economic culture founded on freedom and individual responsibility. It could reduce bureaucracy and facilitate entrepreneurial initiative, giving citizens the possibility to innovate and to participate actively in the market economy. This measure will encourage a better distribution of resources and inclusive economic growth.
Conclusions. The revision of Article 44 of the Constitution of Romania to include paragraph (10) is more than a mere legislative amendment; it is a reaffirmation of our country’s commitment to the principles of economic freedom and of the rule of law. This step could profoundly transform the way citizens interact with the economy and could open the way to a more dynamic and prosperous society. Ultimately, the adoption of this paragraph will not only consolidate investor confidence and support economic development but will also secure respect for the fundamental right of every citizen to control his own financial resources. Romania will thereby align itself with international standards of protection of property and economic freedom.
In conclusion, revising the Constitution to include paragraph (10) in Article 44 is not merely a legal necessity but also an opportunity to consolidate citizens’ confidence in the economic system and to encourage active participation in the economic life of the country. It is a commitment to the future, an investment in Romania’s stability and prosperity.
In this undertaking account has also been taken of the experience of other nations that have adopted similar measures protecting economic freedom, so as to ensure that Romania adopts the best international practice.
Comparing and analysing different constitutional models, we can identify the most effective strategies enabling us to attain our objectives without compromising democratic principles or financial stability. One relevant example is the Constitution of Switzerland, which offers a model of balance between the protection of private property and the public interest. By adopting a similar approach, Romania could benefit from a legal framework supporting individual initiative and securing a free and equitable market.
In conclusion, the proposed revision of Article 44 through the addition of paragraph (10) represents an opportunity to affirm Romania’s firm commitment to the principles of economic freedom and democracy. This constitutional undertaking may serve as an impetus to revitalise the national economy and to consolidate citizens’ confidence in the capacity and will of State institutions to protect and promote individual rights — bearing in mind that, ultimately, the right to economic freedom and control over one’s own resources are essential to the dignity and prosperity of every citizen.
The revision of Article 44 so as to reflect these fundamental rights is therefore not merely a matter of domestic policy but also a powerful message to the international community about Romania’s values and vision regarding economic development and respect for human rights. In conclusion, the addition of paragraph (10) to Article 44 of the Constitution of Romania represents a crucial step towards consolidating a legal framework that respects and promotes economic freedom. This constitutional amendment can give Romanian citizens the assurance that they may use their financial resources in the manner most appropriate to their needs and aspirations, without unjustified restrictions or arbitrary interference.
15. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 48 are amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(1) The family is founded on the freely consented marriage between two human beings of opposite sex, born male and female, on their equality and on the right and duty of parents to ensure the upbringing, education and instruction of their children.
(2) The conditions for the conclusion, dissolution and nullity of marriage shall be established by law. A religious union between a man and a woman has no legal effects and may be celebrated even without a civil marriage having been concluded.”
The constitutional provisions revised in Article 48(1) constitute a necessary clarification of the earlier wording of that paragraph, which provided that “The family is founded on the freely consented marriage between spouses, on their equality and on the right and duty of parents to ensure the upbringing, education and instruction of their children.”
In fact, the definition of the Romanian word “soț” and of its plural “soți” displays too great a degree of generality, ranging from “A married man considered in relation to his wife” and “The two persons of opposite sex united by marriage” to “Associate, collaborator, partner, companion” or “An object which, together with another (similar) one, forms a pair”; while the verb “a soți” (to accompany) means “to ASSOCIATE, GROUP, ACCOMPANY, JOIN, UNITE” and “to associate oneself; 2 (regional) to make a partner of”, only the last common meaning being “3 (regional) to marry”.
In view of this linguistic reality and of the pronounced blurring and relativisation of social relations in recent times, the text has been reformulated in the revised Constitution, the word “spouses” being replaced by the phrase “two human beings of opposite sex”, the constitutional text requiring that any marriage may be concluded only between human beings — as a first condition — who are of opposite sex, as a second, fundamental condition.
At the same time, having regard also to the biological and not merely social function of the family, and to its fundamental role in the transmission and continuity of the genetic and cultural heritage of the citizens on the territory of Romania, the explicit statement that the family is founded on the freely consented marriage between two human beings of opposite sex had to be supplemented and specified in the sense that they must be born male and female, rendering impossible marriage with or between persons who have changed sex.
Article 48(2) of the Constitution is amended to the effect that “A religious union between a man and a woman has no legal effects and may be celebrated even without a civil marriage having been concluded.” The amendment was made because the original text of that paragraph provided that “A religious marriage may be celebrated only after the civil marriage”, which conflicts with the spirit and the letter of the first three paragraphs of Article 29 of the Constitution, which provide that “(1) Freedom of thought and of opinion, as well as freedom of religious belief, may not be restricted in any form. (…) (3) Religious denominations are free and shall be organised according to their own statutes, under the conditions laid down by law. (…)” That contradiction was accentuated by making the performance of a ritual act conditional upon the prior performance of an act of civil status, which is such as to limit both freedom of thought and of opinion (the citizen being free to consider that he may marry religiously without also performing an act of civil status to that effect) and freedom of religious belief — beliefs that may be such as to exclude the intervention of the State in the personal relations between spouses. Moreover, the constitutional text of the second sentence of Article 29(1) and of Article 29(2) — “No one may be compelled to adopt an opinion or to adhere to a religious belief contrary to his convictions. (2) Freedom of conscience is guaranteed” — is contradicted by the former wording of Article 48(2), which compelled citizens to contract a civil marriage in order to be able to have a religious marriage. Not least, the earlier wording, which made the performance of an act of worship conditional upon the prior performance of an act by a State authority, stands in profound contradiction with the secular character of the Romanian State; all these infringements of and contradictions with constitutional principles, values and rights constitute the reasons why Article 48(2) had to be amended.
In conclusion, the proposal to revise paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article is testimony to the will of Romanian society to reaffirm traditional values in the legal definition of the family, in the context of an increasingly diversified social landscape. The proposed revision seeks to clarify the terms in which the family is defined and regulated within the Romanian legislative framework. Paragraph (1) underlines the heterosexual character of marriage and specifies that it is founded on the freely expressed consent between a man and a woman born as such. In addition, the amendment proposes to emphasise gender equality and parental responsibilities in the upbringing and education of children. Paragraph (2) provides that matters relating to the conclusion, dissolution and nullity of marriage will continue to be regulated exclusively by law, and that a religious union between a man and a woman will produce no legal effects in the absence of a civil marriage. This clarification is intended to underline the separation of State and Church and the legal independence of civil marriage from religious marriage. In essence, the arguments supporting this revision rest on the wish to strengthen the notion of the traditional family and to provide a more precise legal framework for regulating family relations, it being considered essential that there be a clear and unequivocal definition of the family in the Constitution reflecting and protecting the cultural and social values specific to Romania.
16. Article 52 is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(1) A person injured in one of his rights or in a legitimate interest by a public authority, by a judicial body or by a court, through an administrative act, through the failure to resolve an application within the legal time-limit, through acts of the prosecutor or through judicial decisions, is entitled to obtain recognition of the right claimed or of the legitimate interest, the annulment of the act or of the judicial decision and compensation for the damage.
(2) The conditions and limits of the exercise of this right shall be established by organic law.
(3) The State shall be liable in damages for the prejudice caused by judicial errors. The liability of the State shall be established under the conditions laid down by law and does not exclude the liability of magistrates who have exercised their office in bad faith or with gross negligence.
(4) The liability of magistrates for exercising their office in bad faith or with gross negligence shall be established by organic law, which must include the civil, disciplinary and criminal liability of the magistrate who caused the injury to the right or legitimate interest of the judge or prosecutor.
(5) The rights and liability of judges and prosecutors as at the date of their admission to office may not be diminished by law subsequent to their appointment by decree of the President.”
The revision of Article 52(1), which until the revision reads “A person injured in one of his rights or in a legitimate interest by a public authority, through an administrative act or through the failure to resolve an application within the legal time-limit, is entitled to obtain recognition of the right claimed or of the legitimate interest, the annulment of the act and compensation for the damage”, responds to a need to clarify and extend the rights of persons injured by the public authorities. It is vital that citizens have at their disposal effective mechanisms for defending their rights and legitimate interests. This presupposes not only the recognition and annulment of the administrative acts or judicial decisions affecting them, but also a real possibility of obtaining compensation for the damage suffered. By reformulating this paragraph and expressly naming the causes capable of harming the legitimate interests of the citizen — namely “the failure to resolve an application within the legal time-limit”, “acts of the prosecutor or judicial decisions” — the conditions are created for more robust legal protection and a clear message is conveyed as to the seriousness with which the State treats individual rights.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 remain unchanged.
Paragraph (4), newly inserted into Article 52, responds to a sensitive and highly important problem: the liability of magistrates. By providing for an organic law covering the civil, disciplinary and criminal liability of magistrates, it is guaranteed that they will act with greater prudence and responsibility. It is thereby ensured that citizens’ rights are protected and that any serious misconduct or bad-faith action on the part of magistrates does not go unsanctioned. This helps increase confidence in the judicial system and consolidate the independence of justice.
The last paragraph, the newly inserted paragraph (5), addresses the protection of the status of judges and prosecutors, a key aspect in maintaining the independence and impartiality of the judicial system. By prohibiting the diminution of their rights and liability through laws subsequent to their appointment, an additional guarantee is provided that magistrates may exercise their functions without fear of arbitrary repercussions. This clause thus consolidates the principle of the separation of powers within the State and protects magistrates from external influences capable of affecting their judgments.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 52 of the Constitution is a necessary measure to ensure that the rights and legitimate interests of citizens are effectively protected. The proposed amendments bring a series of significant improvements to the existing legal framework, providing greater clarity, accountability and protection. This revision not only strengthens the legal foundation for respecting and guaranteeing individual rights but also represents a firm commitment by Romania to respect the principles of the rule of law and to align itself with international standards of justice. It is essential to bear in mind that this revision is not an end in itself but a means of building a fairer and more transparent judicial system capable of inspiring citizens’ confidence. In a mature and responsible democracy, every citizen has the right to expect the State to assume responsibility for the mistakes committed by its representatives and to provide real guarantees for the protection of his rights and interests. The revision of Article 52 serves to reinforce these expectations and to confirm Romania’s commitment to sound democratic principles.
The existence of a well-defined legal framework that effectively protects citizens’ rights and imposes accountability on the authorities is fundamental.
Article 52, in its revised form, promises to provide that framework, thereby consolidating confidence in the institutions of the State and helping to create a society founded on respect for law and justice. Examining Romania’s legal and social trajectory in recent years, it becomes evident that the revision of Article 52 is not merely an act of reform but also a symbol of the State’s legal maturing. The proposed amendments reflect a deep understanding of the importance of individual rights and of the mechanisms of legal protection against abuses of any kind. Through these changes the Romanian State reaffirms its commitment to being a guarantor of justice and of respect for human dignity. → the text of the article
17. Article 62(2) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“In the Parliament of Romania there shall be represented citizens who have voted for a party that has obtained at least 1% of the votes of the population, or by independent members of Parliament who have obtained at least 73,000 votes for the Chamber of Deputies and 168,000 votes for the Senate. The signatures supporting the candidacies of political parties and of independent candidates may also be collected online, citizens being able to sign with any form of digital signature recognised by law.”
Article 62(2), whose former wording was “The organisations of citizens belonging to national minorities which fail to obtain in the elections the number of votes required to be represented in Parliament are entitled to one deputy seat each, under the conditions of the electoral law. The citizens of a national minority may be represented by one organisation only”, has been amended in order to guarantee the representation of as large a number of citizens as possible in the Parliament of Romania. To that end there has been established at constitutional level an electoral threshold for entry into Parliament of at least 1% for any party and of at least 73,000 votes for the Chamber of Deputies and 168,000 votes for the Senate for persons wishing to stand as independents. This measure, inspired by the arrangements in the Constitution of Italy, is such as to increase the representativeness of Romanian citizens in Parliament, as well as that of the national minorities, who will be able to send to Parliament whatever representative their members decide — one or more members of Parliament — without any further need for a “selection” carried out by the State from among the “organisations” “approved” as representing the national minorities.
This amendment will have the effect of greater democratisation and of an increase in the role and power of Parliament within the architecture of the Romanian State, starting from the observation that at the heart of parliamentary democracy lies the principle of civic representation, a pillar guaranteeing that the voice of the people is heard and respected within the structures of State power. In that context, the proposed revision of the text of Article 62 of the Constitution of Romania is a subject of the greatest interest, essential to the health and democratic evolution of Romanian society.
Under the proposed revision, a party will have to obtain at least 1% of the votes of the population in order to be represented in Parliament, while independent members will require a threshold of 73,000 votes for the Chamber of Deputies and 168,000 for the Senate. This change will substantially reshape the political landscape, giving small parties and independents a greater chance to contribute to national decisions. In order to understand the importance of this revision, we must examine the present system. At present, Romanian electoral law imposes fairly high thresholds for political parties — 5% of the votes cast — thresholds capable of discouraging political participation and diversity in Parliament.
By contrast, reducing that threshold to just 1% will encourage pluralism and provide the opportunity for less-heard voices to be represented. Starting from the premise that a diversity of opinions and the representation of as broad a spectrum of citizens’ interests as possible are essential to democratic functioning, the proposed revision is a step in the right direction. The amendments to the text of the Constitution will lead to an increase in the number of parties and independents in Parliament, thereby contributing to a greater fragmentation of power and to the prevention of its accumulation in the hands of a few dominant entities.
In addition, this change recognises the importance and the role that independent members of Parliament can play in politics. A vote for an independent candidate is often a vote of confidence in an individual’s capacity to represent the interests of the electorate, independently of the guidelines of a political party. The threshold proposed for independents remains sufficiently accessible to allow public figures with a solid base of supporters to enter the race for a seat in Parliament. The differentiated thresholds reflect the distinct nature of party candidacies as against independent ones and recognise the different challenges each type of candidacy involves.
Approaching the subject from the citizen’s perspective, this revision of Article 62 will contribute to greater civic involvement and to increased confidence in the electoral process. In an era in which the feeling of alienation from the political class is ever more pronounced, the possibility of seeing a broader spectrum of options represented in Parliament may serve as a catalyst for electoral participation.
Likewise, permitting the online collection of signatures in support of candidacies is a step towards modernising the electoral process and adapting it to the digital age. Digitalisation has become an inevitable component of our daily lives, and our electoral policies and systems must keep pace with these changes. Digital signatures are recognised in many areas of public and private administration, so extending them to the sphere of supporting candidacies could encourage broader civic participation, especially among young people.
Critics of this revision may argue that a Parliament with more fragmented representation could lead to political instability or to difficulties in forming the majorities needed to govern. The experience of other European democracies suggests, however, that such a system can stimulate inter-party dialogue and collaboration — aspects capable of contributing to more balanced governance and to legislation more attentive to the diverse needs of society.
Comparing with other European countries, we observe that Romania is not alone in facing the challenges of equitable representation within national parliaments. For example, in Germany the threshold for entry into the Bundestag is 5% of the votes or the winning of at least three direct mandates. In Poland the threshold for the Sejm is 5%, but for electoral coalitions it rises to 8% — as against Romania, where it may reach as much as 10% for coalitions. By contrast, countries such as the Netherlands have no electoral threshold at all, thus allowing a varied range of parties in Parliament. Such diversity may appear disadvantageous in terms of governmental stability, but on the other hand it offers a truer picture of the political spectrum and of citizens’ electoral preferences.
To understand better, let us look at the Constitution of Italy, which offers an example of a mixed electoral system combining proportional with majority representation. In Italy this system allows balanced representation between large and small parties, as well as for independent candidates, thereby ensuring that all political currents are represented in Parliament. This comparison leads us to the essential question: could the Italian model serve as an inspiration for Romania? By adopting a lower threshold for entry into Parliament, close to the Italian system, Romania could favour political pluralism and reduce the concentration of power in the hands of a few dominant parties.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 62(2) of the Constitution of Romania constitutes a reform with the potential to bring fresh air into Romanian politics, promoting inclusiveness and diversity. By lowering the electoral threshold and recognising the role of independent members of Parliament, this proposed revision could not only improve representativeness in Parliament but also consolidate citizens’ confidence in the country’s democratic institutions. The proposed revision is therefore not merely a matter of figures and electoral thresholds but a subject touching the foundations of democracy through the prism of participation and representation. It is a call for a more flexible democracy, adapted to contemporary social dynamics and to the need to recognise political diversity. A Romania with a more diverse Parliament will contribute to consolidating democracy and to increasing citizens’ involvement in political life. This constitutional reform represents an opportunity to build a political system more open and more responsive to changes in society and to the aspirations and needs of its electorate.
18. After point (k) of Article 65(2) there is added a new point, point (l), reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(l) Appoints the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Chief Prosecutors of the National Anticorruption Directorate and of the Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism, for a term of four years, renewable once only.”
In Article 65 of the Constitution of Romania, headed “Sittings of the Chambers”, there is added after point (k) a point (l) conferring a new power on Parliament — a power that will enhance the role and importance of the “supreme representative body of the Romanian people”: “Appointing the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Chief Prosecutors of the National Anticorruption Directorate and of the Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism.”
At present, Article 65 of the Constitution of Romania governs the powers of Parliament, and paragraph (2), which runs up to point (k), covers a wide range of competences. In the present socio-political context, however, the need emerges for a legislative adjustment through the addition of point (l). This amendment proposes that Parliament play a decisive role in the appointment of the Prosecutor General and of the chief prosecutors of the country’s most important investigative directorates.
Conferring this power on Parliament — a power which until the present amendment was among the powers of the President under Article 94(1)(c) of the Constitution — is intended to democratise and make transparent both the competitions and the appointments to the management positions of the Prosecutor General’s Office and of the Directorates within it, which constitutes a reinforcement of Parliament’s supreme function within the State.
Starting from the premise that at the heart of democracy lies the principle of the separation of powers within the State — an essential pillar securing the balance and proper functioning of a society — the basis of that principle is the idea that the legislative, executive and judicial powers must function independently, each with well-defined competences and none able to intervene in the domain of another. From this perspective, the revision of Article 65 of the Constitution with a view to adding a new point (l) is of major importance for the architecture of judicial power in Romania. Article 65 of the Constitution of Romania concerns the role and powers of Parliament, the supreme body of representation of the Romanian people and the sole legislative authority of the country.
The proposed revision seeks to add a new point, (l), providing that, in joint sitting, the Chambers of Parliament “Appoint the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Chief Prosecutors of the National Anticorruption Directorate and of the Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism”. This amendment represents a turning point in the manner of appointment to the highest offices in Romania’s criminal-investigation machinery.
First, we must understand the present context in which this proposed revision is raised. In recent years Romania has made significant progress in the fight against corruption and in consolidating the rule of law, a process supported by European and international institutions. That fight is, however, far from complete, and there are constant concerns about political influence in the appointment of high-ranking prosecutors, which may undermine the independence of the judicial system. The proposed revision seeks to create a more transparent and accountable appointment process, ensuring that the persons selected for these crucial roles in the fight against corruption are chosen on the basis of professional merit and not of political affiliation or sympathy. This could contribute to greater confidence in the justice system, essential for the consolidation of democracy. The debate on amending Article 65 forms part of a broader trend of judicial reform aimed at aligning Romanian practice with European standards. Those standards underline the need to protect the independence of prosecutors and to avoid external interference in the administration of justice. One of the strong arguments in favour of the revision is that establishing a clear legal framework for the appointment of the Prosecutor General and of the chief prosecutors of the DNA and DIICOT will reduce the risk of politicising justice. At the same time, it guarantees that these key positions are held by professionals of impeccable reputation, which is essential to the credibility and effectiveness of the judicial system.
The arguments in favour of this revision are manifold. The first and most important is the consolidation of the principle of the separation of powers within the State — legislative, executive and judicial. Through Parliament’s direct involvement in the appointment of the highest prosecutors, greater independence from executive influence is secured, which is a fundamental pillar of a State governed by the rule of law. This change could reduce the risk of politicising justice, an aspect frequently criticised by European and international bodies monitoring the rule of law. A second argument concerns the accountability and transparency of the appointment process. The involvement of Parliament entails public debates, hearings and the possibility for civil society to take part in scrutinising candidates. This could lead to a more rigorous selection and a more open process, thereby increasing public confidence in the judicial system. Account must also be taken of the international context. Many Member States of the European Union have similar procedures in place, which suggests that such an appointment mechanism is compatible with democratic values and with the principles of good governance recognised at European level. This alignment with European standards is essential for securing effective cooperation and the mutual recognition of judicial decisions among Member States. A further argument arises from the need to counter the phenomenon of corruption. The Chief Prosecutors of the National Anticorruption Directorate and of the Directorate for the Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism are in the front line of the fight against this scourge. Ensuring that their appointment is made in a transparent and independent manner increases the effectiveness of the fight against corruption and improves the image of justice nationally and internationally.
Moreover, limiting the term of office to four years, renewable once only, is a measure that prevents stagnation and promotes dynamism within judicial institutions. This limitation could also discourage any tendency towards the long-term accumulation of power in the hands of a single individual. In conclusion, the revision of Article 65 of the Constitution through the addition of point (l) is a measure deserving serious consideration from the perspective of strengthening the rule of law and aligning with European standards. It is a necessary step to ensure that the key structures of the judicial system are led by competent persons chosen through a transparent and equitable process. It would be a powerful signal that Romania is dedicated to combating corruption and strengthening democracy. Ultimately, the proposed revision of the Constitution is not merely a matter of conforming to a European model but a demonstration of domestic political maturing. It is a moment in which political decision-makers can show that they place the public interest and the principles of legal integrity above any momentary political calculation. The revision of Article 65 is therefore not only necessary but imperative for the continued development of a robust justice system that genuinely serves the interests of the citizen and contributes to consolidating the rule of law in Romania. The initiative to revise the Constitution, and in particular Article 65, must therefore be seen as an opportunity to reform and improve judicial and oversight mechanisms in accordance with the highest democratic standards. It is not merely a matter of aligning with European directives but of assuming a firm commitment to consolidating democracy and the rule of law in Romanian society. In this process it is essential that all interested parties — politicians, members of the judiciary, legal experts and citizens — collaborate and contribute constructive arguments.
19. In Article 70, after paragraph (2) there is inserted paragraph (3), reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) The office of deputy or senator shall also cease where the holder is removed from office by a local referendum convened in the electoral constituency in which he was elected by a number of 7,300 citizens in the case of a deputy and of 16,800 citizens in the case of a senator. The signatures for convening the referendum may also be collected online, citizens being able to sign with any form of digital signature recognised by law. A referendum for the removal of a member of Parliament may not be organised in the last 6 months of the term of office. The member of Parliament is removed if one half plus one of those taking part in the referendum vote in favour of removal, irrespective of the turnout quorum. After the Constitutional Court has found that the member’s mandate has ceased, the vacant seat shall be filled, until the next elections are held, by the next candidate elected in the electoral constituency concerned at the last elections.”
The revision of Article 70 of the Constitution of Romania through the insertion of a new paragraph enabling citizens to remove members of Parliament by local referendum is not a mere amendment but a major step in consolidating participatory democracy and securing the direct accountability of elected representatives to the electorate. The present proposal is a direct consequence of Article 2(1), which provides that “National sovereignty belongs to the Romanian people, who exercise it through their representative bodies, constituted by free, periodic and fair elections, as well as by referendum”, and constitutes a direct application of the exercise of national sovereignty through referendum. At a time when political dynamics are in continual change and the voice of the citizen must be more present and democracy “more direct”, revising the text of certain articles of the Constitution becomes a pressing necessity. Under the proposal, the office of deputy or senator may cease not only through resignation or incompatibility but also through the direct will of citizens expressed by referendum. This mechanism of revocation, also known as “recall”, is a democratic instrument conferring on the electorate the power to withdraw the confidence granted to a member of Parliament before the end of his term. The insertion of paragraph (3) into Article 70 brings to the fore the idea of the direct accountability of representatives to those who elected them.
In order to initiate the removal referendum, a significant number of citizens must be mobilised — 7,300 in the case of a deputy and 16,800 in the case of a senator. These figures are not arbitrary; they represent a reasonable proportion of a constituency’s electorate, thereby ensuring that only an undertaking with authentic popular support can take place. Such a figure represents significant participation, conferring a threshold of seriousness on the demand of the population. Where the majority of voters opt for the removal of the member of Parliament, irrespective of the quorum, the Constitutional Court will find that the mandate has ceased and the vacant seat will be filled by the next candidate on the electoral list until the next elections.
This provision introduces a new level of direct accountability of members of Parliament to their electorate. Although on paper members of Parliament are delegates of the people and ought to represent their interests, the gap between electoral promises and actual conduct can sometimes create dissatisfaction among the electorate. The proposed revision allows citizens to act directly when they feel that their representative is not discharging his mandate satisfactorily.
The rationale of this revision turns on the idea of the direct accountability of members of Parliament to the electorate. This new paragraph would enable citizens to remove a deputy or senator by local referendum, thereby giving communities the power to revoke the mandate of a member of Parliament who no longer represents the interests and will of those who elected him. This mechanism of direct control could fundamentally transform the relationship between electors and elected, securing greater accountability and transparency in the legislative process. The central point of this proposal is that, in essence, a member of Parliament must be a servant of the people and not merely a representative. He must be in permanent contact with the realities and needs of his electoral constituency. Should he or she deviate from these expectations, citizens would have a concrete instrument for expressing their dissatisfaction — the local referendum.
Such a measure may serve as a catalyst for greater civic involvement, since citizens are called upon to take an active part in the process of overseeing and evaluating the activity of members of Parliament. Through the possibility of convening a local referendum, members of Parliament are encouraged to fulfil their electoral promises and to maintain a constant link with their electoral base, at the risk of losing their mandate in the event of poor performance or inappropriate conduct.
The revision of Article 70 and the introduction of this provision also come in the context of a global wish to renew confidence in democratic institutions. In recent years we have observed a growing trend of citizen scepticism towards the capacity of elected representatives to serve the public interest. This “recall” instrument may function as a corrective mechanism, a kind of “reset button” for the choices made by the electorate, giving people the chance to revisit their decisions when their representatives no longer meet expectations.
A thorough understanding of this mechanism also requires an analysis of the conditions of its implementation. A referendum for the removal of a member of Parliament may not be organised in the last 6 months of the term, thereby ensuring that it is not used as a political instrument in pre-electoral periods. In addition, for removal to be effective, one half plus one of those taking part in the referendum must vote in favour, thereby eliminating dependence on a turnout quorum that could impede the expression of the popular will.
The mechanism proposed in the new Article 70(3) therefore combines in a balanced way the principles of representative democracy with those of direct democracy. This approach respects national sovereignty while at the same time increasing accountability and transparency in governance. It reflects a basic principle of democracy: power derives from the will of the people. From this perspective, the new paragraph of Article 70 introduces a new level of direct accountability of members of Parliament to their electorate — accountability that is not confined to the periodic electoral ballot but may be activated at any moment during the exercise of the mandate.
This mechanism of “recall”, as it is known in other legal systems, seeks to increase the accountability of elected representatives and to encourage greater congruence between the actions of members of Parliament and the will of those who voted for them.
In order better to understand the context and possible implications of this revision, it is useful to look at how other States have incorporated similar procedures into their constitutional structure. For example, in the United States of America the recall mechanism is a common feature in many of its states, allowing electors to revoke their elected officials before the expiry of their term.
In California this process was famously used when, in 2003, Governor Gray Davis was removed and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The recall procedure in the USA differs from state to state, but in essence it allows citizens to remove an official through a petition followed by a vote. By contrast, countries such as the United Kingdom have no such direct mechanism, but in 2015, through the Recall of MPs Act, they introduced the possibility of triggering a recall process where a member of Parliament is sentenced to imprisonment or suspended from the House of Commons for a period. That process is, however, much narrower and is not initiated directly by electors. In some countries, such as Lithuania and Slovakia, the constitutions allow the removal of representatives through referendums initiated by citizens. This demonstrates a recognition of the importance of direct public oversight in maintaining integrity and accountability among elected officials.
To understand this initiative better, we may look to the Swiss model of direct democracy, where citizens have considerable power over political decisions. In Switzerland, referendums and popular initiatives are ordinary instruments through which the population exercises its will. By comparison, the introduction of a similar mechanism in Romania could consolidate participatory democracy and increase the degree of civic involvement.
Moreover, this proposal is consistent with current trends towards the digitalisation and increased accessibility of democratic processes. The possibility of collecting signatures online for convening a referendum reflects an adaptation to the realities of modern society, in which technology plays an ever more important role in facilitating civic participation. In Romania, where the use of technology and of the internet is continually growing, the implementation of such an option could stimulate citizens’ involvement in the democratic process. In addition, the threshold set for the number of signatures required to initiate a referendum — 7,300 for a deputy and 16,800 for a senator — ensures that only significant support from the electorate can trigger such a process. This prevents abuses and ensures that the removal of a member of Parliament is the result of an authentic collective will and not of political manoeuvring or momentary impulses. As regards the turnout quorum, the fact that removal may be effected irrespective of it, provided that the majority of those present vote in favour, underlines the intention to give citizens real power.
Returning to the proposed revision of the Constitution of Romania, the revision of Article 70 could provide a powerful instrument of civic involvement and could function as a genuine mechanism of balance in the political sphere. This possibility of removing members of Parliament by local referendum could bring about greater transparency and could ensure that political decisions are more closely aligned with the wishes of the electorate.
20. Article 72(3) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) In the case of flagrante delicto, deputies or senators may be detained and searched. The Minister of Justice shall inform the president of the Chamber without delay of the detention and the search.”
In the dynamic context of present socio-political realities, the revision of legislative texts becomes a pressing necessity in order to secure a coherent and effective legal system. Article 72 of the Constitution of Romania, concerning the immunity of deputies and senators, is no exception to this imperative.
The starting point of the proposed revision of Article 72(3) is the principle of the equality of citizens before the law. In its present form, the paragraph confers on members of Parliament a degree of protection capable of being interpreted as a privilege incompatible with that fundamental principle. It is essential to understand that parliamentary immunity is not and must not be a shield for those who break the law.
In a robust democracy no one is above the law, including those elected to represent it. The proposed revision therefore seeks to align parliamentary immunity with the standards of justice applicable to any citizen.
The amendment proposes that, in the case of flagrante delicto, deputies and senators may be detained and searched, with immediate notification to the Minister of Justice and to the president of the Chamber concerned, the possibility for members of Parliament to revoke that measure being removed — a possibility presently afforded by the last sentence of paragraph 3: “If the Chamber notified finds that there are no grounds for detention, it shall immediately order the revocation of that measure.”
This amendment could help eliminate the perception of impunity hanging over the political class and thereby increase citizens’ confidence in the institutions of the State. In analysing the implications of this revision, we must weigh the individual rights and freedoms of members of Parliament against the need to secure integrity and accountability in the exercise of public office.
Parliamentary immunity was originally conceived as a guarantee against abuses of power, protecting the freedom of expression and of decision of the people’s elected representatives within legislative procedures. In practice, however, inviolability may become an obstacle to the application of the law and to justice. Cases of flagrante delicto require a rapid and effective response from the judicial authorities, and the present process, which requires the approval of the Chamber to which the member of Parliament concerned belongs, may delay or even impede the administration of justice.
The proposed amendment raises not only the question of making judicial proceedings more efficient but also that of securing better transparency within the institutions of the State. By removing the step of prior approval by the Chamber for the detention of members of Parliament in cases of flagrante delicto, the capacity of the judiciary to act unimpeded and in real time is enhanced. This is a move towards a more clearly defined separation of powers within the State, in which the legislature does not intervene in the activity of the judiciary.
Likewise, the proposed revision responds to a social demand to see the law applied equally to all citizens, whatever their position or office. This step may be regarded as a natural development in the maturing of the democratic process, in which transparency and accountability become fundamental values.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 72(3) of the Constitution is a necessity in the present context, in order to align Romanian legislation with the standards of justice and equity. This legislative change may play a crucial role in restoring public confidence in the institutions of the State and in consolidating the rule of law.
By ensuring that no member of Parliament can evade the legal consequences of his actions, the integrity of the legal system is strengthened and Romania’s commitment to democratic principles is reaffirmed. The revision of paragraph 3 is therefore an important step in the right direction. It is a signal that Romania undertakes continually to perfect its constitutional framework so as to reflect the realities and aspirations of its society. This constitutional amendment will not only remove an anomaly in the relationship between citizens and their representatives but will also strengthen confidence in an equitable system of government.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that any amendment to the Constitution is a grave decision and must not be taken lightly. It is the duty of members of Parliament to weigh this proposal seriously and to ensure that the changes will benefit the whole of society and not one group or another.
The revision of Article 72(3) of the Constitution is more than a mere legal adjustment; it is an affirmation of Romania’s commitment to the principles of integrity and equity in serving its citizens.
This legislative development represents a step towards consolidating democracy and the rule of law, in which every individual, whatever his rank or social status, is equal before the law. As Romanian society advances, it is essential that its legislative framework progress at the same pace. The amendment proposed to Article 72(3) is an indicator of that development and of the wish to secure fair and impartial justice for all.
21. Article 74(1) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(1) The legislative initiative belongs, as the case may be, to the Government, to deputies, to senators or to a number of at least 30,000 citizens entitled to vote. The signatures in support of citizens’ legislative initiatives may also be collected online, citizens being able to sign with any form of digital signature recognised by law.”
The amendment of Article 74(1) (headed “Legislative initiative”), which at present reads “(1) The legislative initiative belongs, as the case may be, to the Government, to deputies, to senators or to a number of at least 100,000 citizens entitled to vote. The citizens who exercise their right of legislative initiative must come from at least a quarter of the country’s counties, and in each of those counties, or in the municipality of Bucharest, at least 5,000 signatures must be registered in support of that initiative”, is such as to increase democracy in Romania, to raise the degree of involvement and the confidence of Romanians in Parliament, and to enhance the influence and power of the citizen in the act of legislating in Romania. For that reason the number of citizens entitled to vote who must sign a legislative initiative has been reduced from 100,000 to 30,000, the other conditions mentioned in the previous wording of the constitutional text — all of which were such as to burden the process of popular legislation — being likewise removed.
In that spirit we must also consider the proposed revision of Article 74, which calls for equal attention. This article, concerning the legislative initiative, is a key component of the legislative process and of the functioning of participatory democracy. Article 74(1), in its present form, provides that the legislative initiative belongs to the Government, to deputies, to senators and to a number of at least 100,000 citizens entitled to vote. The proposal to amend that threshold to 30,000 citizens is a recognition of the need to facilitate civic involvement in the legislative process. By lowering the number of citizens required to propose legislative initiatives, new horizons are opened for the active participation of civil society in the mechanisms of governance.
The arguments supporting the revision are manifold and concern both the consolidation of democracy and the increased efficiency of the legislative process. The present threshold of 100,000 citizens may discourage smaller and less representative groups from initiating laws capable of benefiting local communities or specialised interest groups. Reducing it to 30,000 opens the way to a greater variety of legislative proposals, giving a vital impetus to citizens’ initiatives and to the diversity of public debate.
Another important argument is that of efficiency. With a lower threshold, the collection of the required signatures becomes a more accessible task, thereby allowing draft laws to reach the parliamentary agenda more quickly. This can lead to a better adaptation of legislation to changing social and economic realities, ensuring that laws respond adequately to citizens’ needs.
In addition, lowering the threshold for the legislative initiative may stimulate citizens’ interest in the democratic process. People may be more inclined to take part in shaping the policies that directly affect them if they know that they have a real chance of being heard. In this way not only the quantity but also the quality of civic participation may be improved. Considering all these arguments, the revision of Article 74(1) is not merely an opportunity but a necessity in order to support more active participation by citizens in political life. This could lead to greater responsiveness on the part of the political class to citizens’ demands and to a more faithful representation of the will of the people.
Likewise, permitting the online collection of signatures in support of citizens’ legislative initiatives is a step towards democratising the legislative process and adapting it to the digital age. Digitalisation has become an inevitable component of our daily lives, and our policies and electoral systems must keep pace with these changes. Digital signatures are recognised in many areas of public and private administration, so extending them to the sphere of supporting initiatives could encourage broader civic participation, especially among young people.
This amendment could have a significant impact on civic participation in the legislative process and could reflect a step towards a more inclusive and accessible democracy. In order better to understand the rationale behind this proposal, it is instructive to draw a comparison with other European constitutions. For example, in Germany a popular legislative initiative requires the signatures of 0.1% of the electorate in order to be considered, while in Italy 50,000 signatures or 5 regional committees of supporters are needed. In Spain, by contrast, introducing a popular legislative initiative requires 500,000 signatures, a significantly higher threshold than the Romanian proposal. This difference suggests that legislative-initiative thresholds vary widely among European States, each country adjusting to its own political and cultural context. High thresholds such as those in Spain may discourage civic participation and directly limit participatory democracy.
On the other hand, a low number of required signatures, as proposed in Romania, could facilitate citizens’ involvement in the legislative process but could also jeopardise the seriousness of legislative initiatives through the possible appearance of a large number of proposals with limited support or insufficient analysis. In this varied landscape, the analysis and adjustment of the legislative-initiative threshold must take account of the delicate balance between accessibility and efficiency. The proposed amendment of the Constitution of Romania appears to seek that balance, lowering the barriers for citizens without sacrificing the integrity of the legislative process. The arguments in favour of this revision are manifold.
First, the present threshold of 100,000 signatures may be regarded as discouraging for citizens’ initiatives, especially since mobilising such a large number of people is often difficult logistically and financially. Reducing the number to 30,000 could stimulate more intense activism and could give a stronger voice to smaller groups and to segments of the population that until now might have felt excluded from the law-making process.
Second, the present condition requiring the collection of signatures from at least a quarter of the country’s counties may create inequalities among citizens according to their region of residence. Citizens in less populated areas, or in areas where civic involvement is lower, may thus have difficulty in making their voices heard. The proposed amendment will remedy this disadvantage, providing a more equitable representation of the population in the legislative process.
In addition, there is the argument that a lower signature threshold could encourage a greater diversity of legislative initiatives. This could lead to a broader and deeper public debate, reflecting more faithfully the concerns and needs of citizens. Diversity and pluralism of ideas are fundamental pillars of any healthy democracy, and facilitating access to the legislative process is essential to encouraging them. At the same time, it is important to emphasise that the proposal to reduce the number of required signatures does not mean diminishing the importance or seriousness of a legislative initiative. The mechanisms of filtering and debate within Parliament remain in force to ensure that only well-founded proposals of public interest advance in the legislative process.
In conclusion, the proposed amendment of Article 74 of the Constitution is an essential step towards consolidating participatory democracy. By lowering the threshold of citizens required for a legislative initiative, the direct involvement of the population in law-making is facilitated, thereby reflecting more faithfully the will of citizens and the dynamics of society.
Democracy is not static; it must evolve together with the society it serves. The revision of this constitutional article shows that Romania is prepared to take concrete steps to improve democratic processes and to respond better to the needs of its citizens. The time has come for legislative initiatives to cease being monopolised by a small number of actors and to become accessible to a broader range of the population. This would not only encourage a more constructive dialogue between citizens and the institutions of the State but would also increase the transparency and accountability of political decision-makers before the electorate.
22. Article 75(2) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(2) The first Chamber notified shall rule within 45 days. For codes and other laws of particular complexity the time-limit is 60 days. Where these time-limits are exceeded, the draft laws or legislative proposals shall be deemed to have been rejected.”
The amendment to Article 75(2) of the Constitution, headed “Notification of the Chambers”, removes the possibility for the first Chamber notified to “adopt tacitly” legislative texts — a possibility afforded by the earlier wording (“Where these time-limits are exceeded, the draft laws or legislative proposals shall be deemed to have been adopted.”). Removing the possibility of tacit adoption increases Parliament’s accountability and is intended to raise citizens’ confidence in their representatives, elements absolutely necessary to confirm the enhanced role of that institution in relation to the other powers.
At the heart of the legislative mechanism of any democracy lies not only the principle of representativeness but also that of efficiency. The Constitution of Romania, the supreme law of the State, is the main pillar supporting the entire normative edifice, and legislative procedures must reflect not only the popular will but also the capacity to respond swiftly and adequately to the needs of society. Article 75 of the present Constitution, in its current form, establishes the working method of the Chambers of Parliament in the process of adopting laws in the first Chamber notified, making possible the tacit adoption, without any debate whatsoever, of laws that may be of major importance to Romanian society. Paragraph (2) is therefore of particular importance, since it defines the time-limits within which the first Chamber notified is required to rule on a legislative initiative.
In the present socio-political context, the revision of this paragraph is not merely a necessity but a pressing urgency. At present, legislative procedures can be slow and inefficient, and the time-limits laid down in Article 75(2) are often not observed, which is why many laws are adopted “tacitly” by the first Chamber notified. This generates significant delays in the legislative process, affecting the dynamics of law-making and hence the State’s capacity to react to rapid changes in society. More serious still is the fact that it fundamentally undermines the basic operating principle of the Parliament of Romania: bicameralism.
Why is it so important to revise this article and, above all, the time-limits it imposes? First, we must bear in mind the accelerated pace of change that Romania faces, both domestically and in the international context. Legislation must be agile and capable of rapid adaptation in order to meet emerging challenges, whether economic crises, technological developments or challenges of a social nature.
Moreover, the revision of Article 75 could help improve the quality of parliamentary debate. By establishing clear and mandatory time-limits, members of Parliament would be encouraged to organise themselves and to discuss legislative initiatives in a more structured and effective manner. This procedural discipline could reduce the cases in which important laws are postponed indefinitely or adopted hastily, without a thorough analysis of their implications.
A frequent problem in the legislative procedure is the overlapping of time-limits and the absence of a clear mechanism for prioritising draft laws. The proposed amendment could ensure that genuinely urgent and essential laws are treated with the priority they deserve, thereby avoiding legislative blockages capable of having a negative impact on the whole country.
In addition, the extended time-limit for laws of particular complexity, such as codes, recognises the need for additional time to ensure that these vital documents are examined with the necessary care.
The consequences of failing to observe the present time-limits are minimal, and this must change. By introducing a provision under which draft laws or legislative proposals are deemed rejected where the time-limits are exceeded, a powerful incentive for legislative efficiency and accountability is created, and the principle of bicameralism in the Parliament of Romania is consolidated.
This measure could prevent situations in which projects essential to the development and welfare of society are neglected or forgotten in bureaucratic drawers. It is essential to emphasise that the revision of Article 75 must not be regarded as a mere procedural formality but as a reaffirmation of Romania’s commitment to the principles of the rule of law and of effective governance.
Through this amendment it is ensured that the legislative process becomes more predictable and more transparent, increasing citizens’ confidence in the institutions of the State.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 75 of the Constitution of Romania is a critical step in consolidating democracy and governmental efficiency. It will not only facilitate a swifter and more coherent legislative process but will also improve the quality of the laws adopted.
23. Article 83(1) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(1) The term of office of the President of Romania is 4 years and is exercised from the date of taking the oath, which shall take place in the same calendar year as the election of Parliament.”
The amendment of Article 83(1) of the Constitution, headed “Duration of the term of office”, has the effect of reducing the President’s term from 5 years to 4 years, returning to the duration of the presidential term as it stood before the 2003 revision of the Constitution.
The reality of the past 20 years has shown that there is no justification for a 5-year presidential term when all other elected officials in Romania have terms of 4 years. This has led to an artificial and unjustified enhancement of the role and power of the President, and it has already been demonstrated that it has not resulted in greater stability of the institutions of the Romanian State or in greater coherence and continuity of government projects.
On the contrary, a presidential term longer than that of Parliament has often led the President to impose his will at his discretion, even where that will no longer reflected the will of the majority of voters in Romania.
Not least, the misalignment of presidential and parliamentary elections has had the effect of unjustifiably increasing the costs of the Romanian State and unjustifiably prolonging electoral periods.
The proposal comes at a time when the synchronisation of presidential and parliamentary electoral cycles has become a subject of national interest, with significant implications for political stability and the efficiency of government. In its present form, Article 83 provides that the term of office of the President of Romania is 5 years.
The proposed amendment suggests reducing that period to 4 years, with the provision that the President take the oath in the same calendar year as the election of Parliament.
This amendment would align the electoral cycles and could therefore contribute to better cohesion among the powers of the State. Why is such a change necessary? First, harmonising electoral terms could reduce periods of cohabitation — those intervals in which the President and the parliamentary majority come from opposing political camps. Such periods are often marked by conflict and deadlock in decision-making, which hampers the implementation of public policy and can lead to political instability.
Harmonising electoral terms not only eases political tension but also facilitates better collaboration among the institutions of the State. Such collaboration is essential to the progress and continued development of the nation as a whole. In addition, citizens would benefit from a unified vision and from greater coherence in the implementation of long-term national strategies. Second, revising the presidential term could lead to better democratic representation. With a synchronised electoral cycle, citizens would have the opportunity to express their views more coherently, voting in the same political context for both branches of government. This change could also help increase turnout, a vital factor in consolidating Romanian democracy. Moreover, a synchronised electoral cycle for parliamentary and presidential elections could simplify the electoral process for citizens, making it less confusing and easier to follow. At present, with elections held at different intervals, there is a tendency towards declining public interest and electoral fatigue, which is often reflected in low turnout. Through synchronisation, however, the electorate would become more motivated and more engaged in the democratic process.
Another argument in favour of revising the presidential term concerns administrative efficiency. With a 4-year term aligned to the parliamentary cycle, overlaps and transition periods between administrations could be reduced, allowing a smoother transition and greater continuity in the administration of State affairs. It would thus be possible to avoid situations in which projects important to the country’s development are delayed or abandoned because of political change.
In addition, a shorter term could intensify the President’s political accountability to the electorate. He would be prompted to fulfil his electoral promises within a more condensed time-frame, which could increase the efficiency of the presidential administration and make governance more accountable and more transparent in the eyes of citizens.
The revision of the presidential term may also be seen as an opportunity to modernise the Romanian political system and adapt it to the dynamics of contemporary social and political change. In a world in which the speed of change is ever more pronounced, the flexibility and adaptability of State institutions to new realities become imperative. Reducing the presidential term to 4 years, aligned with the parliamentary elections, reflects an understanding of the need to respond more promptly and more effectively to citizens’ expectations.
For all these reasons, the solution adopted by the present initiative for the revision of the Constitution is a return to a 4-year term for the President of Romania — a term which must end and begin in the same year as the other mandates of Romania’s elected representatives (which requires that this and the manner of its implementation be set out in the transitional provisions of the present Law).
24. In Article 90, after paragraph 1 there are added paragraphs 2 and 3, reading as follows: → the text of the article → the text of the article
“(2) No referendum of any kind may be organised simultaneously with elections, whatever their nature.
(3) Consultative referendums may not be initiated on subjects for which the Constitution excludes the citizens’ initiative or which involve procedures concluded by mandatory referendums.”
In Article 90 of the Constitution of Romania, headed “The referendum”, after paragraph 1 (which reads “The President of Romania may, after consulting Parliament, ask the people to express their will by referendum on matters of national interest.”) two new paragraphs have been added limiting the President’s right to propose referendums. This addition, limiting the President’s right to propose referendums, is called for in the light of the experience of the past 33 years, during which various Presidents have abused that right in order to attain personal, electoral ends, without producing the effects declared as the aim of organising these procedures, which entail an enormous cost for the Romanian State. We recall in this respect the “Referendum on the transition to a unicameral parliament and the reduction of the number of members of Parliament” of 2009, organised by Traian Băsescu, and the referendum on justice imposed by Klaus Werner Iohannis in 2019. Both consultative referendums were organised during electoral periods and used as means of propaganda, yet remained without any concrete effect in the legal order of the Romanian State.
In order to limit the possibility of such abuses of right being committed in future by serving Presidents of Romania, the two paragraphs were introduced: the first prohibiting the organisation of referendums “simultaneously with elections, whatever their nature”, and the second expressly limiting the possibility of organising referendums “on subjects for which the Constitution excludes the citizens’ initiative or which involve procedures concluded by mandatory referendums” — a prohibition that was implicit in the Constitution in force before the present amendments.
In the light of the precedents mentioned above, the revision of the text of Article 90 of the Constitution becomes not merely relevant but imperative.
First, the importance of separating referendums from political elections — whether local, parliamentary or presidential — must be emphasised. The proposed paragraph (2) serves to consolidate the idea that every electoral or consultative process must be treated as of equal importance and assessed independently, without being influenced by another. Organising a referendum simultaneously with elections may mislead the electorate, dilute the messages and reduce the significance of each individual vote.
The addition of paragraph (3) is then intended to clarify and limit the fields in which the President of Romania may call consultative referendums. This brings greater clarity to the legal framework and prevents the initiation of referendums on subjects which, under the Constitution, may not be submitted to the popular will or which have already been settled by earlier referendums.
This proposal not only protects the essence of the vote previously cast by citizens but also respects the principle of the separation of powers within the State, avoiding situations in which the legislature is bypassed through popular initiatives on subjects falling within its exclusive competence.
Before going into detail, it is essential to understand the present context and why these additions are not merely convenient but necessary to the integrity of the democratic process. Romania has witnessed situations in which referendums were used for political purposes rather than as an instrument of direct consultation of the people on matters of national interest. In such circumstances, referendums may be perceived as a vehicle for the political agenda of those in power, which undermines confidence in this democratic mechanism. Establishing a clear framework in which referendums are separated from political elections therefore serves to strengthen the independence and secure the objectivity of each consultative or electoral process.
This helps prevent confusion among voters and secures a more informed participation, focused on the subjects proposed.
This framework also maintains the integrity of every vote, whether cast to elect representatives or to decide a specific question of public interest. On the other hand, limiting consultative referendum initiatives to subjects that are not excluded by the Constitution and have not already been decided by mandatory referendums is a measure that respects national sovereignty and the basic principles of the rule of law. It does not restrict the citizen’s right of initiative but, on the contrary, channels it towards subjects on which public opinion can have a real and constructive impact.
Examining the history of referendums in Romania, we observe that some were organised in a manner that called their neutrality into question and highlighted the need for reform in this field. For example, referendums held simultaneously with elections have often produced controversial results, reflecting a divided participation and heightened emotional charge, which affected the objectivity of citizens’ decisions.
These observations are not confined to Romania; many other democracies face similar challenges and have adopted rules to ensure that referendums remain an instrument for expressing the popular will, free from external influence and from temporal confusion with other electoral processes.
In the light of these examples, the proposed revision of Article 90 is an obligatory step towards Romania’s democratic maturing. The proposed paragraphs (2) and (3) are not merely a response to the problems identified but also a forward-looking measure designed to prevent future abuses and to strengthen the democratic process. Through these amendments the Constitution of Romania would better reflect the principles of the separation of powers and of respect for the popular will expressed authentically and deliberatively.
In addition, this revision could serve as a model of good practice for other nations facing similar challenges in the management of referendums.
Romania would thus position itself as an example to be followed in the international democratic space, showing that it is capable of adjusting its constitutional framework to the requirements of the evolution of society and of the rule of law.
In conclusion, the amendments proposed to Article 90 are essential for strengthening democracy and for securing the effective and responsible participation of citizens in decision-making processes. They will guarantee that every democratic mechanism functions fairly and transparently, without being vulnerable to manipulation or confusion.
The revision of the Constitution is not merely an act of legislative improvement but also a commitment to the democratic values and principles underlying Romanian society. By adopting these new paragraphs, Romania will demonstrate that it is prepared to align itself with international democratic standards and to assume an active role in promoting a clean and effective political system. This will consolidate citizens’ confidence in the institutions of the State and will improve the quality of democratic life by ensuring that every voice is heard and every vote counts. Improving the constitutional framework is a continuing process requiring vision, commitment and, above all, a deep understanding of the values guiding society. The proposals to amend Article 90 are the fruit of such an understanding and are intended to fortify those values, ensuring that the instruments of democracy remain effective and relevant.
This revision initiative is therefore a necessary development in aligning political practice with current democratic standards. It is evidence of maturity and responsibility, reflecting Romania’s wish to advance and to continue developing as a stable and respected democracy.
25. Point (b) of Article 94 is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(b) confers the ranks of marshal, general and admiral only with the binding opinion of the specialised committees of Parliament”.
Article 94 of the Constitution, headed “Other powers” (of the President), has been amended at point (b) of its sole paragraph so as to limit the President’s power to confer the ranks of “marshal, general and admiral” at his discretion; following the proposed revision the President may confer these ranks “only with the binding opinion of the specialised committees of Parliament”. → the text of the article
This amendment was made necessary by the history of the past 33 years, in which all the Presidents of Romania — all of them persons without any military qualification — have conferred at their discretion more than 1,000 such ranks, creating a camarilla of people with no competence, or with extremely limited competence, in their field of activity, who nevertheless became extremely loyal to the political figure who granted them these distinctions — a loyalty exceeding the normal limits in a democratic and functional State precisely because these distinctions are, in most cases, unwarranted.
For these reasons, in the present revised form of the Constitution the President is required to obtain “the binding opinion of the specialised committees of Parliament” before any promotion to the ranks of marshal, general and admiral, the decisive role in this procedure falling to Parliament through its specialised committees — as is likewise the case in States with a consolidated democracy such as the United States of America.
In the light of these changes, a broad debate opens on the balance of powers within the State and on the way in which they interact in decision-making. Through this new provision, Parliament assumes a more active role in the process of conferring the highest military ranks, which no longer remain at the exclusive discretion of the President.
A strong argument in favour of this revision is the need for transparency and accountability within the structures of the State. In a context in which a military rank reflects not only a recognition of competence but also of integrity and of service dedicated to the nation, it is essential that it be the result of a rigorous and objective process.
Likewise, involving the specialised committees provides a guarantee that the persons receiving these honorific titles will have the competence and experience necessary to bear them with dignity. It is a way of ensuring that military rank is not merely a reward for political loyalty but a recognition of genuine merit.
On the other hand, critics of this revision argue that it could lead to an excessive politicisation of the armed forces, in that Parliament, a political institution, would have a decisive say in the conferring of military ranks. The fear is that the committees’ decisions could be influenced by the parties’ political agenda rather than by the competence and individual qualities of those proposed for promotion.
As against the earlier system, in which the risk of politicisation was high because the conferring of ranks depended on a single person — the President — and not on a collegiate body such as the parliamentary committees, the revision introduces a multi-party approach, whose direct effect will be a more objective assessment of candidates for the rank of general and a reduction of partisan influence.
Moreover, the revision may help consolidate the role and image of the armed forces in society. By emphasising the requirement of professional competence and moral integrity, the standard for holding the highest military positions is raised, which may lead to greater confidence on the part of citizens in the country’s defence institutions.
It should be noted that the revision does not remove the President’s role in conferring ranks but balances it with an additional check, in order to secure greater rigour and transparency in the process. This balance among the powers of the State is a central pillar of modern democracies, and the revision of Article 94 of the Constitution may therefore be regarded as a step forward in consolidating that principle.
Finally, it is essential to recognise that the revision represents a step in the continuing process of reforming and modernising the institutions of the State, and also that Romania is aligning its practice with international standards, thereby improving its structure of governance and strengthening the rule of law.
In conclusion, the revision of point (b) of Article 94 of the Constitution represents an important moment in Romania’s democratic evolution. It raises not only the question of the process of conferring military ranks but also the basic principles of the functioning of the State. This amendment promotes accountability, transparency and professionalism in a field essential to national security.
26. Article 97(2) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(2) The President may be removed from office by a referendum convened by a number of at least 100,000 citizens entitled to vote, who must come from at least a quarter of the country’s counties. The signatures for convening the referendum may also be collected online, citizens being able to sign with any form of digital signature recognised by law. A referendum for the removal of the President may not be organised in the last 6 months of the term of office. The President is removed if one half plus one of those taking part in the referendum vote in favour of removal, irrespective of the turnout quorum.”
The present proposal for revision is a direct consequence of Article 2(1), which provides that “National sovereignty belongs to the Romanian people, who exercise it through their representative bodies, constituted by free, periodic and fair elections, as well as by referendum”, and constitutes a direct application of the exercise of national sovereignty through referendum. At a time when political dynamics are in continual change and the voice of the citizen must be more present and democracy “more direct”, revising the text of certain articles of the Constitution becomes a pressing necessity.
To that end Article 97 of the Constitution has also been revised, its paragraph (2) proposing a democratic mechanism for balancing power through the possibility of the President being removed directly by the people. This proposed revision reflects the principle of popular sovereignty and the need to adapt constitutional instruments to current social realities. What follows sets out the reasons why we consider this revision not merely opportune but essential.
First, the present requirement that a removal referendum be initiated by Parliament may lead to the blocking of the process by political majorities, which may be tempted to protect their own interest at the expense of the national interest. By making it possible for citizens to remove the President directly, and by setting at 100,000 the number of signatures needed to trigger a referendum, this process is democratised and an adequate response is provided to situations in which the President of the country exceeds his powers or fails to discharge his constitutional duties.
This amendment in fact means greater trust placed in citizens and a recognition of their active role in overseeing the presidential mandate. More than a mere numerical change, this amendment to Article 97(2) reflects a tendency introduced by the present revision to empower citizens in major political processes.
It is a recognition of the fact that, in the information age, people are better informed and more engaged in civic life and must therefore have a greater say in the decisions that affect them directly. On the other hand, the restriction preventing a referendum for the removal of the President from being organised in the last 6 months of the term is likewise a pertinent innovation.
It prevents situations in which the removal process could be used as an electoral-campaign instrument, distracting attention from real problems and from constructive electoral debate.
Likewise, setting a threshold of one half plus one for removal, irrespective of the turnout quorum, is an essential feature aimed at making the process effective. This provision avoids situations in which a high and hard-to-reach quorum can invalidate the will of the majority of those who actually take part in the vote. This is vital in order to ensure that the decision to remove genuinely reflects the wish of the population and is not the result of low turnout, which could be influenced by various external factors.
This reconfiguration of the mechanism for removing the President by referendum consolidates the principle of the accountability of political leaders to citizens. It is a step forward towards a participatory democracy in which every vote counts and every citizen has the power directly to influence the political course of the nation.
In addition, this constitutional revision may serve as a warning to any sitting President, reminding them that they are accountable to the people and that their mandate may be revoked if they fail to keep their promises or lose their legitimacy. This mechanism may act as a factor of balance and self-regulation within the political system, helping to prevent abuses of power and to encourage ethical and transparent conduct.
At the same time, the proposed revision is consistent with fundamental democratic values and with international practice. In many consolidated democracies, citizens have similar instruments at their disposal for expressing their sovereignty and defending their rights. By aligning with these standards, Romania consolidates its status as a democratic and accountable State, reaffirming its commitment to the principles of participatory and transparent governance.
In order better to understand this proposal, it is useful to make a comparison with other constitutions around the world. For example, in the USA the impeachment of the President requires a majority vote of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, being a strictly legislative process. In France, the removal of the President is possible only in cases of serious breach of the country’s laws, and the procedure involves Parliament sitting as Congress and the Constitutional Council.
The Romanian proposal, by contrast, facilitates a more direct process of citizen involvement in the mechanism of overseeing and sanctioning the head of State, thereby reflecting current trends towards a more participatory democracy. The arguments in favour of this revision are manifold: first, the removal process becomes more accessible and more transparent for the population. A parliamentary majority — which may be influenced by political games or circumstantial alliances — is no longer required, only the direct will of citizens. This could discourage presidents from adopting authoritarian conduct or from taking decisions contrary to the interests of the people. Second, the proposed change could reduce the risk of the presidency being seen as an almost untouchable office, increasing the leader’s accountability to the electorate. At the same time, by setting a threshold of at least 100,000 citizens from a quarter of the counties, abuses are avoided and it is ensured that only undertakings with substantial support can trigger a referendum.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 97(2) of the Constitution is a measure responding to the requirements of a dynamic society and an active citizenry. It is a recognition of the fact that, in a healthy democracy, ultimate power must remain in the hands of the people and that political leaders must remain in their service. This constitutional amendment proposes not merely a technical simplification but an evolution of the political system, a necessary adaptation to the present context in which civic dialogue and citizen participation are more important than ever.
From all of the above it may be inferred that the amendment of Article 97(2) is not only necessary but beneficial to the strengthening of the democratic structure of the Romanian State. The essence of democracy lies in the capacity of the system to reform itself and to adapt to the will of its citizens.
A Constitution is not a static document but a living one, which must breathe in unison with the aspirations and needs of the people it serves. Adjusting the mechanisms of check and balance, such as the one proposed for the removal of the President, is a necessary step to ensure that these aspirations are not merely heard but also fulfilled. The transformation proposed by Article 97(2) underlines the importance of the adaptability and constant evolution of the constitutional framework in the face of societal change. It is a recognition of the fact that democracy is not merely a system of government but a continuing process of perfecting and improving the relationship between State and citizens. It is therefore essential that this process of revision be inclusive and transparent, actively involving civil society, political parties, constitutional experts and, most importantly, ordinary citizens. Public debates, consultations and information campaigns should be the pillars on which this revision is built, ensuring that every voice is heard and that the final decision reflects the collective will of the nation. The revision of Article 97(2) must therefore be regarded not as a mere legislative amendment but as a cornerstone for the consolidation of participatory democracy in Romania. It symbolises the commitment to the principles of transparency, accountability and civic involvement.
Ultimately, this is a victory not only for the ordinary citizen but for the whole democratic edifice. Introducing this revision into the Constitution of Romania will open the way to other necessary reforms capable of bringing the political system still closer to citizens. It is a promise that the Romanian State is willing to evolve and to adapt to the requirements of the times in which we live — to be a modern State in which every citizen counts and has the power to change things.
The revision of Article 97(2) is therefore a necessity in an age in which democracy must manifest itself actively and perfect itself. It reflects the spirit of a responsible citizenry, eager to take part in consolidating the foundations of the rule of law and in improving governance.
In addition, the impact of technology and digitalisation in this context must not be overlooked. The possibility of collecting signatures online in order to initiate a referendum is a reflection of the digital age in which we live. This could simplify the process of civic participation and encourage greater involvement on the part of citizens, especially young people, who are more inclined to use digital tools.
In conclusion, the proposed amendment brings the concept of direct democracy to the fore and extends the scope of citizens’ action in political processes. It is a step towards a more democratic Romania, in which every individual has not only the right but also the capacity to influence the decisions that shape his future. The debates that will follow around this constitutional revision will test the maturity of civic dialogue in Romania and will provide a barometer of the commitment to democratic and participatory values.
For all these reasons, the revision of Article 97(2) appears not only as a necessity but also as an opportunity to strengthen the foundations of the rule of law and to promote a form of governance that respects and values the active participation of citizens in political life. It is an open invitation to every citizen to take part in sculpting Romania’s democratic future — a future in which power is truly in the hands of the people.
27. Article 103(1) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“The President of Romania shall propose for the approval of Parliament the candidate designated for the office of Prime Minister by the party or alliance of parties holding the majority in Parliament. Where that candidate does not obtain Parliament’s vote of confidence, the President shall designate another candidate after consulting the parties represented in Parliament.”
Article 103(1), headed “Investiture”, reads, until the entry into force of the present revision, as follows: “The President of Romania shall designate a candidate for the office of Prime Minister, after consulting the party holding an absolute majority in Parliament or, if there is no such majority, the parties represented in Parliament.” This insufficiently clear wording left the President free to nominate prime ministers according to his own will and to an agenda that was in most cases foreign to the electorate, various Presidents appointing to the head of the executive persons from parties that had not obtained the majority of the votes of Romanian electors. In this way artificial parliamentary majorities were repeatedly imposed, resulting in disastrous governments. Not least, this lacunary wording of the constitutional text left those holding the office of President free to transform that office from one of mediator among the powers of the State and representative of the State (under Article 80 of the Constitution) into one of player within the executive power, distorting the balance among the powers of the Romanian State.
For these reasons, the present amendment of paragraph 1 requires the President to propose for the approval of Parliament “the candidate designated for the office of Prime Minister by the party or alliance of parties holding the majority in Parliament”, and not a person designated at his own discretion.
Only where the person designated by the party or alliance of parties that obtained the largest number of votes fails to obtain Parliament’s vote of investiture may the President propose a person chosen by him “after consulting the parties represented in Parliament”.
In this way the Constitution as it will stand after revision by the present draft will restore the will of the electorate to the pre-eminent position it must have in a democracy, and the President will return to his fundamental functions: representative of the State and mediator among the powers of the State.
The proposed revision not only restores the balance of powers within the State but also consolidates the democratic principle of government, ensuring that the choice of Prime Minister reflects the will of the people expressed by the vote. This constitutional amendment is essential in order to avoid situations in which a minority party can control the government through a presidential nomination, to the detriment of the party or alliance that won the majority of the suffrage.
Democracy presupposes that decisions be taken by the majority chosen by the people, and this amendment to Article 103 serves to fortify that fundamental pillar. It is a further guarantee that the government will reflect the political orientation for which citizens voted, thereby consolidating confidence in democratic mechanisms and in the fairness of the process of forming the executive.
In addition, the revision of the text of Article 103 of the Constitution underlines the role and importance of Parliament in the process of investing the Government, thereby consolidating the principle of the separation of powers within the State and that of national sovereignty. This amendment prevents any attempt to concentrate power in the hands of a single entity or person and ensures that the executive is truly an extension of the legislative will — that is, of the popular will expressed through elected representatives.
A further argument in favour of this revision is that it prevents the formation of unstable and ephemeral governments resulting from obscure negotiations or circumstantial alliances not desired by the electorate. This amendment secures greater coherence and stability in government policy, and political parties will have to take more seriously the platforms and promises made during the electoral campaign, given that voters will see their interests represented directly through the majority party or governing alliance.
The role and responsibility of the President in the process of designating the Prime Minister thus become clearer and more limited, contributing to a more robust and transparent democracy. This revision of Article 103 of the Constitution is also a step forward towards accountable governance, in which citizens can exercise their rights and make their voices heard more effectively and more concretely.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 103(1) is a necessity in order to align Romanian legislation with the standards of consolidated democracies, where the choice of government is transparent and directly correlated with the will of the people. This constitutional change will contribute to political stability and will reduce the possibility of political manoeuvres deviating from the clear mandate conferred by citizens through the vote. It is an essential step in ensuring that the leaders chosen and the policies implemented are genuinely in the service of the people, faithfully reflecting their political choices and securing a truly representative government.
Through this revision the foundation on which any democracy is built is strengthened: the sovereignty of the people and respect for their will. It is a natural and necessary development in the maturing of the democratic process in Romania, which will bring long-term benefits both to the quality of governance and to the consolidation of citizens’ confidence in the institutions of the State. The revision of Article 103(1) is therefore not merely a requirement of the moment but an investment in Romania’s democratic future, ensuring that every vote counts and that every voice is heard in political decision-making.
Finally, it is important to emphasise that this constitutional reform must not be regarded as an end in itself but as a means of attaining more effective and more legitimate governance. It must be accompanied by other measures supporting transparency, accountability and integrity in public administration. All of these, together with the revision of Article 103, will contribute to consolidating democracy and to increasing public confidence in the political system and in its representatives. The proposed change is therefore an essential step in Romania’s democratic evolution — a step that will help build a fairer, more transparent and more representative society for all its citizens.
Expectations are high, and the constitutional revision under discussion is the appropriate response to citizens’ demands for better governance. The time has come for the voice of the people to be not merely heard but decisive in the process of forming the government. In this way Romania can progress towards a mature democracy in which every political decision is firmly anchored in the will of citizens and in the sovereignty of the Romanian people, in the spirit of the country’s fundamental law.
28. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 108 are amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(2) Decisions shall be issued for the organisation of the execution of laws. Government decisions may not amend or add to the content of the primary rule ordering their issue.
(3) Ordinances shall be issued pursuant to a special enabling law, within the limits and under the conditions laid down therein, and may regulate exclusively in the field reserved to ordinary laws.”
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 108, headed “Acts of the Government”, introduce necessary clarifications, reinforcing certain limitations implicit in the text prior to revision as regards the Government’s power to issue decisions and ordinances. Having regard in particular to the experience of the years 2020–2022, in which Romania was governed by the executive through Decisions and Ordinances, an important point in the present draft revision is the limitation of any possibility of governing through acts that circumvent or delay parliamentary scrutiny.
For these reasons, an important clarification and limitation has been added to the text of paragraph 2 (which before the present revision read “Decisions shall be issued for the organisation of the execution of laws.”): “Government decisions may not amend or add to the content of the primary rule ordering their issue.” This clarification, although apparently superfluous and implicit in a constitutional state of legality, became necessary after the experience of 2020–2021, when by Government Decisions the Government established and extended states of alert and “laid down the measures applicable throughout their duration for preventing and combating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic” — measures restricting rights and freedoms that were nowhere mentioned in the law ordering the issue of the decision.
For the same reasons, the text of Article 108(3) (reading “Ordinances shall be issued pursuant to a special enabling law, within the limits and under the conditions laid down therein.”) is likewise supplemented by the important statement that they “may regulate exclusively in the field reserved to ordinary laws”.
The aim is thereby to limit the Government’s ability to regulate by government ordinance in essential fields reserved to organic laws, as enumerated in Article 73(3).
The present revisions of the constitutional text are such as to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen against any possible abuse by the executive and are at the same time fundamental means of strengthening the role of Parliament as “the supreme representative body of the Romanian people and the sole legislative authority of the country”, as provided in Article 61 of the Constitution.
Likewise, through the revision of Article 108 of the Constitution, a better separation of powers within the State is sought, in the spirit of democratic principles and of the rule of law. In this context it is essential to clarify the role of the Government as an executive entity, which must not arrogate to itself legislative powers that would undermine the authority of Parliament and the constitutional balance.
It is evident that in the past the excessive use of government decisions and emergency ordinances created a worrying precedent. Crisis situations or extraordinary circumstances should not become a pretext for the unjustified extension of executive power. The proposed revision of Article 108 therefore establishes a more rigorous framework and limits the use of these legislative instruments to genuinely exceptional situations, in accordance with a special enabling law and in strict compliance with the fields reserved to ordinary laws.
In addition, this revision initiative responds to the demands of civil society, which has expressed concern at possible excesses in the exercise of executive power. By implementing these amendments the aim is to increase transparency and accountability in governance and to secure more effective parliamentary scrutiny.
A further relevant aspect is that the revision of the articles mentioned may have positive effects on the quality of legislation. By limiting the Government’s ability to intervene through decisions and ordinances in fields that ought to be regulated by laws adopted by Parliament, more stable and predictable legislation is promoted. The revision could thus help reduce the number of temporary rules and increase parliamentary involvement in the legislative process, while at the same time ensuring that laws reflect the will and needs of citizens.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 108(2) and (3) of the Constitution represents an important step in fortifying the rule of law and consolidating Romanian democracy. Through these amendments it is ensured that Parliament’s legislative role remains paramount and that the Government acts within the limits of its executive authority, in strict conformity with the law and with the principles of the separation of powers within the State.
The proposed constitutional revision is not merely a reaction to the challenges of the past but also a prudent anticipation of the future. It reaffirms Romania’s commitment to democratic values and to the protection of the rights of its citizens, ensuring that any exceptional measures remain under the strict control of the legislative framework. The revision of Article 108 is thus an act of institutional responsibility and a clear signal that the rule of law cannot be compromised, even in troubled times.
Through these changes Romania aligns itself with international standards and with good democratic practice, providing an example of constitutional maturity and of respect for the fundamental principles of a democratic State. The revision of Article 108 thereby becomes a pillar for the consolidation of an equitable legal system in which governance is carried out with full respect for the sovereignty of the people and for the rules of the rule of law.
In closing, it is imperative to recognise that this revision not only responds to a present need but also prepares the ground for a future in which government by ordinance and decision is a strictly regulated exception rather than the norm. This will contribute to greater legislative stability and to consolidating citizens’ confidence in the institutions of the State.
The proposed revision has the potential to restore the balance among the powers of the State and to strengthen the mechanisms of democratic control, which are essential in a society that wishes to prosper in respect for the law and for human rights.
29. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of Article 115 are amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) Ordinances shall be submitted for the approval of Parliament, in accordance with the legislative procedure, before the expiry of the enabling period. Failure to observe that period entails the cessation of the effects of the ordinance. (…)
(5) An emergency ordinance shall enter into force only after it has been submitted for debate under the emergency procedure to the Chamber having jurisdiction to be notified and after its publication in the Official Gazette of Romania. The Chambers, if not in session, shall be convened as a matter of obligation within 5 days of the submission or, as the case may be, of the referral. The Chamber notified shall rule on the ordinance as a matter of urgency, the ordinance then being sent to the other Chamber, which likewise decides under the emergency procedure. An emergency ordinance containing rules of the nature of an organic law shall be approved by the majority provided for in Article 76(1). Failure to observe the time-limit entails the cessation of the effects of the emergency ordinance. If, within no more than 90 days of its adoption by the first Chamber notified, the deciding Chamber has not ruled on the emergency ordinance, it shall be deemed rejected.
(6) Emergency ordinances may not be adopted in the field of constitutional laws, may not affect the regime of the fundamental institutions of the State, the rights, freedoms and duties laid down by the Constitution, or electoral rights, and may not concern measures for the compulsory transfer of goods into public ownership or for the winding up, alienation or concession of goods in public ownership.”
The Constitution of Romania, adopted in 1991 and subsequently revised in 2003, is the legal foundation of the rule of law, being the supreme law of the country. When it comes to amending it, therefore, every article and every paragraph must be analysed with the greatest rigour and responsibility.
In that context, the proposed revision of Article 115 concerning ordinances and emergency ordinances issued by the Government entails significant changes as regards secondary legislation and parliamentary control over normative acts issued by the executive.
One of the most controversial aspects addressed by Article 115 in its present form is the process of issuing and approving emergency ordinances. These instruments, intended to enable the Government to react swiftly in situations that admit of no delay, have often been criticised as capable of being used excessively or for purposes going beyond the framework of a genuine emergency.
The proposed revision brings to light the need for stricter parliamentary control and for a clear framework limiting the risk of abuse in the use of emergency ordinances. The amendments to Article 115(3), (5) and (6) are designed to strengthen the role of Parliament and to ensure that any emergency measure adopted by the Government enters into force only after an adequate assessment and a parliamentary debate under the emergency procedure, as well as after publication in the Official Gazette. This is vital for the transparency of the legislative process and for the accountability of the executive to the elected representatives of the people.
Paragraph (3) brings to the fore the requirement that ordinances be approved by Parliament within a well-defined period. This is a guarantee that these legislative instruments are temporary and cannot replace the essential role of the permanent legislature. Where Parliament fails to rule within the period laid down, the ordinance loses its effect, which prevents possible “legislation by ordinance” for an unlimited period.
As regards paragraph (5), it reiterates the need for democratic control over emergency ordinances. In addition, setting a period of 90 days for the deciding Chamber to rule on an emergency ordinance underlines the importance of prompt and effective legislative action. That period limits the interval of legal uncertainty and ensures that the provisions of the ordinance do not become part of national legislation without adequate parliamentary scrutiny. In the absence of a decision within that interval, the emergency ordinance is deemed rejected, which represents a balance between the executive’s need to act swiftly and legislative supremacy in a State governed by the rule of law.
Paragraph (6) is an additional safeguard, establishing fields in which emergency ordinances may not be adopted. By prohibiting the use of this instrument in sensitive matters, such as those relating to constitutional laws or fundamental rights, the protection of the basic structure of the State and of democratic values is secured. This avoids the risk of fundamental rights and freedoms being amended or restricted without an adequate legislative process and without a full parliamentary debate allowing citizens and the various political forces to take part in the formation of the legislative will.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 115 of the Constitution of Romania proposes a series of measures consolidating the principles of the rule of law and of democracy by: strengthening Parliament’s role of control over normative acts issued by the Government, clarifying the emergency legislative procedure and limiting the fields in which emergency ordinances may be issued. These amendments contribute to a better balance of powers within the State and to guaranteeing that any governmental action is exercised in full conformity with the country’s fundamental law and with the respect due to civic rights and freedoms. The revision proposed for Article 115 is consistent with European democratic trends, which emphasise the importance of the supremacy of parliamentary legislation and of limiting the executive’s power to govern by decree. A healthy balance is thereby secured between the Government’s need for flexibility and responsiveness and the essential principle of the rule of law, namely that all the powers of the State are limited by law and accountable to the representatives of the people.
30. After Article 116(2) there is added a new paragraph (3), reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) Appointed public offices, or offices and capacities filled by direct designation for which no competition is held, may be held for a term of no more than 4 years, renewable once only, unless another duration of the term or number of terms is provided for by this Constitution.”
In the present socio-political context, a lively discussion has begun to take shape around the mechanisms of appointment to public office, pointing to the need to revise the Constitution of Romania, and in particular the text of Article 116. This need for legislative updating responds to demands for transparency and efficiency in public administration and to the democratic aspirations of society.
We emphasise that Article 116 governs the legal regime of public officials, with an emphasis on the manner of appointment to and exercise of public office. In its present form, the article contains no clear limits as regards the duration of terms or the number of their renewals for appointed offices, which may generate stagnation and a lack of dynamism in the administration.
The proposed revision, expressed through the addition of paragraph (3) to Article 116, provides a solution to this problem. By introducing a term of no more than 4 years, renewable once only, the aim is to increase the accountability and performance of public officials through the perspective of a well-defined time horizon. This change could secure a better adaptation of the administration to rapid changes in society and the economy. Limiting the number of terms is consistent with democratic practice in many other countries, where executive or administrative offices are periodically subject to a process of renewal. This not only stimulates healthy competition to achieve results but also provides the opportunity to bring new perspectives and innovative ideas into the system. It can thereby help avoid the accumulation of power in the hands of a single person over a long period, which could reduce the risks of corruption and nepotism.
It should be noted that, although the limitation of terms may appear a constraint, it in fact encourages strategic planning and long-term vision. Public officials will thereby be encouraged to implement effective public policies and to attain the objectives set within a more concentrated period, thus increasing administrative output. On the other hand, critics of this revision may argue that limiting terms could lead to a loss of expertise and a deficit of continuity in public administration. They maintain that the experience accumulated by public officials over long terms is valuable and contributes to the stability and predictability of administrative processes. It is essential to recognise, however, that in a continually changing environment adaptability and innovation are equally vital. The renewal of energies and ideas can counteract the risk of stagnation and bring fresh air into the administration.
In addition, introducing a system of limited terms could encourage more qualified persons to take part in public administration, knowing that there is a clear time horizon for each role. This could increase the diversity and quality of candidates, promoting merit and competence as the principal criteria for selection to public office. In conclusion, the proposed revision of Article 116 of the Constitution of Romania through the addition of paragraph (3) represents an important step towards a more accountable and better-performing public administration. Limiting terms to a maximum of 4 years, with the possibility of a single renewal, is a measure that can help prevent stagnation in the administration and promote fresh and dynamic management.
In conclusion, revising Article 116 of the Constitution of Romania so as to include a paragraph limiting the duration of terms in appointed public office, renewable once only, is a necessary step towards a dynamic and accountable public administration. Limiting terms helps prevent the concentration of power, stimulates innovation and secures a constant updating of administrative competences. This proposed revision has the potential to transform public administration, making it more adaptable and more open to the changes occurring in society. By stimulating performance and accountability we ensure that public structures not only respond to citizens’ needs but do so efficiently and transparently.
31. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 118 are amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(4) The intelligence services and those assimilated to them shall be organised exclusively as civilian bodies, under the conditions laid down by law. The organisation of military or paramilitary activities outside a State authority is prohibited.
(5) In peacetime, foreign troops may enter, be stationed in, conduct operations on or pass through the territory of Romania only with the prior consent of Parliament and under the conditions laid down by law or by the international treaties to which Romania is a party.”
Starting from the premise that democracy and national security are two fundamental pillars underlying any State governed by the rule of law, the revision of the text of Article 118 of the Constitution of Romania, concerning the organisation of the intelligence services and the status of foreign troops on national territory, becomes not merely a necessity but also a manifestation of the adaptation of legislation to contemporary security realities.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 118 are proposed to be amended so as to reflect more clearly the principles of a civilian State and to secure strengthened parliamentary control over the presence of foreign forces on the territory of Romania. Through this revision the aim is to strengthen the legal framework governing national security and to align with international standards in the field.
It is essential to understand the context and importance of Article 118 within the structure of the Constitution: before the revision this article concerned “The armed forces” — that being its marginal heading — whereas after the revision it also governs the organisation and functioning of the intelligence services and the regime of foreign troops on the country’s territory. In its present form, the constitutional provisions leave room for a certain ambiguity and do not offer the guarantees necessary for effective democratic supervision of these sensitive fields.
The proposed revision of paragraph (4) brings to the fore the need for a civilian intelligence structure, thereby avoiding the militarisation of the intelligence services. This change is motivated by the global trend towards separating intelligence activities from military ones (within NATO, Romania is the only member with exclusively militarised intelligence structures), in order to secure transparency and accountability before the civil authorities and citizens.
Organising the intelligence services as an exclusively civilian system, as provided by the revised constitutional text, helps consolidate public trust and prevent the abuses that could arise in the context of structures with a military profile.
The change proposed for paragraph (5) underlines the role of Parliament as the principal guarantor of national sovereignty as regards the presence of foreign troops on the territory of Romania. This provision consolidates the democratic principle that decisions of such gravity must be taken with full transparency and in complete agreement with the elected representatives of the people. In addition, making the stationing, operations or transit of foreign troops conditional upon the prior consent of Parliament and upon compliance with national laws or international treaties ensures rigorous oversight and conformity with Romania’s international commitments. This proposed regulatory framework provides a balance between the need to secure national security and respect for the sovereignty of the State in international relations.
In a dynamic geopolitical landscape, in which cross-border threats and shifts in the balance of power are ever more frequent, it is imperative that national legislation be adaptable and provide adequate responses. At the same time, the revised text of Article 118 is consistent with democratic values and with the standards of international law. Through these changes Romania reaffirms its commitment to the principles of the rule of law and strengthens its capacity to meet present and future security challenges.
It should be noted that the revision of Article 118 is not an isolated act but forms part of a broader process of modernising the Constitution. This undertaking seeks to consolidate democratic institutions and to secure the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in keeping with the dynamics of social and political change.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 118(4) and (5) of the Constitution of Romania is a vital stage in consolidating the legal framework for national security. It reflects a modern vision of the role of the intelligence services and of international relations, promoting a civilian, transparent and accountable approach. Through these adjustments the alignment of national legislation with international standards is secured and an effective response is given to the specific challenges of the twenty-first century.
32. After Article 118(5) there is added paragraph 6, reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(6) In peacetime, the national defence budget may not exceed 2% of the national budget of the year concerned.”
In recent years, discussions on budgetary allocations for defence have become a burning subject on the political and social agenda. In the context of these debates, the proposed revision of Article 118 of the Constitution through the addition of a new paragraph limiting the national defence budget to 2% in peacetime forms part of a broader current of reassessment of military spending worldwide. The reasons are manifold and complex, beginning with the need for a balance between national security and fiscal responsibility and extending to international pressures for limiting the arms race and promoting peace. A second reason concerns the efficiency of budgetary allocations.
Imposing a ceiling of 2% of the national budget will encourage more prudent and more strategic management of resources, obliging the responsible institutions to prioritise and optimise expenditure. A further argument supporting the revision is the need to secure sufficient funds for other vital fields such as health, education and infrastructure. In a rapidly changing world, investment in these sectors may be as crucial to national security as military defence itself. We must also analyse the social impact of such a measure, since account must be taken of the influence the defence budget has on society as a whole. Financial resources are limited, and every decision on budgetary allocations directly reflects a nation’s priorities. Establishing a maximum threshold for the defence budget therefore responds to a requirement of social equity, allowing funds to be redistributed to social programmes with a direct impact on citizens’ quality of life. Moreover, a defence budget not exceeding 2% of the national budget will have positive effects on the country’s international image, all the more so since it falls within the contribution suggested as necessary for loyal partnership within the military alliances to which Romania belongs — which is why fears that restricting the defence budget could impede the continued development and modernisation of the armed forces, or the capacity to respond effectively to cybersecurity challenges and to other new forms of aggression, are unfounded.
Limiting military expenditure in peacetime conveys a message of peace and stability, of confidence in international security mechanisms and of commitment to resolving conflicts by diplomatic and economic means rather than by military force. In an era in which “hard power” tends to prevail over “soft power”, such a policy can help consolidate the country’s role on the international stage as a responsible and peaceable actor.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 118 of the Constitution so as to include a ceiling of 2% of the national budget of the year concerned for national defence in peacetime is a pertinent, useful measure whose implementation is immediately necessary.
33. After Article 119(1) there is inserted a new paragraph (2), reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(2) The Supreme Council of National Defence shall include as of right the President, the Prime Minister, the presidents of the two Chambers of Parliament, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Justice and the heads of the intelligence services. The heads of the intelligence services shall be designated for a period of 4 years in joint sitting of Parliament.”
The revision inserts a new paragraph into Article 119 of the Constitution after paragraph 1. That paragraph provides a clear and defined structure for the Supreme Council of National Defence (CSAT), including the designation of the heads of the intelligence services for a four-year term in a joint sitting of Parliament. This proposed revision has significant implications for democratic control over the intelligence services and for consolidating transparency within the mechanisms of national security.
The initiative for the revision of the Constitution starts from the observation that we live in an age in which threats to national security are ever more complex and require effective coordination among the various branches of State power. A well-defined structure of the CSAT, with members holding fixed terms, can therefore contribute to greater stability and predictability in strategic decision-making.
Likewise, Parliament’s involvement in designating the heads of the intelligence services adds a further layer of supervision and accountability. This means that the decisions taken within the CSAT will reflect the representative will of citizens, translating not only into a legitimation of the leadership positions but also into a guarantee that the persons selected are the best suited to serve the national interest. The conditions are thereby created for a better alignment of the intelligence services with the principles of the rule of law and with fundamental democratic values.
In addition, establishing a fixed four-year term for the heads of the intelligence services facilitates a cycle of planning and evaluation capable of making the work of these institutions more efficient. With a clear time horizon, medium-term objectives can be set and progress towards them monitored. This not only improves the performance of the intelligence services but also secures greater transparency before the population and its elected representatives. A fixed term, as opposed to one designated ad hoc or at the discretion of a single official, encourages accountability and reduces the risk of abuses of power or of inappropriate political influence.
Critics might argue that such a change could make the structure of the CSAT rigid and could lead to a politicisation of the intelligence services. It is essential to emphasise, however, that the designation of the heads by Parliament, through a transparent and open vote, secures a democratic process of selection which not only confers legitimacy but also facilitates balance and control among the powers of the State. There must undoubtedly be adequate mechanisms of check and balance to prevent any departure from democratic norms.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 119 of the Constitution of Romania through the insertion of a new paragraph governing the composition and manner of designation of the members of the Supreme Council of National Defence is a step forward towards consolidating democracy and civic oversight of key State institutions. This constitutional amendment has the potential to secure greater coherence in national security policy, to increase effectiveness in countering threats and ultimately to protect civic values and freedoms in the face of new global challenges.
The revision of Article 119 is not merely a matter of legislative procedure but a manifestation of the collective will to adapt the structures of the State to the realities of the twenty-first century.
As we strive to consolidate our democracy and to protect the values on which our society is founded, it is essential to reflect on the way in which the structures of power and responsibility are organised and regulated. This constitutional revision is an example of how legislation can evolve to meet present needs, securing effective and accountable governance. In that context it is important to recognise the vital role of an adaptable Constitution capable of responding dynamically to social and political transformation.
The revision of Article 119 thus becomes not only an immediate necessity but also an opportunity to reaffirm our nation’s commitment to the basic principles of an open and transparent society. This act of constitutional reform may serve as a catalyst for a series of institutional improvements fortifying the rule of law and promoting a public administration in the service of the citizen.
To conclude, the insertion of paragraph (2) into Article 119 of the Constitution is a significant step towards strengthening Romania’s democratic foundations. In a world in which the balance of powers and civic oversight are more important than ever, this revision could become a model to follow in consolidating the independence and transparency of State institutions. By increasing Parliament’s role in the process of appointing the heads of the intelligence services, it is ensured that these vital entities function in accordance with the will of the people and under the direct supervision of its representatives.
34. After Article 120(2) there are inserted four new paragraphs, (3) to (6), reading as follows: → the text of the article
(3) The presidents of county councils, the mayor of the Municipality of Bucharest and the mayors of its districts, and the mayors of municipalities, towns and communes shall be elected by universal, equal, direct, secret and freely expressed suffrage for a term of four years, renewable once only.
(4) The candidate who has obtained, in the first round of voting, the majority of the votes of the electors shall be declared elected.
(5) Where none of the candidates has obtained that majority, a second round of voting shall be organised between the first two candidates in the order of the number of votes obtained in the first round. The candidate who has obtained the greatest number of votes shall be declared elected.
(6) The presidents of county councils, the mayor of the Municipality of Bucharest and the mayors of its districts, the mayors of municipalities, towns and communes, as well as county, general and local councillors, may be removed from office by a referendum convened by a number of citizens equal to at least 20% of the citizens who voted for them. The signatures for convening the referendum may also be collected online, citizens being able to sign with any form of digital signature recognised by law. A referendum for the removal of local elected representatives may not be organised in the last 6 months of the term of office. The local elected representative is removed if one half plus one of those taking part in the referendum vote in favour of removal, irrespective of the turnout quorum.”
The revision of the Constitution of Romania is a subject of crucial importance for strengthening democracy and for aligning national legislation with European standards. In that context, the proposed revision of Article 120 raises key mechanisms concerning the election and removal of local authorities — a process that must reflect the competence, wish and choice of citizens. In order better to understand the proposed amendments, let us examine the present rules and compare them with those introduced by paragraphs (3) to (6). At present, Article 120(2) of the Constitution of Romania provides that “The Government shall appoint a prefect in each county and in the municipality of Bucharest.” The prefect is the Government’s representative at local level and supervises the application of laws and government ordinances. The proposals for revision introduced by paragraphs (3) to (6), by contrast, seek a deeper democratisation of the process of electing local authorities.
Let us begin with paragraph (3), which proposes that the presidents of county councils and the mayors, including the mayor of the Municipality of Bucharest and those of its districts, be elected by universal, equal, direct, secret and freely expressed suffrage. This change could secure greater legitimacy and enhanced representativeness of the will of citizens, since the present Constitution does not expressly specify the mechanism for electing these offices. Paragraph (3) also proposes limiting the possibility of re-election of presidents of county councils and mayors to a single further term. This measure could prevent the perpetuation of power in the hands of a single individual and encourages a more active circulation of the political elite. For example, in France mayors may serve an unlimited number of terms, which can lead to political stagnation. In Germany, by contrast, the mayors of large cities are often limited to a maximum of two consecutive terms, thereby promoting change and innovation in local administration.
Paragraph (4) adds an important clarification: the candidate who obtains the majority of the votes in the first round is declared elected. This means that, unlike the present system, in which election to office is possible after a single round of voting with a relative majority of votes that may represent the interests of a minority of the community, the revision would introduce a more decisive electoral process representing the will of the majority of the citizens who cast their vote. The aim of this change is to consolidate a strong and clear mandate for those who will lead the local administrations.
Paragraph (5) provides a solution for situations in which no candidate obtains a majority in the first round of voting: a second round between the two most-voted candidates. It is thereby ensured that the local elected representative will have the support of a relative majority of the electors — a fundamental principle in a representative democracy — unlike the present system, which makes no provision for a second round in local elections.
Paragraph (6) introduces the possibility of removing local authorities by referendum initiated by citizens. This proposed revision places an additional democratic instrument in the hands of the electorate, allowing them to withdraw the confidence granted if elected representatives fail to discharge their mandate satisfactorily. In contrast to the present situation, in which removal is possible only through more rigid legal or political procedures, this mechanism could increase the direct accountability of elected representatives to their electors.
In order to place these changes in a broader context, it is useful to compare them with the constitutional systems of other European countries.
For example, in France local elections are held in two rounds, similarly to the proposal in paragraph (5). In Germany, mayors and council presidents are likewise elected by direct vote of citizens, which reflects the democratic principle of direct election proposed in paragraph (3). As regards removal by referendum, this is a practice found in some countries, such as Slovenia, where electors have the right to initiate referendums for the recall of mayors. The proposals for revising Article 120 of the Constitution of Romania therefore appear to be consistent with democratic trends in other Member States of the European Union. These amendments could help consolidate the local democratic process and increase citizens’ confidence in elected authorities. It is essential that any constitutional revision be examined carefully and debated transparently, so as to ensure that the changes reflect the will of the people and consolidate the rule of law.
Another aspect deserving attention is the manner of collecting the signatures needed to trigger the referendum, which represents an important step towards the real democratisation of Romanian society. With present-day technology and the trend towards digitalising processes, online methods of collecting signatures, as provided for in paragraph (6), can facilitate citizens’ participation and make the process more accessible, especially for younger generations, serving for them as a catalyst for active involvement in the life of the polis.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 120 of the Constitution of Romania as proposed could represent an important step towards local governance that is more accountable and closer to citizens. By implementing this revision, Romania would align its democratic practice with that of other European States and would provide a stronger guarantee of civic involvement in local administration. At the same time, it is vital to ensure that these changes are accompanied by civic-education campaigns and by the development of a political culture promoting the active and informed participation of citizens in democratic life.
35. Article 124(3) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) Judges are exclusively Romanian citizens, are independent and are subject only to the law. Any administrative provision serves to ensure the functioning of the judicial system without affecting the adjudicative activity carried out by judges.”
The revision of Article 124(3) of the Constitution of Romania mentioned above replaces the earlier wording “Judges are independent and are subject only to the law”, which was judged too laconic in the light of developments in the sphere of justice in recent years and of the prospects of possible further developments of this essential social function. It has been amended to read: “Judges are exclusively Romanian citizens, are independent and are subject only to the law. Any administrative provision serves to ensure the functioning of the judicial system without affecting the adjudicative activity carried out by judges.”
In its new wording, this paragraph underlines the consolidation of the independence of the judicial system and the need for judges to remain free from the influence of any external factors, whether political or administrative.
Why is this revision essential?
First, in the light of political developments in the structures and alliances to which Romania belongs, and anticipating the dramatic technological progress of the coming years, the revised paragraph begins by providing that “Judges are exclusively Romanian citizens…”, which makes it impossible for citizens of third countries with which we are or will be in various political, State or military alliances to accede to that office, and which likewise establishes that the judge is and will be first of all a human being and then a Romanian citizen — making it impossible to “outsource” the administration of justice to non-human entities endowed with artificial intelligence or any subsequent developments thereof.
Second, it must be understood that the independence of the judiciary is a central pillar of any consolidated democracy. Without it, the balance among the powers of the State — a principle underlying the rule of law — would be gravely affected.
The proposed revision seeks to strengthen that principle and to ensure that judges can function without external pressure, thereby guaranteeing a fair trial for all citizens. It is essential to bear in mind that, although administrative provisions are necessary for the proper functioning of the judicial system, they must be conceived and applied in a manner that does not interfere with the independence of judges and with the adjudicative process itself.
Any unjustified interference in the administration of justice not only undermines public confidence in the judicial system but may also lead to judicial errors with grave consequences for individual lives and for society as a whole.
What does the independence of judges actually mean? It means that their decisions must be taken without any form of influence, pressure or threat, whatever its source.
In addition, the independence of judges presupposes a degree of autonomy in administering the resources necessary for the proper functioning of the courts. The proposed revision therefore serves to clarify and reinforce these aspects, contributing to the consolidation of public confidence in the justice system and to the promotion of a perception of impartiality and equity. It is important to note that the amendment in question is not an isolated one but must form part of a broader context of judicial reform. Those reforms are intended to bring improvements in the efficiency, accessibility and transparency of justice, thereby contributing to the strengthening of the rule of law. At the same time, we must acknowledge the challenges facing the judicial system in a continually changing world. The revision of the constitutional text must therefore be accompanied by measures securing the adaptability and capacity of the system to respond to the new types of litigation and legal challenges of the twenty-first century.
This presupposes a rigorous view of the role of justice in society and a recognition that the revision of Article 124(3) of the Constitution is not merely a matter of textual updating but of reaffirming a commitment to the fundamental principles of justice and hence to the citizen.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 124(3) of the Constitution of Romania is not merely a legal necessity but also a democratic requirement. This undertaking is vital in order to ensure that justice in Romania remains a strong, independent institution adapted to the challenges of our time. Through this revision we assume the responsibility of protecting citizens’ rights and freedoms and of maintaining their confidence in an equitable and effective judicial system.
36. After Article 124(3) there are inserted two new paragraphs, 4 and 5, reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(4) Judges may not be operational agents, including undercover agents, informants or collaborators of any national or international intelligence service. Judges who held such capacities before their appointment shall be removed from office.
(5) Serving judges may not be members of occult, secret or discreet associations and societies. Serving judges may be members exclusively of professional associations, and the activity carried out must relate to the field of justice.”
The two proposed additions to the text of Article 124, paragraphs (4) and (5), seek to clarify and delimit the status of judges in relation to the intelligence services and to membership of associations or societies. → the text of the article
Paragraph (4) provides that judges may not be operational agents, undercover agents, informants or collaborators of the intelligence services, whether national or international. It further provides that judges who held such capacities before their appointment shall be removed from office.
This clarification is essential in order to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure that decisions in justice are taken exclusively on the basis of the evidence and the law, without hidden influences or loyalties capable of affecting impartiality. It is an important step in consolidating the independence of justice and in increasing transparency in this vital field of the rule of law.
Paragraph (5) goes further in the same direction, prohibiting members of the judiciary from belonging to occult, secret or discreet associations and societies. This provision seeks to eliminate the possibility of judges’ decisions being influenced by membership of such groups, which may have their own agendas and interests. By permitting membership exclusively of professional associations focused on justice, the aim is to guarantee that judges’ activity is devoted entirely to public service and to the basic principles of the judicial system. The idea that judges must remain pillars of impartiality and equity, unaltered by external influences or commitments capable of impairing their independence and objectivity, is thereby consolidated.
These proposed new paragraphs clarify and reinforce the vision of the role and integrity of judges within the rule of law. They reflect a deep understanding of the consequences that conflicts of interest and inappropriate affiliations can have for the justice system. Their integration into the text of the Constitution represents a critical step towards a truly independent judiciary, protected from any potential source of corruption or illegitimate influence. These provisions are intended to eliminate any suspicion that judicial decisions could be influenced by hidden loyalties or unclear interests, thereby consolidating the principle of the separation of powers within the State and the independence of justice.
Examining other European constitutions, we observe that many of them contain articles protecting the independence of the judicial system and setting clear limits to prevent conflicts of interest and external influences on the magistracy. For example, the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) expressly provides that judges are subject only to the law, underlining their independence from any external power. Similarly, the Constitution of France guarantees judicial independence, and the members of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, responsible for the appointment and careers of judges, may not engage in political or commercial activities capable of endangering that independence.
By contrast, in some countries of Eastern Europe the relationship between the intelligence services and the judicial system has been more opaque, generating serious concerns about the independence and integrity of justice.
In that context, the introduction of provisions similar to those proposed for Article 124 of the Constitution of Romania could play an essential role in clarifying and consolidating the basic principles of an independent and impartial judicial system. It is important to note that, while constitutional revision is a complex and often controversial process, it provides an opportunity to align national legislation with internationally recognised democratic standards and practices. This step would not only consolidate the rule of law in Romania but would also help increase the confidence of international partners in the Romanian judicial system and hence in the country’s political and economic stability. In conclusion, the proposal to add paragraphs (4) and (5) to Article 124 of the Constitution of Romania is a necessary measure to strengthen the independence of justice and to ensure that judges are free from any external influence capable of compromising their impartiality and fairness.
These constitutional changes will not only bring Romania into line with the best European practice but will also serve as a clear signal that the country is firmly committed to the path of judicial reform and of consolidating democracy. As Romania continues to evolve and to adapt to international standards, it is essential to ensure that its judicial system remains strong, independent and, above all, trusted in the eyes of its citizens. Revising the Constitution to reflect these fundamental principles is a vital step in that direction.
Finally, these proposed amendments not only reaffirm Romania’s commitment to the principles of impartial and transparent justice but also provide a further guarantee that judges will exercise their mandate with the highest professional and ethical integrity. Their adoption will send a powerful signal, both domestically and internationally, that Romania is consolidating its rule of law and takes seriously the task of combating any form of impermissible influence within its judicial system.
The constitutional reform concerning Article 124 must therefore be viewed not only in the domestic legislative context but also in that of European and international standards in matters of justice. It will align Romania with the best global practice and would help increase its legal and democratic standing on the world stage.
It is imperative that this revision be accompanied by an open and constructive dialogue among all interested parties, including the government, the judiciary, the bar associations, non-governmental organisations and citizens. Only through effective communication and a collaborative approach can we ensure that the proposed changes are given effect in a manner that best serves the interests of justice and of the Romanian people. Public debate and transparency in the process of constitutional revision are likewise essential in order to encourage broad acceptance and support for these amendments. It is vital that citizens be informed and understand the consequences of these changes for their daily lives and for the functioning of the rule of law.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 124 of the Constitution of Romania represents a fundamental stage in the evolution of the judicial system and of democracy in our country. The amendments proposed for paragraphs (4) and (5) are not merely a response to the need for transparency and integrity in justice but also an affirmation of Romania’s determination to have a robust judicial system that respects the principles of the rule of law and protects the rights of its citizens. Through this, Romania will be able to align itself with European and international standards, consolidate its democracy and secure a just and prosperous future for all its citizens.
37. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 125 are amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(1) Judges appointed to office are Romanian citizens and are irremovable, under the conditions laid down by law.
(2) Proposals for appointment, as well as the promotion, transfer and sanctioning of judges and prosecutors, fall within the competence of the Superior Council of Judges, under the conditions of its organic law.
(3) The office of judge is incompatible with any other public or private office, save for teaching positions in higher education and teaching positions at the National Institute of Judges and Prosecutors and at the National School of Court Clerks.”
The revision of Article 125(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution of Romania seeks to consolidate the guarantees of independence for judges and to clarify the competences of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) as regards the appointment, promotion, transfer and sanctioning of judges and prosecutors. These amendments are essential in order to secure an equitable and effective judicial system, free from external influence and from political or administrative pressure.
Paragraph (1) underlines the irremovable status of judges, which is a central pillar in protecting them against arbitrariness and interference in the judicial process. The irremovability of judges is a principle recognised internationally as fundamental to the independence of justice, allowing judges to exercise their office without fear of reprisals or of negative consequences for their careers. The revision of this paragraph is therefore intended to strengthen that guarantee and to confirm Romania’s commitment to international standards in matters of justice. It could also reduce the risk of political influence in the judicial system, thereby consolidating public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the courts.
Paragraph (2) seeks to clarify and delimit the powers of the Superior Council of Magistracy. At present the CSM plays a crucial role in securing the independence and autonomy of judges and prosecutors, but the proposals for revision are designed to crystallise these prerogatives still further. By expressly defining the competences of the CSM in the process of appointing magistrates and shaping their careers, the aim is to eliminate any doubt or ambiguity that could allow external influences over this vital process. The clarity of these provisions would serve as a protective wall against attempts to undermine judicial independence, being a sine qua non condition for an impartial and effective judicial system.
Paragraph (3) establishes the incompatibilities of the office of judge, save for certain teaching positions. This provision serves to ensure that judges devote themselves entirely to their judicial tasks, without being distracted by other professional obligations or by potential conflicts of interest. By permitting certain teaching activities, the added value brought by the experience and knowledge of magistrates in training future generations of jurists is recognised. At the same time, this exception is strictly delimited so as to avoid any confusion regarding other types of activity that could compromise the independence or impartiality of judges.
The revision of the paragraphs mentioned above is therefore an essential stage in the process of reforming and modernising the judicial system in Romania. It not only aligns national legislation with international standards but also provides a solid basis for a judicial system that may be seen as an example of integrity and efficiency. In conclusion, the proposed amendments to Article 125 reflect a deep understanding of the need to protect and consolidate the independence of justice in Romania. They are fundamental to a functioning rule of law in which every citizen can be confident that his rights and freedoms are defended by an equitable and impartial judicial system. Revising and updating these paragraphs is a step forward towards achieving a justice system that not only respects democratic principles but also actively promotes them within society.
Through this reform Romania can demonstrate its firm commitment to consolidating a rule of law in which the independence of the judicial system is guaranteed and protected from external influence. It is essential to understand that these changes are not merely a formal requirement but a real necessity responding both to citizens’ expectations and to the requirements of a modern and effective judicial system consistent with the highest international standards.
In that context, a comparison with other constitutions in Europe may offer perspective on how various States approach the protection of the independence of the judicial system. For example, in Germany the principle of the irremovability of judges is firmly anchored in the Basic Law, and the Federal Judicial Council (Bundesrichterrat) has clear powers as regards the selection and promotion of magistrates. Similarly, in France the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) plays a decisive role in guaranteeing judicial independence, with precise competences in the appointment and careers of magistrates.
These systems highlight the importance of a clear and robust legislative framework in support of the independence of justice, and Romania, through the proposed revision of Article 125, is moving in the same direction. The importance of the irremovability of judges, of the role of the Superior Council of Magistracy and of the incompatibilities between public office and that of judge are all aspects contributing to the creation of an autonomous judiciary immune to external pressure. Taking into account the judicial models of Europe, it is clear that any system aiming at efficiency and fairness must found its actions on robust principles of independence. In that sense the revision of Romanian legislation is not merely opportune but necessary in order to align with the best European and international practice. As has been observed, the independence of justice is not an abstract concept but a living reality reflected in the quality of the daily life of every citizen. An independent and impartial judiciary ensures that laws are applied equitably and that individual rights and freedoms are protected against abuse. That is why the revision of Article 125(1) to (3) represents a cornerstone in the consolidation of such a judicial system. Ultimately, the adoption of these revisions will represent a major step in affirming and securing an autonomous judiciary, a key element in any mature and functioning democracy. It is a responsibility Romania bears not only towards its citizens but also in the European and international context, demonstrating its unwavering commitment to the fundamental values and principles of the rule of law. The revision of Article 125(1) to (3) thus constitutes a legislative priority and a moral imperative that ought to unite all political and social forces in a common effort. This process of reform is not merely a matter of conforming to external norms but is, in essence, a reaffirmation of national identity as a State governed by the rule of law and a confirmation of the commitment to the principles of independent, equitable and transparent justice. This entails careful supervision, effective control mechanisms and a mentality of responsibility and integrity among all judicial actors.
38. Article 126(3) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) The High Court of Cassation and Justice shall ensure the uniform interpretation and application of the law by the other courts, as well as the resolution of questions of law, in accordance with its jurisdiction.”
The revision of this article is an act of refining the mechanisms of justice, designed to secure a functional balance among the various courts and to guarantee the citizen an equitable and predictable system of justice. The proposed amendment of Article 126(3) seeks to strengthen the role of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in securing a uniform interpretation and application of the law throughout Romania.
The aim is thereby to prevent the discrepancies and divergent interpretations that can arise in judicial practice — factors capable of leading to harmful legal uncertainty. This article of constitutional reform responds to a pressing need for coherence and predictability within Romania’s justice system.
At present, Article 126(3) provides that “The High Court of Cassation and Justice is the court for appeals in the interest of the law”. That wording, though valuable, leaves room for a certain ambiguity as regards the extent and limits of the High Court’s competences.
The new proposal clarifies and extends those competences, conferring on the Court a more active role in unifying judicial practice through the resolution of questions of law that may be of major importance in a given field. This revision is essential for consolidating the citizen’s confidence in the judicial system. A uniform interpretation of the law means predictability and equity, and these are pillars of the rule of law and of democracy. A predictable system of justice is one in which every citizen can understand his rights and anticipate the outcome of the disputes in which he is involved, thereby contributing to a fairer and more orderly society. In addition, the proposed amendment may have a positive impact in reducing the overload of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. By clarifying its competences, the congestion of its docket with cases that, although important, can be resolved at the level of the lower courts may be avoided, thereby securing better management of judicial resources.
The proposed revision is also consistent with European trends concerning the functioning of legal systems. A system in which the interpretation of the law is harmonised at national level contributes to a more stable legal environment and facilitates cross-border judicial cooperation. In the European Union, where Member States are called upon to apply common laws and principles, such coherence is all the more necessary in order to secure respect for fundamental rights and civic freedoms within an integrated legal space.
In that respect, comparison with other European constitutions may offer valuable perspectives. Taking the example of Germany, where the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) functions as the court of last instance in the judicial system for civil and criminal disputes, we see a model similar to the one proposed for Romania. The German court secures the uniformity of the interpretation of laws and also the resolution of major legal questions. This approach has been recognised as effective in maintaining a cohesive body of case-law and a predictable judicial system. Similarly, the supreme court of France, the Cour de Cassation, has comparable powers, being responsible for securing the uniform application of the law throughout the country and for reviewing the decisions of the lower courts where necessary. It is a clear example of a supreme court functioning as a guarantor of coherence and consistency in the application of the law — a pillar on which the proposed amendment of Article 126 of the Constitution of Romania is likewise founded. Examining the Italian model, where the Corte di Cassazione serves a similar purpose, we see how that supreme court contributes to harmonising the interpretation of laws and to resolving complex questions of law. International models can thus provide a solid argument for the proposed reform, underlining the benefits of a well-structured judicial system with a strong supreme court.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 126 of the Constitution of Romania is a necessary step in the evolution of the national legal system, with the potential to align Romanian judicial practice with European standards and to improve significantly the efficiency and predictability of justice.
The reform of Article 126 can thus contribute decisively to consolidating public confidence in the justice system and to strengthening the rule of law in Romania. By adopting this amendment, Romania would take an important step towards achieving a judicial balance reflecting the best European practice and would promote a cohesive and equitable legal environment for all its citizens. This will not only consolidate confidence in the judicial system but will also secure better alignment with the mechanisms of justice in the European space, contributing to a more effective and deeper judicial integration within the European Union. The time has come for Romania to take the next step in modernising and harmonising its justice system with the realities and requirements of the twenty-first century. The revision of Article 126 represents a unique opportunity to build a more accessible and more predictable system of justice — an objective that cannot be ignored in the aspiration to create a society founded on respect for the law and the protection of individual rights.
39. Article 132(2) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(2) The office of prosecutor is incompatible with any other public or private office, save for teaching positions in higher education and teaching positions at the National Institute of Judges and Prosecutors and at the National School of Court Clerks.”
The revision of Article 132 of the Constitution of Romania, which governs the incompatibility of the office of prosecutor, has recently come under the eye of reform, responding to the need to align with European legislation and to new social and legal challenges. In that context, the revision of Article 132 becomes essential in order to secure an independent and effective system of justice.
The present text of Article 132(2) provides that the office of prosecutor is incompatible with any other public or private office. This provision has been interpreted restrictively, limiting the professional possibilities of prosecutors and hence the capacity of the judicial system to benefit from expertise and diversity.
The proposal to revise this paragraph relaxes those restrictions, allowing prosecutors to hold teaching positions in higher education, at the National Institute of Judges and Prosecutors and at the National School of Court Clerks. This amendment reflects an openness to greater flexibility in the careers of magistrates and a recognition of the importance of the exchange of knowledge between theory and practice.
In order better to understand the rationale behind this revision, it is useful to compare the constitutional provisions of Romania with those of other European countries. For example, the Constitutions of France and of Germany do not set out the incompatibilities of the office of prosecutor in their constitutional texts but leave that determination to secondary legislation. This affords greater flexibility and adaptability according to the needs and evolution of society. Spain, by contrast, expressly provides in its Constitution that judges and prosecutors may not exercise other public offices apart from exceptions strictly connected with the functioning of justice. This difference of approach raises important questions about the balance between the independence and the responsibilities of magistrates, and about the way in which incompatibilities are established so as to protect the integrity of the judicial system without impeding professional development and contribution to legal education.
The revision proposed for Article 132 of the Constitution of Romania finds a middle way, allowing prosecutors to share the knowledge they have accumulated and to take part in training future generations of jurists without compromising the independence of the judicial system. A strong argument in favour of this revision might be that the involvement of prosecutors in legal education helps consolidate the link between the theory and the practice of law. By passing on their practical experience, prosecutors can offer students a realistic perspective on the application of the law, an essential component in building a solid foundation within the legal professions. Moreover, the participation of prosecutors in academic life can stimulate research and the development of new approaches in the legal field, which is of real benefit to the justice system as a whole.
In addition, this openness to the academic world can help narrow the existing gaps between legal theory and the realities of the courtroom. Prosecutors, having access to the latest research and theoretical debates, can bring practical improvements to the interpretation and application of laws. This symbiosis between legal theory and practice can lead to a better understanding of the law and to an administration of justice consonant with the dynamics of contemporary society.
By balancing professional responsibilities with the possibility of contributing to legal education, the proposed revision of Article 132 represents a step forward towards an adaptable and dynamic system of justice. Collaboration between the judicial and academic spheres can not only enrich the understanding of the law but can also create a generation of jurists better prepared for the challenges of the future.
Ultimately, the revision of Article 132 of the Constitution of Romania is an opportunity to build a judicial system that is more robust and better adapted to the complexity of the modern world. By promoting a better interconnection between legal theory and judicial practice, and by securing greater flexibility in the professional careers of magistrates, this revision can contribute to raising the quality of the administration of justice in Romania.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 132 of the Constitution of Romania through the introduction of exceptions allowing prosecutors to hold teaching positions represents a necessary step in modernising the judicial profession and aligning it with European standards.
This entails a continuing commitment to improving the quality of legal training, promoting research in the field of law and securing a productive interaction between universities and judicial institutions.
The changes made to the Constitution of Romania, including those to Article 132, reflect society’s aspirations towards a stronger and more equitable rule of law. These aspirations connect with a broader vision in which justice is not merely a function of the State but a service provided to citizens, with the aim of protecting individual liberties and promoting a fairer and more prosperous society.
The revision of Article 132 is therefore more than a mere legal adjustment; it is part of a broader effort to modernise the Romanian judicial system. It is an occasion to reflect on the role magistrates play in society and to redefine what it means for them genuinely to serve the public interest. The revision of Article 132 thus represents not merely an amendment to a section of the Constitution but a reflection on the future of justice in Romania. It must be seen as an opportunity to consolidate the rule of law and to guarantee that every citizen enjoys the equitable protection of the country’s laws. For all these reasons, the revision of Article 132 of the Constitution of Romania is not merely a legal necessity but also an expression of societal evolution and of the nation’s aspirations to progress.
40. Article 133 is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(1) The Superior Council of Magistracy is the guarantor of the independence of justice.
(2) The Superior Council of Magistracy is composed of 15 members, of whom:
(a) 10 are elected by the general assemblies of judges and validated by the Senate; they are elected as follows —
— 2 from among the judges of the courts of first instance, by the judges serving in those courts;
— 3 from among the judges of the tribunals, by the judges serving in the tribunals;
— 3 from among the judges of the courts of appeal, by the judges serving in the courts of appeal;
— 2 from among the judges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, one elected by the judges serving in the criminal division and one elected by the judges serving in the other divisions;
(b) 2 representatives of civil society, specialists in the field of law, of high professional and moral standing, who have not belonged to political parties in the last 5 years, elected by the Senate; they take part only in the plenary proceedings;
(c) the Minister of Justice, the President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
(3) The President of the Superior Council of Magistracy is elected for a term of one year, which may not be renewed, from among the magistrates referred to in paragraph (2)(a), in descending order of professional rank and of seniority.
(4) The President of the Superior Council of Magistracy is elected for a term of one year, which may not be renewed or extended in any way, from among the judges referred to in paragraph (2).
(5) The term of office of the members of the Superior Council of Magistracy is 4 years.
(6) The decisions of the Superior Council of Magistracy are taken by secret or open ballot, in accordance with the law.”
The proposed revision of Article 133 of the Constitution of Romania responds to the need to consolidate the independence of justice and to adapt the legislative framework to present realities and challenges. It is therefore important to analyse the reasons underlying this initiative, comparing the proposed amendments with the present text and anticipating the impact they could have on the Romanian judicial system.
Article 133 in its present form defines the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) as the body responsible for securing the independence of the judicial system and for overseeing the careers of magistrates. The main aspects governed by this article concern the composition of the CSM, the manner of electing its members and the duration of their terms. In its present form the CSM is composed of 19 members, with a president elected for a three-year term, which may be renewed.
The proposed revision introduces significant changes, including the removal of the 5 prosecutors and the reduction of the number of members from 19 to 15, as well as the limitation of the president’s term to one year, with no possibility of renewal in any form. These amendments are intended to increase the efficiency and accountability of the CSM and to secure a balanced representation among the various levels of the judicial system and civil society. Another major change concerns the manner of electing the members of the Council.
Under the new proposal, the members are elected by the community they represent, which could contribute to greater autonomy and to a more faithful reflection of the diversity and specialisations within the judicial system. Likewise, the introduction of specialists from civil society who have had no recent political affiliations may be seen as a further guarantee of the impartiality and independence of justice.
These proposed amendments must be analysed in the broader context of developments in the judicial system and of European standards on the independence of justice. For example, the Venice Commission has repeatedly emphasised the importance of protecting the independence of the judicial system from political pressure and has recommended consolidating that principle through mechanisms of judicial self-government. Reducing political influence in the appointment of CSM members and securing a balance among the various levels of the judicial system and civil society responds to those recommendations.
In addition, limiting the term of the president of the CSM to one year, with a prohibition on renewal on any ground, aims to prevent the long-term accumulation of power in the hands of a single person, an aspect criticised in the past by various international bodies. This may result in more frequent rotation and a more equitable distribution of responsibilities, thereby contributing to more dynamic and transparent leadership.
At the same time, the proposal to have representatives of civil society in the CSM with no recent political ties is an important step towards depoliticising justice and securing social oversight of the way it is administered. This measure can strengthen public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judicial system.
The comparative analysis of the present text and of that proposed for the revision of Article 133 of the Constitution of Romania shows that the changes seek an adaptation to the present context, a more efficient functioning of the CSM and a consolidation of the independence of justice. It is a recognition of the fact that the dynamics of Romanian society and European norms call for a continual reassessment of the mechanisms guaranteeing the rule of law. The innovative aspects introduced by the revision are not merely a response to external criticism or recommendations but also an attempt to answer domestic needs highlighted by judicial practice. These changes can contribute to raising the quality of the administration of justice and to greater accountability on the part of those assuming key roles within the CSM.
Examining the proposed revision, we can observe an effort to align the Romanian judicial system with European standards. In conclusion, the proposed revision of Article 133 of the Constitution of Romania reflects a positive trend towards modernising the judicial system and adapting it to the standards of independence and impartiality.
One of the principal arguments for revising Article 133 is to secure better representation of judges from all levels of the courts — from the courts of first instance up to the High Court of Cassation and Justice — as well as diversity within the CSM. Whereas at present the members are appointed through various mechanisms that may be susceptible to political or other influence, the article as revised seeks a more direct and autonomous selection of representatives. This could lead to greater confidence in the judicial system, since the decisions of the CSM will more clearly reflect the will and professional interests of magistrates, without being filtered or influenced by a political agenda. It is a significant change, since it strengthens the principle of the independence of the magistracy from the other powers of the State.
Likewise, by limiting the term of the president of the CSM to just one year, with no possibility of renewal, the aim is to avoid the prolonged concentration of authority in a single pair of hands — a factor often associated with the risk of influence and abuse. The proposal thereby encourages a constant cycle of new perspectives and approaches in the leadership of the CSM, which can lead to more balanced decisions and to greater transparency in the Council’s work.
The changes proposed in the context of the present Article 133 seek to bring the Romanian judicial system closer to international standards on the independence of justice and to respond to the concerns expressed both nationally and internationally.
In order to appreciate the full measure of the proposals for revision, it is instructive to compare them with the arrangements in other European countries. For example, in France the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature) has similar powers and is composed both of elected magistrates and of members appointed by the President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly and the President of the Senate. This mixed structure provides diversified representation and seeks to balance political influence with judicial autonomy.
In Germany, the Federal Judicial Council (Bundesrichterrat) is responsible for the administration and careers of federal judges and is composed exclusively of judges elected by their peers. This system of self-government reflects a deep confidence in the capacity of the magistracy to manage its own affairs independently, without direct intervention by the political powers. The German example thus offers a valuable perspective on the importance of autonomy within the judicial system and on the ways in which it can be achieved. In Italy, the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura) is composed largely of magistrates elected directly by their peers, with a few extra-judicial members, including the President of the Republic and other members of Parliament. This structure combines judicial autonomy with a form of democratic supervision, seeking to maintain a balance between the independence of justice and accountability to society.
Comparing these models with the proposed revision of Article 133 of the Constitution of Romania, we may observe that there is a variety of approaches in Europe as regards the composition and functioning of superior councils of the judiciary. This demonstrates that there is no single or perfect formula but rather different solutions adapted to the context and history of each State.
In the Romanian context, the proposed revision appears to move towards a model that values judicial autonomy and the active participation of the magistracy in the self-government of the judicial system. There is an observable tendency to move away from political influence and to encourage a balance between legal expertise and democratic control.
It is essential that, while we strive to modernise and improve the judicial system, we preserve and promote the fundamental principles of the rule of law and respect national legal traditions.
The proposals for revising Article 133 are consistent with these values and contribute to a system of justice that serves the needs of society effectively and equitably.
The conclusions to be drawn from this comparative analysis are that, although every judicial system has its specific features, there is a common direction towards strengthening the independence and accountability of the magistracy. The reforms proposed in Romania follow that general trend, with particular attention given to participation and representativeness within the structures of self-government of the judicial system.
In conclusion, the proposed revision of Article 133 of the Constitution of Romania is an undertaking that contributes significantly to consolidating the independence of the judicial system.
41. Article 134 is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(1) The Superior Council of Magistracy shall propose to the President of Romania the appointment of judges and prosecutors, except trainees, under the conditions laid down by law, selected through an annual national competition for admission to the magistracy organised by the National Institute of Magistracy, from among persons holding a degree in law with at least 8 years’ seniority in legal professions or in higher legal education.
(2) Prosecutors may not be moved or transferred to the office of judge otherwise than by passing the examination referred to in paragraph (1).
(3) Judges and prosecutors may be delegated or seconded to executive or management positions only by the Superior Council of Magistracy, through a national examination or competition organised by the National Institute of Magistracy.
(3) The Superior Council of Magistracy shall act as a court of law in matters of the disciplinary liability of judges and prosecutors, in accordance with the procedure laid down by its organic law. In such cases the Minister of Justice, the President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Prosecutor General of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice shall have no right to vote.
(4) The decisions of the Superior Council of Magistracy in disciplinary matters may be challenged before the High Court of Cassation and Justice. Decisions of the Superior Council of Magistracy dismissing the disciplinary sanctioning of judges and prosecutors may be challenged before the same court.
(5) The Superior Council of Magistracy shall also discharge such other functions as are laid down by its organic law, in fulfilment of its role as guarantor of the independence of justice.
(6) The Judicial Inspectorate shall carry out the preliminary investigation of judges and prosecutors and shall function under the authority of the Minister of Justice, as a directorate with legal personality within the Ministry of Justice. That directorate shall be staffed by judicial inspectors with a legal career of at least 12 years in legal positions, including that of magistrate. Positions of judicial inspector shall be filled through a competition organised at national level by the National Institute of Magistracy, and the term of office of judicial inspectors shall be 6 years, renewable once only for the same period. During their term of office, judicial inspectors shall have the same rights and obligations as judges and prosecutors, being assimilated to them according to the seniority held in their legal position. Judicial inspectors shall be sanctioned by the Minister of Justice, in accordance with the organic law governing the liability of magistrates.”
The declared purpose of revising Article 134 is to increase the competence of judges and prosecutors, to raise citizens’ confidence in justice and to adapt and modernise the judicial system in accordance with European and international standards.
(1) The proposal concerning the manner of appointing judges and prosecutors. The present text of Article 134 provides that judges and prosecutors are appointed by the President of Romania on the proposal of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM). The new proposal introduces a significant change: appointment will be made on the basis of an annual national competition for admission to the magistracy organised by the National Institute of Magistracy. This change could bring greater transparency and meritocracy to the justice system, ensuring that the best-prepared candidates accede to important offices. Moreover, the requirement of at least 8 years’ seniority in legal professions or in higher legal education will be an effective filter guaranteeing the experience necessary to discharge with professionalism these roles essential to justice.
(2) The mobility of prosecutors. By comparison with the present rules, which allow greater flexibility in moving prosecutors, the new proposal makes any transfer conditional upon passing the examination referred to in paragraph (1). This measure is designed to ensure that prosecutors are not subject to arbitrary moves, thereby contributing to the consolidation of their independence within the judicial system. It is essential that prosecutors be protected from external influences, including political ones, so as to be able to administer justice impartially and equitably.
(3) The delegation and secondment of judges and prosecutors. The new draft revision proposes that delegation or secondment to executive or management positions be carried out exclusively by the CSM, through examination or competition. This differs from present practice, in which these processes may be managed more directly by the judicial institutions. The provision underlines the wish to centralise and standardise the process of delegation and secondment, providing a picture of unity and coherence within the judicial system. In addition, the introduction of a national examination or competition for these positions reaffirms the commitment to the principles of meritocracy and professional competence.
(4) The role of the CSM as a court in disciplinary matters. Another significant change is that the CSM will act as a court of law for the disciplinary liability of magistrates, without the involvement of the Minister of Justice, the President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Prosecutor General in the voting process. This is a clear departure from the present structure, in which these figures of authority have a right to vote in disciplinary matters. This amendment will contribute to greater independence of the disciplinary process, insulating it from potential political influence.
(5) The extension of the powers of the CSM. The proposed revision extends the powers of the CSM, providing that it also discharges such other functions as are laid down by its organic law, in fulfilment of its role as guarantor of the independence of justice. This means that the CSM will have a greater say in guaranteeing the independence of the judicial system — an orientation reflecting European trends towards consolidating the autonomy of justice vis-à-vis the other powers of the State.
(6) The Judicial Inspectorate under the authority of the Minister of Justice. The last proposed amendment provides that the Judicial Inspectorate will function under the authority of the Minister of Justice, with a clearly defined structure and mandate. This could secure more effective supervision and better control over the activity of magistrates, through a body of inspectors with experience and seniority in the legal field. It is important to note that these inspectors will have a status equivalent to that of judges and prosecutors, which underlines the responsibility and seriousness of their role in the judicial system. This provision serves to strengthen the mechanisms of control and to secure greater accountability of magistrates.
In conclusion, the proposals for revising Article 134 of the Constitution of Romania introduce significant amendments capable of having a profound impact on the country’s justice system. From increased transparency and the consolidation of meritocracy to securing greater independence for magistrates and for the disciplinary process, the proposed changes reflect a wish to align the Romanian judicial system with European standards.
Finally, the amendments to Article 134 respond not only to the immediate needs of the judicial system but also anticipate future challenges, securing its flexibility, adaptability and durability in the face of changes in Romanian society and in the international context.
The revision of the Constitution, and in particular of Article 134, is not merely an opportunity to improve the functioning of justice but also a responsibility towards the principles of the rule of law. It must be guided by a broad consensus and by respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.
Comparing with other constitutions in Europe, we observe that many Member States of the European Union have opted for judicial systems emphasising the independence of the magistracy and the transparency of appointment processes. For example, in Germany federal judges are appointed by the Federal President and a council composed of the ministers of justice of the Länder and members of the Bundestag, with the aim of balancing political influences. In France, the Superior Council of the Judiciary plays a primary role in guaranteeing the independence of justice.
It is evident that there is a variety of approaches in Europe, but all have in common a commitment to protecting the independence of the judicial system and to securing a fair and transparent appointment process for magistrates.
The comparative analysis of these European models can offer a valuable perspective in the process of constitutional revision in Romania. Taking the good practice of other States as a benchmark, Romania can adapt and refine the proposals for amending Article 134 so as to correspond not only to domestic needs but also to align its legislation with European standards and principles. It is notable that, despite the diversity of European judicial systems, all countries share the conviction that the independence of justice is a cornerstone of democracy and of the rule of law. This European consensus can serve as a solid foundation for the reforms proposed in Romania, ensuring that they will be consistent with the common values and objectives of the Member States of the European Union.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 134 of the Constitution of Romania represents an important step towards consolidating the judicial system and aligning it with international standards of independence and efficiency. The proposed changes are intended to bring significant improvements to the process of appointing, moving and holding magistrates accountable, and also to increase transparency and control as regards disciplinary liability and the functioning of the Judicial Inspectorate. Constitutional reforms are essential in order to meet contemporary challenges and to secure a strong judicial system capable of protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens against any pressure or abuse.
42. Article 136(4) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(4) Goods in public ownership are inalienable. Under the conditions laid down by organic law, they may be given into the administration of autonomous public undertakings or of public institutions, or may be concessioned or leased; they may also be given for free use to institutions of public utility. The royalties due under concession contracts shall be updated to the level of the prices practised in the European Union every five years.”
Article 136 of the Constitution of Romania concerns public and private property and is a central pillar as regards the regulation of the national patrimony. Paragraph 4 of that article, in its present form, provides that goods in public ownership are inalienable, with the possibility that, under the conditions laid down by law, they may be given for the use of autonomous public undertakings, be concessioned, leased or given for free use to institutions of public utility, without however specifying a clear periodicity for updating the royalties relating to concessions. → the text of the article
The proposed revision of paragraph 4 seeks to introduce a mechanism for updating the royalties under concession contracts every five years, in line with the prices practised in the European Union, which could lead to a better reflection of the real value of the goods concessioned and to greater efficiency in the administration of State property. Comparing this proposal with the present rules, we observe that the revision could bring more clarity and predictability to the management of public property. At present, the absence of a fixed period for updating royalties can lead to situations in which the Romanian State does not obtain revenue appropriate to the market value of its goods. For example, in the case of long-term concession contracts, inflation and market fluctuations can significantly erode the value of the initial royalties. Another relevant aspect is alignment with European standards.
In the European Union, the periodic updating of royalties is a common practice, designed to secure fair competition and the optimal exploitation of public goods. Adopting such a measure in Romanian law at constitutional level will therefore contribute to better integration into European market mechanisms and to the protection of Romania’s economic interests.
In addition, the revision of Article 136(4) will secure a greater degree of transparency in public administration, an essential aspect in the fight against corruption and in increasing citizens’ confidence in the institutions of the State. Transparency in the periodic review of concession contracts could discourage anti-competitive practices and could provide a clearer picture of the way in which national assets are exploited. In conclusion, the revision of Article 136(4) of the Constitution of Romania appears to be not only an alignment with European standards but also a necessary step towards better management of the national public patrimony. Such a change could bring significant economic benefits, could increase administrative efficiency and could consolidate the rule of law by increasing transparency and accountability.
In order better to understand the European context of this proposed revision, it is useful to make a comparison with other European constitutions. Looking at the constitutional models of other EU Member States, we observe that most of them have mechanisms for updating the royalties set for concessioned goods, securing an adaptation to economic dynamics and to market developments. For example, the Constitution of Germany provides that federal goods must be administered in the public interest, with the possibility of concession but with an obligation of efficient management, which implicitly presupposes the periodic review of contracts so as to reflect current market conditions.
Similarly, France has clauses in its legislation ensuring that the exploitation of natural resources or of goods of public interest is carried out in accordance with the principles of the market economy, and concession contracts are subject to periodic updating so as to ensure that the State obtains a fair and equitable return.
By contrast, in Romania the present wording of Article 136 of the Constitution provides no explicit framework for updating royalties, which can lead to the undervaluation of concessioned goods and to losses for the State budget.
In view of that context, the proposed revision of Article 136(4) is not merely welcome but necessary in order to bring Romanian legislation into step with the practice of other European States and to improve the management of national resources. Moreover, this amendment could serve as an incentive for attracting new investment, investors having a clear picture of long-term costs and of the stability of the legislative framework. This is essential in a global economic climate in which competition for capital is intense and in which the clarity and predictability of the rules can make the difference in the choice of an investment destination.
Besides the economic aspects, the revision of Article 136 also has an important social dimension. Public property, by definition, belongs to citizens, and its efficient management reflects respect for common resources. The periodic updating of concession royalties could ensure that the economic benefits are distributed more equitably, contributing to the reduction of social disparities and to the financing of essential public services.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 136(4) of the Constitution of Romania represents an opportunity to modernise the legal framework and to respond more effectively to present economic dynamics. It could be an important step towards a more transparent and more responsible management of national goods — a key element in consolidating public confidence in the institutions of the State and in promoting sustainable economic policies. The proposed revision is therefore not merely a technical adjustment but a commitment to the principles of good governance and of respect for the common interest. It is an example of good practice for other necessary legislative amendments, contributing to the continued alignment of Romanian legislation with European standards and democratic values.
43. Article 140(3) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) The Court of Auditors shall audit the management of public resources and shall report its findings to Parliament at least once a year. The report is public.”
The present text of Article 140(3) provides: “The Court of Auditors, exercising control over the formation, administration and use of the financial resources of the State and of the public sector, shall report to Parliament and to the Government in accordance with the law.” That wording, though functional, leaves room for ambiguity and may lead to delays in communicating the results of audits, since it specifies no clear time-frame for reporting.
The proposed revision of Article 140(3) brings to the fore the obligation of the Court of Auditors to report the results of its audits to Parliament at least once a year. This amendment has the potential considerably to improve transparency in the process of supervising public finances and to secure better accountability of State institutions to citizens. Publication of the report would also facilitate more active participation by civil society and the media in monitoring public expenditure, allowing more effective social control and constant pressure on the authorities to manage the country’s resources prudently.
Moreover, the proposed revision underlines the importance of the role of the Court of Auditors as an independent body capable of carrying out objective audits and of reporting without political constraint. By contrast, the present text may be interpreted as permitting a certain flexibility in the relationship between the Court of Auditors, Parliament and the Government, which may affect the independence and effectiveness of the audit.
Examining other European constitutions, we observe that in many Member States of the European Union the bodies equivalent to Romania’s Court of Auditors are required to report periodically and transparently on their activities. For example, in Germany, under Article 114 of the Grundgesetz, the Federal Court of Audit reports directly to the Bundestag and the Bundesrat (the two chambers of parliament), thereby securing greater transparency and effective parliamentary control over the use of public funds. Similarly, in France the Court of Auditors (Cour des comptes) presents annual reports to Parliament and to the Constitutional Council, playing a crucial role in assessing and publishing information on public finances. These international comparisons underline the fact that mandatory annual and public reporting is a common and effective practice in securing rigorous control over public resources — a principle that the proposed revision brings into Romanian law as well.
The revision of Article 140 of the Constitution of Romania represents a necessary step towards alignment with the standards of transparency and financial accountability practised at European level. The proposed amendments provide a clearer framework for the activity of the Court of Auditors and strengthen the mechanisms of oversight of public funds, thereby contributing to the consolidation of democracy and to increased citizen confidence in the institutions of the State.
Article 140 as revised can serve as an example of good practice in the region and can mark a benchmark for reforms in the fiscal and administrative fields. By adopting these amendments Romania would demonstrate its commitment to the principles of financial integrity and could positively influence the international perception of its system of governance. → the text of the article
The revision of Article 140 is therefore not merely a matter of conforming to European standards but also an opportunity to rebuild public trust and to strengthen Romania’s democratic structure. It is a key moment for consolidating the foundations of an accountable and transparent financial administration serving the interests of citizens efficiently and equitably.
The democratisation of financial information and easy public access to the reports of the Court of Auditors will play an essential role in stimulating civic participation and in holding political decision-makers to account. In that context the revision of Article 140 may be seen as an open invitation to citizens to take an active part in overseeing their funds and to contribute to cleaner and more accountable governance.
Through this proposed revision, Romania could demonstrate that it is possible to reconcile the need for flexibility and agility in the administration of resources with the requirements of rigour and transparency imposed by a modern State governed by the rule of law. It is imperative that the legislative amendments be accompanied by a real commitment to their effective implementation and to educating the public about the importance of overseeing public resources. In the context of the revision of Article 140, the way is thus opened for a constructive dialogue between the authorities and citizens — a dialogue contributing to better governance and to a fairer society.
In essence, the revision of Article 140 is not merely a matter of legislation but a reflection of the collective will to advance towards total transparency in the use of public money. It is a measure which, by aligning with the highest European standards, can inaugurate a new era of fiscal responsibility in Romania.
By adopting these changes, Romania could become a model to follow in the region, demonstrating that transparency and accountability in the management of public funds are not merely aspirations but effective realities.
In conclusion, the revision of Article 140 of the Constitution of Romania is an initiative capable of fortifying democratic institutions and of increasing efficiency in the administration of public money. It is a call to action to ensure that national resources are used in the interest of the people and that any form of mismanagement is brought to public attention and duly sanctioned. Every citizen has the right to know how public funds are spent and to have confidence in the State’s mechanisms of control. The proposed revision of Article 140 can contribute to achieving this ideal and can mark an important step towards consolidating the rule of law and democracy in Romania. This constitutional revision is therefore not merely a matter of compliance with European norms but also an expression of political maturing and social progress. It reflects a deep understanding of the fact that, in a healthy democracy, every leu in the national treasury must be subject to rigorous and transparent control.
44. Article 142(3) is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) Three judges are appointed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, three by the Government, two by the Chamber of Deputies and one by the Senate.”
Article 142 of the Constitution concerns the composition of the Constitutional Court and the manner of appointing its judges. Under the present text, the Constitutional Court is composed of nine judges appointed for a term of nine years, which may not be renewed or extended. The judges of the Constitutional Court are appointed as follows: three by the Chamber of Deputies, three by the Senate and three by the President of Romania. This structure was intended to secure a balance among the powers of the State and to guarantee the independence of the Court. → the text of the article
The proposed revision of Article 142(3) entails a significant change in the appointment of judges. Under the new formula, three judges would be appointed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, three by the Government, two by the Chamber of Deputies and one by the Senate. This proposed reconfiguration of the appointment mechanism aims to bring a more faithful representation of the three powers of the State — legislative, executive and judicial — within the Constitutional Court.
First, the involvement of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in the process of appointing three judges may be seen as a step towards consolidating the independence and professionalism of the Constitutional Court. This change recognises the crucial role of the highest court in promoting persons of high legal competence and with relevant experience in the field of constitutional law. This could help increase the legitimacy of the decisions of the Constitutional Court and consolidate public confidence in that institution.
On the other hand, the involvement of the Government in appointing three judges and the exclusion of the President of Romania from this activity confirm and strengthen the role of the Government as the central element of the executive power, reflecting the political will of the parliamentary majority, and at the same time return the President to his role of mediator among the powers of the State rather than that of a playing “head of State” acting as an exponent of the executive.
The balance of powers within the State, a fundamental principle in any democracy, is thereby consolidated by the amendments made to the constitutional text in force.
By comparison with the present system of appointing the judges of the Constitutional Court, the revised text of the Constitution divides the responsibility among the three branches of power: legislative, executive and judicial. This balance was conceived in order to prevent the supremacy of any one of the powers and to secure mutual control.
The move from a system in which the President has a decisive role in appointing judges to one in which the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the Government are more prominent represents a change of paradigm and constitutes a consolidation of the balance of powers within the State and, above all, an increase in the independence of the Constitutional Court.
The proposed amendment must also be compared with the practice of other European States. For example, in Germany the judges of the Federal Constitutional Court are elected by the Bundestag (the lower chamber of parliament) and the Bundesrat (the representatives of the federal states), which reflects a federal structure and a balance among the various levels of government. In France, the members of the Constitutional Council are appointed by the President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly and the President of the Senate, each having the right to designate one third of the members of the Council. This diversity of models reflects the attempt to adapt the structure of judicial appointment to the constitutional specificity and legal traditions of each State.
Analysing the proposed revision further from a comparative perspective, it may be observed that in some European countries there is a tendency to separate the powers of the State still more clearly — a model also adopted by the revised version of the Constitution. This arises from the wish to protect the independence of constitutional justice from political influence. For example, in Spain the judges of the Constitutional Tribunal are appointed by the King on the proposal of the chambers of parliament, the government and the judicial bodies, with the aim of securing representativeness and balance.
An important point in the debate on the revision of Article 142 concerns the perception of judicial independence. In the revised wording of the constitutional text, each of the three powers of the State nominates an equal number of judges, which can convey an image of neutrality and even-handedness.
It is essential that the Constitutional Court be seen as an impartial arbiter of the legality and constitutionality of normative acts, in order to preserve public confidence in the legal system. In conclusion, the revision of Article 142 of the Constitution of Romania has regard to the need to reflect contemporary realities and to consolidate the independence of the Court, while maintaining a balance among the powers of the State.
45. The sole paragraph of Article 143 is amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“The judges of the Constitutional Court must have higher legal training, high professional competence, at least 18 years’ seniority in legal practice or in higher legal education, and must not have belonged to political parties in the five years preceding their appointment as judge.”
The proposed revision of the sole paragraph of Article 143 of the Constitution of Romania concerns the criteria that the judges of the Constitutional Court must meet in order to be appointed. The new wording proposes high standards of legal training and professional competence, as well as at least 18 years’ experience in the legal field or in higher legal education. Moreover, prospective judges are required not to have been members of political parties in the five years preceding their appointment. This last element is added in order to secure the impartiality and independence of judges, being an essential point for the integrity of constitutional justice.
The present text of the Constitution imposes no clear restriction concerning membership of political formations prior to appointment. The comparison therefore reveals a significant step towards the depoliticisation of the Constitutional Court, aligning with the standards of European countries where such criteria are already in force.
For example, in Germany the judges of the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) are selected on the basis of strict criteria of independence and professionalism, and their legal experience is essential to the exercise of the office. Likewise, in France the members of the Constitutional Council (Conseil Constitutionnel) are designated in a manner that promotes independence from political parties, with the aim of securing impartial justice of high quality.
Studying these examples, we may observe that the proposed revision of Article 143 of the Constitution of Romania moves in the right direction in order to strengthen citizens’ confidence in the integrity of the Constitutional Court and to align better with the democratic practice consolidated at European level.
It is imperative to understand that the foundation of a consolidated democracy lies in impartial constitutional justice and in a legal framework that promotes competence and independence. This proposed revision therefore seeks not only to raise the standards of integrity of the judges of the Constitutional Court but also to consolidate the principles of the rule of law in Romania.
Finally, the adoption of such a revision could have a positive impact on public perception and on the functioning of constitutional justice. It could also represent a powerful signal that Romania is dedicated to improving its legal system and aligning with the highest European standards, which could increase the confidence of international partners in our country’s commitment to democratic values and to the rule of law. The revision of Article 143 may therefore be seen not merely as a necessary domestic reform but also as a strategic move in the broader European and international context.
In conclusion, the revision proposed for Article 143 of the Constitution of Romania represents a step forward towards a more robust constitutional justice better adapted to present requirements. The aim is not only alignment with European standards but also the consolidation of citizens’ confidence in the mechanisms of constitutional review.
46. Points (a) to (d) of Article 146 are amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(a) rules on the constitutionality of laws before their promulgation, upon referral by the President of Romania, by one of the presidents of the two Chambers, by the Government, by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, by the Ombudsman, by at least 20 deputies or at least 10 senators, and also rules of its own motion on initiatives for the revision of the Constitution;
(b) rules on the constitutionality of treaties or other international agreements, upon referral by one of the presidents of the two Chambers, by at least 20 deputies or at least 10 senators;
(c) rules on the constitutionality of the standing orders of Parliament, upon referral by one of the presidents of the two Chambers, by a parliamentary group or by at least 20 deputies or at least 10 senators;
(d) decides on objections of unconstitutionality concerning laws and ordinances raised before the courts of law or before commercial arbitration bodies; an objection of unconstitutionality may also be raised directly by the Ombudsman or by at least 20 deputies or at least 10 senators;”
The amendments made to this fundamental text are not merely a matter of form but of substance, with the potential decisively to influence the way in which citizens and institutions exercise their rights and discharge their obligations. Article 146 of the Constitution of Romania defines the powers of the Constitutional Court, an institution essential to the process of overseeing compliance with the supremacy of the Constitution.
In its present form, the article lays down the mechanisms by which the Constitutional Court intervenes to secure the conformity of legal acts with the country’s fundamental law. The revision of this article, in accordance with the proposals listed at (a) to (d), introduces significant amendments:
First, point (a) extends the right to refer a matter to the Constitutional Court before the promulgation of laws. By comparison with the present text, this proposal adds the Ombudsman and a reduced number of members of Parliament to the list of those who may make such a referral. This change democratises access to constitutional justice and can improve the preventive supervision of legislative acts, ensuring that the laws that come to be promulgated are fully consistent with constitutional principles and provisions. This amendment is in line with trends in other European States, where institutions similar to the Ombudsman or a reduced number of members of parliament have the capacity to refer matters to constitutional courts, reflecting a greater openness to accessible and effective judicial review.
Point (b) essentially preserves the right to refer international treaties to the Constitutional Court, maintaining the threshold of members of Parliament required to initiate constitutional review. This underlines the importance of supervising the integration of international norms into the domestic legal order, a common practice in many European jurisdictions, securing the harmonisation of national with international legislation and avoiding possible normative conflicts.
The change proposed at point (c) introduces a novelty as regards the review of the constitutionality of the standing orders of Parliament, extending the right of referral to parliamentary groups as well. This may have the effect of increasing legislative accountability and encouraging a constructive dialogue between majority and opposition in the process of adopting Parliament’s internal rules. By comparison with other constitutional systems in Europe, this proposal may be seen as a step forward towards consolidating democratic principles and the rule of law.
The last amendment, at point (d), is perhaps the most significant, since it gives the Ombudsman and a reduced number of members of Parliament the possibility of raising objections of unconstitutionality directly, without waiting for them first to be dealt with by the courts. This facilitates a more rapid response in the case of laws or ordinances that might contravene the Constitution, constituting an effective preventive review. By comparison with other European States, where objections of unconstitutionality are generally dealt with in the courts, this proposal evidences a wish to consolidate the role of the Constitutional Court as guardian of the Constitution and to accelerate the process of verifying the conformity of laws.
These amendments as a whole are directed towards greater accessibility and efficiency in the review of the constitutionality of normative acts, thereby aligning with European standards on fundamental rights and the supremacy of the law. In conclusion, the revision of Article 146 of the Constitution of Romania as proposed reflects a natural and necessary development in the contemporary context, responding to the requirements of a dynamic society and of transparent and accountable governance. These proposed changes bring Romania into better alignment with European constitutional practice and can contribute to consolidating the rule of law.
47. Paragraphs (3) and (4) of Article 147 are amended to read as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) Where the constitutionality of a treaty or international agreement has been established under Article 146(b), it may not be the subject of an objection of unconstitutionality on the same grounds of fact and of law. A treaty or international agreement found to be unconstitutional may not be ratified.
(4) The decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be published in the Official Gazette of Romania. From the date of publication the decisions are generally binding and have effect only for the future, as well as for the whole period during which the normative act declared unconstitutional produced effects.”
[Editorial note: the Romanian source begins this paragraph with a stray editing mark.] Article 147, which deals with the authority of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, is the subject of a proposed revision deserving particular attention. The proposed amendments raise two major points: international treaties and agreements, and the publication of the decisions of the Constitutional Court. In their present form, Article 147(3) and (4) lay down the role of the Constitutional Court in verifying the constitutionality of treaties and govern the manner of publication and the effects of the Court’s decisions. The changes suggested seek to clarify and consolidate these aspects. The proposed paragraph (3) provides greater legal certainty as regards international treaties. If a treaty is declared constitutional, it may no longer be challenged subsequently on the same grounds. This revision could prevent legal deadlock and would harmonise Romanian practice with European practice, where such clauses are common. The proposed paragraph (4), for its part, emphasises the authority of the Court’s decisions and their effects on the legislative and legal future. Publication in the Official Gazette confers on the decisions greater visibility and accessibility, and the statement that decisions have effect only for the future underlines the principle of the non-retroactivity of the law, aligning with international legal standards and with European constitutional practice.
Analysing paragraph (3) by comparison with the present text, we observe an attempt to eliminate procedural redundancies and to secure a better integration of international law into the national legal system. At present, even after an affirmative decision of the Constitutional Court, international treaties may still be the subject of challenges of unconstitutionality, which can lead to delays in the ratification process and to legal uncertainty unfavourable to the development of international relations. Paragraph (4), in its revised form, by contrast, consolidates the status of the Court’s decisions as final and generally binding. This change reflects a firmer and clearer approach to the legal effects of the Court’s rulings, eliminating any ambiguity as to their applicability and temporal scope. It is a measure capable of contributing to legal stability and to the predictability of judicial decisions — elements essential in a State governed by the rule of law. In the European context, many national constitutions already provide similar mechanisms for international treaties and for the effects of the decisions of constitutional courts. For example, in Germany the decisions of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) are considered final and binding, and in France international treaties have greater authority than national laws once they are ratified and published. These comparisons highlight the fact that the proposals for revising Article 147 of the Constitution of Romania are not only relevant but also necessary in order to align Romanian legislation with European standards and practice. By adopting these amendments, Romania would follow a European trend of consolidating the rule of law and of securing greater coherence and stability in the application of domestic and international law. In view of these arguments, the revision of Article 147 presents itself not merely as a necessity but also as an opportunity for legal development. It reflects a commitment to democratic principles, respect for human rights and effective integration into the European legal space. It would also represent an important step in consolidating citizens’ confidence in constitutional mechanisms and in the authority of the Constitutional Court. In conclusion, the proposals for revising Article 147 of the Constitution of Romania should be regarded as progress in the right direction. They not only respond to the present needs of Romanian society but also bring national legislation into step with European constitutional trends. This revision could serve as a model for other nations seeking to modernise their constitutional framework, underlining Romania’s role as a responsible and progressive actor on the European stage. Finally, it is essential that any revision of the Constitution be preceded by a broad and open dialogue involving both specialists in constitutional law and civil society. Through that process we can ensure that the amendments made not only respect the fundamental values of democracy and the rule of law but also respond effectively and equitably to the needs and aspirations of citizens. In the light of these considerations, the revision of Article 147 represents not merely a necessary step but also a commitment to maintaining and fortifying a robust legal system capable of meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century. It is likewise crucial that the process of revision have regard not only to alignment with European standards but also to national specificities. A balanced approach will ensure that the amendments are not only compatible with international norms but also appropriate to Romania’s unique context. This balance is essential so as not to lose sight of the country’s legal and cultural identity in the course of European integration. Finally, the revision of Article 147 proposes a series of changes which are essentially intended to increase the efficiency and coherence of the Romanian legal system in its relationship with the mechanisms and principles of international law. This undertaking is consistent with Romania’s commitment to respecting and promoting democratic values and fundamental rights, in accordance with its international commitments and the aspirations of its citizens. The proposals for revising Article 147 must therefore be assessed carefully, both in terms of compatibility with European norms and values and in the light of national specificities and needs.
48. After Article 147(4) there is inserted a new paragraph (5), reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(5) Failure by judges and prosecutors to comply with the decisions of the Constitutional Court constitutes a disciplinary offence and shall be sanctioned under conditions laid down by organic law.”
Article 147 of the Constitution of Romania, which concerns the effects of the decisions of the Constitutional Court and their role in the national normative hierarchy, provides in its present form, at paragraphs (1) to (4), that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are generally binding, have effect only for the future — save for decisions on the unconstitutionality of laws before promulgation — and that texts declared unconstitutional may not be sent back for re-examination within the same legislative term.
In that context, the proposed revision and the insertion of paragraph (5) into that article serve to consolidate the authority of the Court and to secure compliance with its decisions by magistrates. The insertion of paragraph (5) would mean that failure by judges and prosecutors to comply with the decisions of the Constitutional Court would no longer be merely a breach of the basic principles of the rule of law but would become an express disciplinary offence, sanctionable under an organic law.
This could have a significant impact on judicial independence and also on the way justice is perceived by the public. By comparison with the present constitutional rules, the proposed amendment introduces a mechanism of direct liability for magistrates that does not at present exist in this form. In practice, paragraph (5) would bring a change of paradigm as regards the consequences of ignoring the rulings of the Constitutional Court.
At present, although the Court’s decisions are binding, there are no provisions clearly and directly stipulating sanctions where they are not complied with by judges and prosecutors. The implementation of this new paragraph could, on the one hand, strengthen the rule of law and, on the other, generate additional pressure on magistrates, risking an effect on the independence of justice. Looking to other European constitutional systems, we observe various approaches.
For example, in Germany the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) are considered final and have authority over all public authorities, and failure to comply with them may entail serious consequences. In France, the decisions of the Constitutional Council (Conseil Constitutionnel) are likewise binding on the public powers and on all administrative and judicial authorities. These systems incorporate respect for the decisions of constitutional courts as an essential part of the rule of law, and the sanctions for non-compliance are well defined.
In that sense, the proposed revision of Article 147 of the Constitution of Romania could represent a step forward towards alignment with these standards, but it is crucial to consider how the strengthening of the Court’s authority is balanced against the protection of judicial independence. The position of a judge or prosecutor should be one of even-handedness, and the impartiality and autonomy of their judicial decisions are pillars of a fair and effective justice system. That said, the proposal raises the need for stricter control over the application of laws and of the Court’s decisions, so as to avoid any attempt to undermine its authority.
Sanctioning non-compliance with the Court’s decisions by organic law suggests a clearer and more direct procedure that will help avoid delays and ambiguities in the administration of justice. It could also serve as a warning to judges and prosecutors to treat the rulings of the Constitutional Court with the utmost seriousness. This approach could have implications for the independence of the judicial system, since it could create a precedent for possible pressure on magistrates. A delicate balance must be maintained between the authority of the Court and judicial freedom, so as to avoid a negative influence on judicial decisions through the prism of potential sanctions. On the other hand, a strong argument in favour of the revision is that such a measure could contribute to consolidating the rule of law and to a better application of the law. Compliance with the decisions of the Constitutional Court is fundamental to the proper functioning of the rule of law, and clarifying the sanctions for failure to comply with those decisions could discourage attempts to ignore or infringe the Court’s rulings, thereby consolidating respect for constitutional rules.
49. Title VI of the Constitution of Romania is amended to read as follows:
“Title VI — Romania’s participation in international bodies and alliances
Article 148 — The supremacy of the Constitution and of the sovereign interest of the people in the conduct of international relations
Romania shall fulfil exactly and in good faith the commitments assumed and the obligations incumbent on it under the Founding Treaties of the international bodies and alliances it has joined, in compliance with the Constitution of Romania and in the higher and sovereign interest of the Romanian people.
Article 149 — Accession, ratification of the revision of the founding treaties and Romania’s withdrawal from international bodies and alliances
(1) Romania may accede to international bodies and alliances, may ratify the revision of founding treaties or may withdraw from the international bodies and alliances of which it is a member, by a law adopted through the sovereign decision of the Romanian people expressed by referendum.
(2) The referendum on accession to, ratification of the amendment of the founding treaties of, or withdrawal from the Bodies and Alliances of which Romania is a member may be initiated by the President of Romania on the proposal of the Government, by at least a quarter of the number of deputies or senators, or by at least 500,000 citizens entitled to vote. The citizens who express and exercise the right provided for in this article must come from at least half of the country’s counties, and in each of those counties or in the municipality of Bucharest at least 20,000 signatures must be registered in support of that initiative.
(3) The draft law providing for accession to, ratification of the amendment of the founding treaties of, or withdrawal from the Bodies and Alliances of which Romania is a member shall be adopted by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate by a majority of at least two-thirds of the number of members of each Chamber.
(4) If no agreement is reached through the mediation procedure, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, in joint sitting, shall decide by the vote of at least three-quarters of the number of deputies and senators.
(5) The law on accession to international bodies and alliances, on ratification of the revision of their founding treaties or on withdrawal from the bodies and alliances of which Romania is a member shall be adopted after its approval by referendum, organised within no more than 30 days of the date of adoption of the draft or of the proposal for revision, and shall enter into force on the date of publication in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, of the decision of the Constitutional Court confirming the results of the referendum.
(6) The rejection by referendum of the ratification of the revised founding Treaties of the organisations and alliances to which Romania is a party shall have the effect of Romania’s withdrawal from those international Organisations or Alliances.”
The present draft revision of the Constitution entirely amends Title VI of the Constitution — Euro-Atlantic integration. This amendment in no way amounts to an intention on Romania’s part to leave the system of alliances of which it is a member; it is a rewriting of rules that became obsolete once effective integration into the European Union and into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation had taken place.
In reality, the text of the Constitution as drafted in 2003 was a declaration of intent, establishing the manner in which accession to the Euro-Atlantic bodies was to take place, as appears from the text in force until the entry into force of the present revision:
“TITLE VI — Euro-Atlantic integration
Article 148 — Integration into the European Union. (1) Romania’s accession to the founding treaties of the European Union, for the purpose of transferring certain powers to the Community institutions and of exercising jointly with the other Member States the competences provided for in those treaties, shall be effected by a law adopted in joint sitting of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate by a majority of two-thirds of the number of deputies and senators. (2) As a result of accession, the provisions of the founding treaties of the European Union, as well as the other binding Community rules, take precedence over contrary provisions of domestic law, in compliance with the provisions of the act of accession. (3) The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) apply mutatis mutandis to accession to the acts revising the founding treaties of the European Union. (4) Parliament, the President of Romania, the Government and the judicial authority shall guarantee the fulfilment of the obligations resulting from the act of accession and from the provisions of paragraph (2). (5) The Government shall transmit to the two Chambers of Parliament the drafts of acts of a binding nature before they are submitted for the approval of the institutions of the European Union.
Article 149 — Accession to the North Atlantic Treaty. Romania’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty shall be effected by a law adopted in joint sitting of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate by a majority of two-thirds of the number of deputies and senators.”
At present, however, being already full members of the two organisations, and the treaties already forming an integral part of domestic law by virtue of Article 11(2) of the Constitution of Romania (“Treaties ratified by Parliament in accordance with the law form part of domestic law”), these two constitutional provisions have become useless, being overtaken by the historical stage in which we find ourselves.
Nevertheless, the need for a special constitutional rule dedicated to the manner of applying the treaties to which Romania is a party remains current: a clarification is needed of the hierarchy and priority of application of Community rules where they compete with constitutional rules, as well as of the manner in which the Romanian people may decide to accede to, amend the fundamental treaties of, or leave certain organisations or bodies of which Romania is a member.
That is why it became necessary to amend in their entirety Articles 148 and 149 of the 1991 Constitution as revised in 2003.
Article 148 will bear the marginal heading “The supremacy of the Constitution and of the sovereign interest of the people in the conduct of international relations” and will read: “Romania shall fulfil exactly and in good faith the commitments assumed and the obligations incumbent on it under the Founding Treaties of the international bodies and alliances it has joined, in compliance with the Constitution of Romania and in the higher and sovereign interest of the Romanian people.” This formulation gives priority to compliance with the Constitution of Romania over any treaty to which Romania is or will be a party — that being the very essence of a country’s independence, as defined in Article 1 of the Constitution itself: “Romania is a national, sovereign and independent, unitary and indivisible State.”
For that reason, and having regard also to the limits of revision laid down in Article 152 of the Constitution (“the national, independent, unitary and indivisible character of the Romanian State”), the independence of the State, guaranteed by the priority exercise of the rules of the Constitution, may not be the object of revision and hence of any limitation imposed by treaties to which Romania might be a party. Consequently, the “higher and sovereign interest of the Romanian people” must also be given absolute priority over any rule of a treaty to which Romania is or will be a party.
Article 149, for its part, establishes — using the principle of the symmetry of legal acts — the manner in which Romania may decide to “accede to international bodies and alliances, ratify the revision of founding treaties or withdraw from the international bodies and alliances of which it is a member”, a matter not provided for in the Constitution as revised, which constitutes a major omission if not indeed a legal nonsense. That is why it is necessary to establish a clear manner in which this may be done — “by a law adopted through the sovereign decision of the Romanian people expressed by referendum”.
At the same time, for reasons of symmetry with popular initiatives for the revision of the Constitution, paragraphs 2 to 5 have been inserted into Article 149, providing that “The referendum on accession to, ratification of the amendment of the founding treaties of, or withdrawal from the Bodies and Alliances of which Romania is a member may be initiated by the President of Romania on the proposal of the Government, by at least a quarter of the number of deputies or senators, or by at least 500,000 citizens entitled to vote.”
Not least, Article 149(6) clearly provides that “The rejection by referendum of the ratification of the revised founding Treaties of the organisations and alliances to which Romania is a party shall have the effect of Romania’s withdrawal from those international Organisations or Alliances”, which allows the Romanian people, sovereignly and independently, to decide whether the amendment of the fundamental treaties of organisations of which Romania is already a member still respects the original purposes of that organisation and still respects the sovereign and higher interest of the Romanian people.
All these measures are taken having regard to, and in compliance with, the body of constitutional provisions and with the aim of protecting and guaranteeing the interest of the Romanian citizen.
In the light of this new configuration of Articles 148 and 149, it is essential to refer to similar constitutional rules in other European States in order better to understand the context in which the proposals for revision find their place. A comparison with other European constitutions will highlight the degree of flexibility or rigidity that Romania assumes in its relations with international bodies. For example, the Constitution of Germany, in Article 24, permits the transfer of sovereignty to international institutions, a principle that enabled the country’s integration into European and international structures. In France, Article 53 provides that international treaties are ratified or approved by a law, and the Constitution of Spain, in Article 93, permits the conclusion of treaties transferring competences conferred by the Constitution to an international organisation or intergovernmental institution, with the approval of an absolute majority of each Chamber of Parliament. These provisions demonstrate a greater or lesser openness to ceding parts of national sovereignty and entail different degrees of citizen participation in the decisions affecting the country’s position on the international stage. By comparison, the new wording of Article 149 of the Constitution of Romania places greater emphasis on the direct consultation and approval of the people by referendum for any major change of direction in foreign policy, which reflects a tendency to consolidate sovereignty and participatory democracy. In the light of these considerations, the revision of Articles 148 and 149 of the Constitution of Romania forms part of a general trend of adapting constitutional texts to the realities and dynamics of contemporary international relations. In that sense the proposed revision helps clarify and update Romania’s position in relation to the obligations and rights arising from membership of international bodies and alliances. This updating is necessary, since international relations are not static and treaties and alliances may change over time, reflecting shifts in the balance of power, in security interests or in economic priorities.
It is therefore vital that constitutional mechanisms allow a flexible adaptation to these changes without compromising the principles of national sovereignty and the supremacy of the Constitution. In conclusion, the proposals for revising Articles 148 and 149 of the Constitution of Romania bring to the fore the need for a modern approach placing emphasis on sovereignty, democracy and the capacity of the fundamental law to adapt to an evolving international context.
Within that framework the role of the citizen is essential, being called upon to participate actively and to decide on the major directions of his country’s foreign policy. It is a step towards consolidating the rule of law and respect for the will of the people, aligning at the same time with global democratic trends of civic involvement and accountability in political decision-making.
The revision of constitutional articles must answer essential questions concerning the balance between national sovereignty and integration into supranational structures, and concerning the way in which citizens are active participants in these processes. Debates on this subject are not merely theoretical but are reflected in the daily life of every citizen, in the rights and obligations entailed by membership of wider communities such as the European Union. In that context the proposals for revising the Constitution of Romania are a manifestation of the evolution of legal and political thinking with respect to sovereignty and the role of States within an increasingly complex and interconnected international framework. What is sought is a balance between respect for national sovereignty and the assumption of the responsibilities arising from membership of international bodies and alliances, in a manner that reflects the interests of citizens.
In conclusion, the revision of Articles 148 and 149 as proposed represents a recognition of the need to define more clearly and to update the constitutional framework in keeping with Romania’s present realities on the international stage. Future debates will be crucial in ensuring that these amendments genuinely serve the national interest, respecting the sovereignty and the will of the Romanian people while navigating the often troubled waters of international politics. It is a necessary undertaking, which must be accompanied by broad public consultation and open dialogue among all interested parties, from politicians and experts in constitutional law to ordinary citizens. For, in the end, the Constitution is the nation’s identity document, and every word in it must reflect exactly the values, principles and aspirations of the people it represents. The revision of Articles 148 and 149 may thus be seen as an opportunity to reaffirm these values in the face of the challenges of the twenty-first century, ensuring that Romania maintains a position of strength and dignity in the concert of nations. It is also a moment to reassess and rebuild the mechanisms through which citizens exercise their rights and discharge their obligations, in a world in which the boundaries between the national and the international are ever more fluid.
Finally, this constitutional revision must answer a fundamental question: how can Romania preserve its sovereignty and promote its interests in a continually changing global landscape without sacrificing democratic values and the rights of its citizens? The answer to that question will guide not only the drafting of the revised text of the Constitution but also Romania’s future course in the international arena. It is essential that, within this process of revision, we have regard not only to the text of the law but also to the spirit animating those provisions. A Constitution must be a living document, corresponding both to the present needs of society and possessing the flexibility necessary to adapt to future change.
In conclusion, the revision of Articles 148 and 149 of the Constitution of Romania represents an essential step in affirming national identity and the sovereignty of the Romanian State in the present international context. This undertaking is not merely an exercise in updating a legal text but a manifestation of the nation’s political and legal maturity, a reaffirmation of democratic values and a commitment to the principles of the rule of law. The revision must ensure that Romania remains a trustworthy partner within international alliances, honouring its commitments, but without renouncing the right to decide its own destiny.
To that end, the new text proposed for Articles 148 and 149 consolidates the role of the Romanian people as sovereign in decisions concerning international alliances and treaties, thereby ensuring that no major change can be made without the direct consent of citizens.
The proposed revision of Articles 148 and 149 of the Constitution of Romania should therefore be seen not only as a legal necessity but also as an occasion to consolidate democracy and to encourage the active participation of citizens in political life. It can thereby be ensured that the fundamental decisions affecting the national destiny are taken transparently and responsibly.
50. After Article 154(2) there is inserted a new paragraph 3, reading as follows: → the text of the article
“(3) The provisions of Article 83(1) shall apply from the date of entry into force of this Constitution, the term of office of the President in office ceasing on 30 November of the year in which the first parliamentary elections after the adoption of this Constitution are held.”
The proposed revision of Article 154 of the Constitution of Romania, through the insertion of a new paragraph (3) in Title VIII, Final and transitional provisions, is a consequence of the amendment of Article 83 of the Constitution, which after revision will read: “(1) The term of office of the President of Romania is 4 years and is exercised from the date of taking the oath, which shall take place in the same calendar year as the election of Parliament.”
In that context, the proposed revision of Article 154 of the Constitution introducing paragraph (3) becomes a key element in securing a smooth transition to the new structure of terms of office. This transitional rule is vital in order to ensure that the change does not create a constitutional vacuum or an imbalance within the electoral cycles. This provision guarantees that the current President will complete his term in accordance with the new rules, thereby securing an orderly transition and respect for the will of the electorate as expressed by the vote on this amendment.
It should be noted that, although the change may appear minor at first sight, it has profound implications for the way executive power is exercised in Romania. The newly inserted paragraph (3) is in fact a bridge between the old and the new system, a guarantee that the transition will be balanced and will not adversely affect the functioning of State institutions during the period of adaptation to the new legislation.
The revision of the Constitution is a complex and significant process requiring careful analysis and broad debate in society. The proposed amendment of Article 154, in the context of the revision of Article 83, must be seen as part of a broader effort to improve the Romanian political system. A decision of such magnitude must be taken with the utmost responsibility, having regard to the common good and to the democratic future of the country.
In conclusion, the insertion of paragraph (3) into Article 154 is essential in order to ensure that the reduction of the term of office of the President of Romania from 5 to 4 years takes place without disturbing the normal functioning of institutions and without infringing the basic principles of democracy. It represents a necessary stage in aligning the electoral cycles and in increasing efficiency and cohesion in the administration of public affairs. This revision opens the way to more coherent governance and to a more effective political representation of the will of citizens.
The process of constitutional revision must be transparent, inclusive and based on a broad consensus, so as to reflect correctly the will of the people.
This change in the structure of terms of office must be communicated clearly and understood by citizens, so that they may take an active part in the democratic process. This initiative is therefore not a mere adjustment of a constitutional rule but a measure that will consolidate democracy and bring Romania closer to European standards of governance.
Section 3 — Socio-economic impact of the draft revision of the Constitution
1. Macroeconomic impact
Romania has proposed a series of constitutional amendments, each with the potential considerably to influence the country’s macroeconomic landscape. What follows analyses the implications of these changes, assessing their impact on economic stability, on attractiveness to investors and on the rights and freedoms of citizens, which in turn affect the economic environment.
1. Constitutional reform and the separation of powers. The proposed amendments clarify the separation of powers within the State, which is essential to the functioning of a democracy and to securing a stable business environment. Article 1(4) and (5) consolidate the principles of separation, balance and loyal cooperation among the powers, providing a more predictable framework for the legislative process and for judicial decisions. This can increase investor confidence in the judicial system and in the State’s capacity to guarantee an equitable business environment.
2. Repeal of Article 19. The repeal of Article 19(2) removes a level of legal uncertainty.
3. The right to a fair and predictable trial. The reformulation of Article 21(3) underlines the right to a fair trial and to predictable justice, elements essential to building an attractive business climate. An effective and transparent judicial system can reduce transaction costs and encourage investment, thereby contributing to long-term economic growth.
4. Protection against inhuman treatment. The amendment of Article 22(2), emphasising the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment, consolidates Romania’s standing in matters of human rights. This can improve the country’s international image and attract investment from companies that place particular emphasis on respect for human rights and on corporate social responsibility. A sustainable and ethical economy capable of attracting long-term partnerships may thereby be stimulated.
5. Rights of sexual identity and self-determination. The introduction of Article 22(4) to (6) establishes a series of principles relating to sexual identity and personal integrity, emphasising respect for the inalienable rights of the human person. These constitutional changes may have repercussions for company policy and for the working environment, encouraging diversity and inclusion. They may also be a positive signal for foreign investors who give priority to equality and non-discrimination in their corporate practice.
6. Criminal procedure and the rights of the accused. The amendment of Article 23(4) specifically concerns the conditions governing pre-trial detention. This could have a positive impact on the international perception of justice in Romania, suggesting a more balanced system, more respectful of the rights of the accused.
In economic terms, this could reduce the risks associated with investment and could encourage business initiative, since companies look for a predictable legal framework and a consolidated rule of law.
7. Surveillance of citizens and data protection. The addition of paragraphs 14 and 15 to Article 23 strengthens protection against unauthorised surveillance and unlawful interception. This change could have a positive impact on the technology industry and on digital services, creating a safer environment for the development and implementation of IT innovation. It could also attract companies developing cybersecurity and data-protection solutions, thereby contributing to the diversification of the economy and to the creation of new jobs.
8. The right to a defence and access to justice. The introduction of paragraphs 3 to 5 into Article 24 seeks to facilitate access to a defence and to procedural documents. This can positively influence the business environment by securing a more transparent and more accessible legal process for all citizens, including entrepreneurs and companies facing litigation. An open and equitable justice system is a good sign for investors, indicating a functioning rule of law.
9. Search procedures and the protection of private property. The amendments to Article 27(3), which governs the conditions and forms in which searches are carried out, constitute an additional guarantee of the protection of private property. They can consolidate the sense of legal security for business owners and can bring about an increase in private investment, with a direct impact on economic growth.
10. The secrecy of correspondence and communications. The new paragraphs inserted into Article 28 underline the guarantees concerning the secrecy of correspondence and communications, which are essential in the digital age. These amendments provide a clearer legal framework for data protection and citizens’ privacy, matters of importance to companies in the technology and telecommunications sector. This improved legal framework can contribute to the development of a robust IT sector, attracting foreign investment and stimulating innovation.
11. Education and budgetary allocations. Paragraph 8, added to Article 32, requires the allocation of a minimum percentage of GDP to education. This amendment can have a significant impact on the development of human capital and hence on the country’s economic potential. Investment in education can improve the quality of the workforce and create the conditions for an economy based on knowledge and innovation.
12. National health and investment in health. Paragraphs 4 and 5, added to Article 34, establish minimum budgetary allocations for health, with the potential to improve the quality of the medical system and to make Romania more attractive to a qualified workforce and to investors who value the health and well-being of their employees. Investment in health may also lead to reduced social costs and to increased labour productivity.
13. The political neutrality of certain professional categories. The amendment of Article 40(3), imposing restrictions on membership of political parties for certain categories of official, can increase impartiality and administrative efficiency. This is particularly important for investors, since it suggests a business environment less susceptible to arbitrary political influence.
14. Protection of private property. Paragraph 10, added to Article 44, consolidates the right of private property, a central pillar of the market economy. Securing the freedom to hold, use and dispose of goods is a powerful incentive for private initiative and for investment. This measure may also prevent arbitrary State interventions in the economy, contributing to a more stable and predictable business environment.
15. The definition of the family and the legal effects of marriage. The amendments proposed to Article 48 establish new definitions of the family and of marriage in the constitutional context. These changes could have profound social implications and could influence company policy as regards employee benefits and the recognition of couples’ rights. They may also affect the business environment through their impact on social rights and on consumption, depending on how families are recognised and supported by the State.
16. The liability of the authorities and access to justice. The reformed Article 52 underlines the liability of the State and of magistrates in cases of judicial error. This can increase confidence in the legal system and reduce the risk of unjust litigation for citizens and companies. The macroeconomic effect may include an improvement in the investment climate and a reduction in the costs associated with litigation.
17. Representation in Parliament. The amendment to Article 62 may change the dynamics of political representation in Parliament and may have implications for legislation in the economic field. A more representative Parliament could lead to more balanced legislation, more favourable to business development and economic growth.
18. Appointment of the Chief Prosecutors. The introduction of a new point into Article 65, laying down the procedure for appointing the Prosecutor General and the heads of important directorates, may influence the independence of the judicial system. An independent judiciary is crucial to a healthy economic environment, providing certainty in the application of the law and protecting business interests.
19. The term of office of the President of Romania. The change to Article 83, providing for the shortening of the term of office of the President of Romania to 4 years, may bring greater alignment with the parliamentary electoral cycles, leading to greater political and hence macroeconomic stability.
20. Prohibition of organising referendums simultaneously with elections. The amendment added to Article 90 underlines the separation of electoral processes from popular consultation by referendum. This can prevent the overlapping of political agendas with citizen consultations, securing a clearer expression of the popular will on subjects of national importance, which may have a stabilising long-term effect on the economic environment.
21. The neutrality of the armed forces. The change made to point (b) of Article 94, making the conferring of military ranks conditional on the opinion of Parliament, may increase transparency and accountability within the armed forces. This can contribute to a positive image of Romania, essential in attracting foreign investment, especially in sensitive sectors such as defence and national security.
22. Removal of the President. The amendment to Article 97, facilitating the process of removing the President of Romania through a referendum initiated by citizens, may increase civic participation and may reflect a stronger direct democracy. This may be perceived as a mechanism of check and balance, giving citizens and the business environment an enhanced sense of security as regards the stability and predictability of the political environment.
23. Designation of the Prime Minister. The amended Article 103 clarifies the procedure for designating the candidate for the office of Prime Minister, which can shorten the period of political uncertainty where the government is dissolved or falls. A rapid and effective transition to a new government can minimise disruption to economic policy and can secure continuity in the investment environment.
24. Limitation of executive power in legislative matters. The changes proposed to Articles 108 and 115, restricting the Government’s ability to issue decisions and ordinances without parliamentary approval, are significant for legislative stability. These amendments can reduce the risk of abrupt changes in economic policy, providing greater predictability for the business environment.
25. Limitation of terms in public office. The introduction of a new paragraph into Article 116 seeks to limit terms in appointed public office, which can lead to greater rotation and to a reduction in the possibility of accumulating influence over the long term. This can increase the dynamism and efficiency of public administration, positively influencing the economic environment by introducing new perspectives and competences into the management of public affairs.
26. Organisation of the intelligence services. The amendments to Article 118, providing for the organisation of the intelligence services exclusively as civilian bodies, can increase transparency and civilian control over them. This can improve the perception of national security and can consolidate the confidence of international partners and investors in Romania’s capacity to manage information and security risks effectively.
27. The national defence budget. Limiting the national defence budget, in accordance with the new paragraph added to Article 118, may have implications for budgetary balance and for the allocation of resources to other important sectors. This measure can contribute to a more equitable distribution of public funds and to the consolidation of other vital fields, such as education or health, with positive effects on the long-term development of the economy.
28. The role and composition of the Supreme Council of National Defence. The changes to Article 119, governing the composition of the Supreme Council of National Defence (CSAT), can secure greater representativeness and a balance among the powers of the State within the CSAT. This can guarantee better coordination of national security and defence policies, with repercussions for macroeconomic stability and security.
29. Election of local authorities and removal by referendum. The amendments to Article 120 concern the process of electing local authorities and the possibility of removing them. Greater accountability of these authorities can encourage more effective management at local level and can increase civic involvement. Citizen involvement in local governance can have positive effects on regional economic development through the adoption of public policies adapted to the needs of communities.
30. Independence of the judicial system. The amendments to Articles 124 and 133 consolidate the independence of the judicial system and prohibit the involvement of magistrates in political or intelligence activities. These amendments can strengthen confidence in the justice system and can ensure that legal decisions are taken exclusively on the basis of the law, without external influence, which is essential to a secure and predictable economic environment.
31. Appointment and sanctioning of magistrates. The reformulated Article 125 brings clarifications to the procedure for appointing and sanctioning judges and prosecutors. By securing a transparent and equitable procedure, unwarranted influences can be prevented and the uniform application of the law can be guaranteed. A fair and impartial judicial system is a key factor in attracting investment and in securing a healthy business environment.
32. The High Court of Cassation and Justice. The amendment of Article 126 underlines the role of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in securing the uniform interpretation and application of the law. This can consolidate the legal system and reduce legal uncertainty, contributing to a stable economic environment conducive to growth.
33. Incompatibility of the office of prosecutor. By adjusting Article 132, the incompatibility of the office of prosecutor with other public or private offices is clearly established, save for certain teaching positions. This clarification can help avoid conflicts of interest and secure a better focus on the essential role of prosecutors in enforcing the law. An independent and dedicated prosecution service can have a significant effect on the economic environment by combating corruption and economic crime.
34. Consolidation of the Superior Council of Magistracy. The amendments to Article 133 seek to consolidate the independence and efficiency of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM). Through these changes the CSM will have a stronger role in guaranteeing the independence of justice and in supervising the magistracy. This can improve general confidence in the justice system and can contribute to a business environment more attractive to investors.
35. Patrimonial liability of the State and liability of magistrates. The reformulated Article 134 emphasises the patrimonial liability of the State in cases of judicial error and establishes the civil, disciplinary and criminal liability of magistrates. This may bring about greater care in judicial proceedings and may reduce cases of malpractice in justice, thereby providing a safer environment for the conduct of economic activity.
36. Public property and its regime. The amendment to Article 136(4) concerns the inalienability of goods in public ownership and the conditions under which they may be concessioned or leased. This measure secures the protection and efficient exploitation of State patrimony, which can have a positive impact on the management of resources and can attract investment in fields strategic to the national economy.
37. The role of the Court of Auditors in the management of public resources. Article 140, in its new wording, strengthens the role of the Court of Auditors in auditing the management of public resources and in reporting its findings to Parliament. Transparency and accountability in the use of public funds are essential to combating corruption and to promoting efficient administration — aspects that indirectly influence the business environment and investment.
38. The composition of the Constitutional Court and its independence. Article 142 introduces amendments concerning the appointment of the judges of the Constitutional Court, providing a balanced distribution among the various State authorities in the appointment process. This can increase the independence of the Constitutional Court and secure greater objectivity in its decisions, which is vital for consolidating the rule of law and for protecting fundamental rights and freedoms, with direct repercussions for the business climate.
39. The professionalisation of the judges of the Constitutional Court. The reforms to Article 143 are directed towards the professionalisation of the judges of the Constitutional Court, requiring higher legal training and extensive experience in the field. This measure can contribute to greater competence and to a more coherent interpretation of the Constitution — key elements of legal predictability and stability, which are essential in a dynamic and continually evolving economic environment.
40. The role of the Constitutional Court in securing the constitutionality of laws and treaties. Article 146, through the new amendments, underlines the role of the Constitutional Court in the prior assessment of the constitutionality of laws and treaties and in resolving objections of unconstitutionality. That court thereby becomes a fundamental guarantor of the conformity of normative acts with the supreme principles of the State — a sine qua non condition for a predictable business environment and for the legal security of investments.
41. The effect of the decisions of the Constitutional Court. The amendments to Article 147 consolidate the effect of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, securing their generally binding character and their effect for the future. This consolidated legal framework can secure compliance with the rules of the game in the economy and can prevent the retroactive application of rules — factors essential to a stable and trustworthy business environment. Favourable conditions are thereby created for sustainable economic growth and for attracting long-term investment.
42. Romania’s participation in international bodies and alliances. The new provisions of Title VI emphasise the supremacy of the Constitution and of the sovereign interest of the Romanian people in the conduct of international relations. It is thereby ensured that accession, ratification of the revision of treaties or withdrawal from international bodies and alliances takes place with the express approval of the population. This measure can directly influence Romania’s direction of economic development and can consolidate its position on the international stage. 43. Transition to the term of office of the President of Romania. Article 154, with its new addition, prepares the transition to a 4-year term for the President of Romania, securing alignment with the electoral cycles and greater coherence in domestic policy. This can have a beneficial impact on the continuity and stability of macroeconomic policies — important factors in maintaining an attractive investment environment and in securing economic growth.
Conclusions. In conclusion, the amendments proposed to the Constitution of Romania have significant potential to influence the macroeconomic environment through a series of interconnected mechanisms. These include the consolidation of the separation of powers, the securing of a stable and predictable legal framework, the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, improved transparency and accountability in the management of public resources, and the consolidation of democratic institutions. All these aspects constitute the foundations of a healthy business environment conducive to investment, which in turn stimulates economic growth and sustainable development. As Romania strives to secure a robust and competitive economy, these constitutional amendments reflect a recognition of the need to modernise and adapt institutional structures in order to meet present and future challenges. The effective and good-faith implementation of these changes will be essential in ensuring that the anticipated benefits materialise as tangible advantages for citizens and for the business environment.
In a global context in which stability and predictability are highly prized, Romania thereby positions itself not only as a trustworthy partner internationally but also as an attractive destination for foreign investment. Through these reforms the country could increase its economic competitiveness and consolidate the rule of law — elements vital in an interconnected global economy.
1¹. Impact on the competitive environment and on the field of State aid
Not applicable
2. Impact on the business environment
In the present socio-economic horizon, a country’s Constitution functions as a backbone for the entire body of the nation, including for the business environment, which is highly sensitive to legislative change and to the legal climate in general. The constitutional amendments covered by the present revision significantly touch a range of fields, from the structure and balance of powers within the State to fundamental rights and freedoms and to rules concerning justice and criminal proceedings.
In order better to understand the impact of these changes on the business environment, it is essential to analyse each of these amendments in turn and to anticipate their potential effects:
The amendment of Article 1(4) and (5), concerning the organisation of the State on the principles of separation, balance and cooperation among the powers of the State, could bring greater predictability to the legislative process. This would mean that laws affecting the business environment would have to be drafted more transparently and with greater involvement of all branches of power. Businesses would thereby benefit from stability and would be able to plan their economic activity over the medium and long term within a better-defined legal framework.
The amendment of Article 21(3), which guarantees the right to a fair trial, could have a significant impact on investor confidence. Securing a legal framework in which commercial disputes are resolved predictably and effectively is essential to attracting and retaining investment. The clause optimising the time-limits for resolving cases could reduce waiting times in judicial proceedings, which would mean a reduction in the costs associated with delay and better dynamics in commercial relations. Likewise, the amendment of Article 22(2) and the introduction of new paragraphs prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment strengthen respect for human rights in criminal proceedings and in conditions of detention. These changes could improve Romania’s international image and could consolidate confidence in the judicial system — a crucial factor for the business environment, especially as regards relations with external partners and access to international markets.
In addition, the introduction of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 into Article 22 consolidates the protection of individual integrity, including in the context of technological advance. Guaranteeing the right to self-determination and personal development, as well as protection against any technological mechanism capable of affecting physical or mental integrity without informed consent, underlines Romania’s commitment to protecting and respecting human rights. This approach can positively influence the business climate by increasing legal certainty and data protection, thereby attracting investment in innovative and technological fields.
Another important aspect is the revision of Article 23(4), which concerns the conditions of deprivation of liberty in criminal proceedings. This amendment underlines the need for a balanced and proportionate approach to preventive measures, insisting on the idea that pre-trial detention is an exceptional measure. This can have an indirect impact on business, in that a legal environment encouraging respect for individual rights and applying preventive measures with caution is generally more attractive to business. Investors look for stability and predictability, and this amendment can help create the image of a consolidated rule of law.
The introduction of paragraphs 14 and 15 into Article 23, securing protection against being followed or monitored without the prior authorisation of a judge, adds a further level of legal security for citizens and businesses. In a context in which the protection of personal data and the confidentiality of communications are subjects of the greatest importance, these amendments can consolidate confidence in the business environment and can provide an appropriate framework for the development of the technology sector and of digital services.
On the other hand, the amendments to Article 27(3), concerning the search procedure, introduce a stricter mechanism of judicial control over that step, which could bring about greater protection of the rights and interests of economic operators. This legislative change could reduce the risks of abuse in criminal investigations and could result in a business environment perceived as safer and more predictable.
Likewise, the introduction of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 after Article 28, concerning the secrecy of correspondence and the conditions under which communications may be intercepted, consolidates the principle of confidentiality. This is a crucial guarantee for business, providing the assurance that sensitive information and intellectual property are effectively protected by the State. Creating an environment in which the secrecy of correspondence is strictly respected contributes to the stability and security of the business environment, facilitating the conduct of commercial activity without fears of information leaks or industrial espionage.
Further, the amendment of Article 27(3), laying down the specific conditions for issuing search warrants, brings greater legal protection for individuals and companies. By expressly individualising the information and goods sought in the warrant, abuses are avoided and private property and confidential business information are better protected. This could lead to a business climate in which legal security is improved and in which companies can concentrate on growth and innovation without unwarranted fears of arbitrary State intervention.
Likewise, the introduction of new paragraphs after Article 28, strengthening the right to a defence and prohibiting the use of classified information in criminal proceedings, could have a positive impact on the protection of the rights and interests of the business environment. These amendments underline the importance of unhindered access to justice and to a fair trial, and the need for transparency in judicial proceedings. By restricting the use of information to which the parties or their lawyers have no access, a process is secured in which all parties are treated equitably and in which decisions are based on evidence accessible to all those involved.
In the context of a globalised economy, in which businesses operate in an ever more connected and interdependent environment, these constitutional changes can influence the international perception of Romania as an investment destination. Legislation promoting transparency, the protection of fundamental rights and an effective judicial system helps create a business framework attractive to foreign investors and to international partnerships.
In particular, the amendment to Article 27 concerning searches, providing that they must be carried out within the limits and for the purposes clearly stated in the search warrant, could reduce the risk of unjustified searches at company premises. This could lessen operational disruption and could provide an increased sense of legal security for the business environment. On the other hand, the introduction of new paragraphs into Article 22, protecting personal integrity and prohibiting any form of technological manipulation without express consent, is of particular importance in the digital age. These provisions can create a legislative framework favourable to the development of the IT industry and of research in the technological field, attracting investment in cutting-edge sectors and consolidating Romania’s position as a technology hub in the region. A detailed analysis of each constitutional amendment and of its potential impact on the business environment reveals that these changes are intended to bring greater clarity and legal certainty, to protect fundamental rights and to improve the efficiency and impartiality of the judicial system. These are elements essential to a healthy business environment and to attracting foreign investment — elements that contribute ultimately to economic growth and to the prosperity of society as a whole.
At the same time, the amendments proposed to Article 32 concerning the financing of national education and to Article 34 concerning the financing of national health care, through the allocation of a minimum percentage of GDP, signal a strategic investment in human capital and in health services. This could have positive repercussions for the labour market and for quality of life, attracting talent and a qualified workforce, which are essential to the development and competitiveness of the business environment. Education and health are fundamental pillars of a prosperous society and of a dynamic economy, and this commitment to investment could stimulate innovation and the creation of new business opportunities. The changes proposed to Article 40, prohibiting members of certain professional categories from belonging to political parties, can help consolidate the perception of the integrity and impartiality of State institutions. This is particularly relevant to the business environment, where the predictability of institutional decisions and the impartiality of the authorities can determine long-term investment decisions and can influence business relations both nationally and internationally.
The amendment of Article 48, defining the family on the basis of marriage between a man and a woman, could have implications for companies’ human-resources policies. This change could influence how companies approach diversity and inclusion in their internal policies and could have implications for brand image among consumers or partners who attach heightened importance to human rights and equality.
The continuing impact of the amendments to the Constitution of Romania on the business environment is closely connected with the amendments to Article 62, which concern the representation of citizens in Parliament. Reducing the threshold for parliamentary representation to 1% of the votes of the population, or the specific number of votes for independent members of Parliament, could encourage a greater diversity of opinions and interests in the legislative process. The business environment could thereby benefit from broader representation and from the opportunity to influence economic and legislative policy more effectively.
The addition of points (k) and (l) to Article 65(2), concerning the appointment of the Prosecutor General and of the chief prosecutors of important directorates, will confer on Parliament a crucial role in the process of appointing these senior figures in the justice system. This change could be perceived as a step towards greater transparency and accountability in the judicial system, which could consolidate confidence in its efficiency and impartiality. A judicial system perceived as more accountable and less susceptible to political influence can stimulate investor confidence and can improve the business environment by securing a climate of legality and fairness.
Continuing with the analysis of the amendments to Article 70, we consider that the introduction of the possibility for a deputy or senator to be removed from office by local referendum represents a significant democratic innovation capable of having a purifying effect on the political class. This change can increase the accountability of elected representatives to their electors and can help remove the barriers impeding transparency and integrity in governance. For the business environment this could mean a more stable and predictable political climate, with politicians more attentive to the needs and interests of the business community, given that they may be directly accountable to the electorate for their decisions.
The amendment of Article 72(3), governing the conditions under which deputies or senators may be detained and searched, brings important clarifications as regards parliamentary immunity. That new paragraph provides that in cases of flagrante delicto members of Parliament may be detained and searched, and that the Minister of Justice is required to inform the president of the Chamber concerned without delay. This amendment balances the need to protect the dignity of parliamentary office with that of securing the rule of law and combating impunity. In business terms, it can consolidate confidence in the integrity of the legislative system and can reduce the risk of corruption, providing a cleaner and more ethical environment for the conduct of economic activity.
The proposal to amend the legislative initiative through Article 74, reducing the number of citizens required for a legislative initiative to 30,000, can facilitate the law-making process through the direct involvement of citizens. This can lead to greater civic participation and to a legislative process more open to contributions from civil society, including from actors in the business environment. In addition, the shorter time-limits for the first Chamber to rule on draft laws, provided for by the amendments to Article 75, could make parliamentary procedures more efficient and could reduce the period of legislative uncertainty — an aspect beneficial to long-term business planning.
The change of the term of office of the President of Romania to 4 years, under Article 83, could have an impact on political and economic cycles by aligning the President’s term with that of Parliament. This could lead to greater political stability and could facilitate the implementation of long-term strategies for economic development and for improving the business environment. A shorter term could also intensify political competition and could encourage leaders to implement swift and effective reforms, in keeping with the requirements and expectations of the business sector and of citizens.
The amendments to Articles 90 and 97, laying down stricter conditions for organising referendums and for removing the President, are intended to raise the threshold of civic participation and to ensure that important decisions are taken with a broad consensus. These may result in a more stable political framework and may lessen the risk of abrupt changes in national policy, which could give the business environment a predictable horizon for planning and decision-making.
In addition, the amendment of Article 103(1), laying down the procedure for designating the candidate for the office of Prime Minister, could secure a better representation of the will of the electorate in the process of government. This could lead to more effective governance and to a closer alignment of government policies with the needs and interests of the business environment, allowing better collaboration between the public and private sectors.
Analysing the amendments proposed to the articles governing the functioning of the Government and emergency ordinances, such as Articles 108 and 115, we observe an attempt to restrict the use of ordinances outside a framework strictly defined by a special enabling law, placing the emphasis on the role of Parliament in the legislative process. These changes could significantly reduce the number of emergency ordinances, conferring greater stability on the normative framework and greater predictability for the business environment, which often criticises the frequent and unforeseen changes in legislation.
In the same context, the proposal for Article 116, limiting the term of appointed public office to a maximum of 4 years with the possibility of a single renewal, underlines the wish for professionalisation and for avoiding the perpetuation of persons in public office, which could lead to greater efficiency and accountability in the public sector. This is essential to a dynamic business environment, which requires stability and a solid partnership with State institutions. The proposed constitutional changes are thus such as to offer companies a framework of enhanced predictability and competitiveness, essential to success in the global economy.
The amendment of Article 118(4) and (5) imposes a clear restriction on military and paramilitary activities outside the State framework, with direct implications for securing a peaceful and stable business environment. In addition, setting a national defence budget not exceeding 2% of the national budget, as provided by the new Article 118(6), may be seen as a guarantee of balance in State expenditure and as an indicator of national priorities as regards investment. This approach may encourage a budgetary allocation more concentrated on economic development and infrastructure — key elements in increasing the competitiveness of the business environment.
Article 119, together with its new paragraph (2), consolidates the structure of the Supreme Council of National Defence, introducing new members and laying down clear procedures for designating the heads of the intelligence services. Such a structure can increase efficiency in strategic national-security decision-making, which indirectly has a positive effect on the business environment by securing a context of stability and security. → the text of the article
Analysing the amendments made at the level of local public administration through Articles 120 and 133, we may observe an attempt at decentralisation and at increasing administrative-territorial accountability. This can lead to better management of resources and to greater autonomy in regional development, thereby offering local companies and investors opportunities for more effective
collaboration with the local authorities. For example, the possibility of removing local elected representatives by referendum, provided for in the new paragraphs of Article 120, can encourage greater transparency and can hold local leadership to account, creating an environment conducive to business development at local and regional level.
In the field of justice, the changes to Articles 124, 125 and 133, concerning the independence, irremovability and liability of magistrates and the reorganisation of the Superior Council of Magistracy, are such as to fortify confidence in the judicial system. These amendments are essential in order to secure a business environment in which rights are protected and disputes are resolved equitably and effectively.
Article 134, which addresses the role of the Superior Council of Magistracy in the process of appointing magistrates and in disciplinary liability, underlines the importance of a judicial system that is independent and accountable before the law. Bringing the process of appointing and promoting magistrates and prosecutors within the competence of the Council, with the aim of securing a high degree of professionalism and integrity, is a step forward in consolidating the rule of law and in creating a business environment in which justice is impartial and non-discriminatory. This change can have a significant impact on the domestic and international perception of the investment climate in Romania. → the text of the article
As regards the management of public property, Article 136 brings clarifications concerning the inalienability of State goods and the conditions under which they may be managed. By establishing a clear legislative framework for the administration of public goods, transparency is secured and the possibility of abuse or of unjustified alienation of State property is prevented. This is vital for the business environment, since it provides the assurance that investment in infrastructure or in other projects of public interest is carried out responsibly and in compliance with the law.
The audit exercised by the Court of Auditors, under the amendments to Article 140, can contribute to better management of public resources and to increased transparency in the use of State funds. The provision requiring the Court to report to Parliament at least once a year and the publicity of the report can encourage a more responsible approach to public spending, thereby benefiting the business environment by securing an equitable fiscal environment and by preventing the waste of public resources.
The amendments proposed for the Constitutional Court, reflected in Articles 142 and 143, seek the professionalisation and consolidation of the independence of that institution. The revision of the criteria for appointing the judges of the Constitutional Court, as well as the clarification of its prerogatives, are intended to ensure that decisions on constitutionality are taken by competent and impartial judges, which is fundamental to a stable business environment in which laws and regulations are applied consistently and equitably.
Article 146, at point (a), emphasises the role of the Constitutional Court in verifying the conformity of laws with the Constitution before their promulgation, which could prevent legal conflicts and could provide the business environment with better legislative predictability. Point (b) likewise underlines the importance of the supremacy of the Constitution in the field of international treaties, and point (d) ensures that any objection of unconstitutionality may be analysed in detail by the Constitutional Court, contributing to a solid and coherent legal framework.
As regards Article 147, paragraphs (3) and (4) reinforce the principle that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and generally binding, thereby securing predictability and stability in the interpretation of laws in Romania. This is crucial for the business environment, which relies on the consistency and clarity of legislation in taking strategic decisions on investment and expansion.
The new provisions of Article 148 underline that Romania honours its international commitments, but without undermining national sovereignty or the principles of the Constitution. This balance between international responsibilities and national independence is essential to a business environment operating in a global context, providing a guarantee that external commitments will not impair domestic rights and freedoms or national economic interests.
Article 149 raises the mechanisms of accession, ratification and possible withdrawal of Romania from international bodies and alliances, establishing a democratic process by which the Romanian people may decide on these essential matters. This is an important step in consolidating sovereignty and in the direct involvement of citizens in foreign-policy decisions, which can have significant effects on the business environment. By guaranteeing a transparent and participatory process, businesses can have confidence in the stability and predictability of the political and economic framework in which they operate. → the text of the article
In conclusion, the proposals to amend the Constitution of Romania can have a profound impact on the business environment by improving legal stability and by consolidating a rule of law that respects the principles of democracy and of the market economy. The amendments are intended to increase the efficiency and transparency of legislative and judicial processes, to protect fundamental rights and to promote a competitive business environment attractive to investment. In an increasingly interconnected world, in which business is greatly influenced by legislative change and by the political climate, these constitutional changes can represent an important step towards consolidating a robust economic framework capable of supporting long-term growth and development. A Constitution adapted to present social and economic dynamics can provide the instruments necessary to navigate the specific challenges of the twenty-first century and to respond effectively to the needs of citizens and of the business community. Through these amendments Romania can assume a more active and more convincing role on the international stage, promoting an open, innovative and sustainable business environment, to the benefit of all the actors involved.
3. Social impact
In a context in which the fundamental laws of a nation are subject to revision, it is essential to understand the implications these changes may have for the social structure, for civic rights and freedoms and for the balance of powers within the State. What follows analyses each of the 50 proposed amendments to the Constitution of Romania and seeks to anticipate their effects on society:
1. The amendments to Article 1(4) and (5) introduce into the Constitution the principles of separation, balance and loyal cooperation among the three powers of the State — legislative, executive and judicial — while specifying that they are equal within constitutional democracy. This can consolidate the understanding of, and respect for, the role and functions of each power, helping to prevent abuses of power and to secure effective mutual control. By highlighting the supremacy of the Constitution and the binding force of laws and judicial decisions, the rule of law is strengthened and a culture of legality is promoted.
2. The repeal of Article 19(2) may have significant implications both for fundamental civic rights and freedoms and, as an effect, for the sense of confidence that Romanian citizens will have in their State as a result of the prohibition on extraditing citizens to third States.
Turning to Article 21(3), the amendment brings to the fore the right to a fair trial and to the resolution of cases within a reasonable time. This is a fundamental guarantee of human rights, directly influencing the credibility and effectiveness of the judicial system. Guaranteeing the independence and impartiality of the courts is essential to public confidence in justice and to the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights.
Through the amendment of Article 22(2), prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the protection of human rights in Romania is consolidated. The adoption of such an amendment reflects the Romanian State’s commitment to European and international values, contributing to the consolidation of a climate of respect for human dignity. This can have a positive impact on international relations and on citizens’ perception of the rule of law.
The addition of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 to Article 22 raises sensitive matters such as sexual identity and the physical and mental integrity of the person. By protecting biological sexual identity up to the age of 18, a legal framework is secured that respects the natural development of the child. At the same time, guaranteeing the inalienable rights of the human person and prohibiting the disturbance of individual integrity without freely expressed consent are measures underlining the importance of personal autonomy and of the protection of private life in Romanian society. These changes may generate broad public debate and could have major implications for health and education policy, as well as for legislation on the rights of minors and of persons with disabilities.
The amendment of Article 23(4), concerning the conditions of deprivation of liberty in criminal proceedings, serves to reinforce the principles of lawfulness and necessity in the application of preventive measures. This change is such as to increase confidence in the judicial system by ensuring that measures restricting liberty are applied with caution and only in justified situations, thereby avoiding arbitrary detention and respecting the presumption of innocence.
The introduction of paragraphs 14 and 15 into Article 23 has direct implications for the right to private life and for respect for individual liberty. Through these amendments, protection against unauthorised surveillance and unlawful interception is consolidated, thereby guaranteeing that citizens’ rights to confidentiality of communication are respected. This will lead to greater transparency in the activities of the criminal investigation bodies and to the consolidation of public confidence in the State’s mechanisms of surveillance.
The amendments to Article 24 concern the right to a defence, providing enhanced protection against the abusive use of classified information and guaranteeing the principle of equality of arms in criminal proceedings. These changes reaffirm Romania’s commitment to an equitable judicial system in which every party to proceedings has access to all the means necessary to present its case. In addition, the introduction of paragraphs 3 to 5 underlines the need for non-discriminatory access to procedural documents and prohibits any form of conditioning of that right, thereby consolidating the fundamental principles of a State governed by the rule of law.
The amendment of Article 27(3), concerning the conditions under which a search may be ordered, serves to reinforce procedural guarantees and to secure respect for the rights of the persons affected by such measures. What is sought is a balance between the security needs of the State and the protection of privacy and individual rights, thereby preventing abuses and increasing citizens’ confidence in the acts of justice. The express requirement that search warrants be reasoned and that the information and goods sought be individualised is an important step in securing transparency and accountability in the exercise of judicial power.
The introduction of new paragraphs after Article 28, concerning the secrecy of correspondence and the interception of communications, underlines the wish to strengthen the protection of citizens’ private life. This measure can have a significant impact on the way fundamental rights are perceived and respected in Romania, establishing a clearer and stricter framework for the authorities carrying out such surveillance activities.
In Article 32, the addition of paragraph 8 concerning the financing of national education establishes a minimum threshold of budgetary allocation, which can help improve the quality of the education system. A larger share of GDP devoted to education means significant resources for school infrastructure, for teachers’ salaries and for educational programmes, with the potential to reduce educational disparities and to stimulate the intellectual development of the younger generation.
The amendments to Article 34, concerning the financing of national health care and consent to medical treatment, evidence a concern to improve the health system and to secure patient autonomy. By guaranteeing a minimum percentage of GDP for health and by making medical treatment conditional on the patient’s informed consent, the foundations are laid for a more effective health system more centred on the needs of the individual.
Article 40, in its new wording, addresses important matters concerning membership of political parties by various professional categories, as well as restrictions after leaving public office. This change may be intended to increase confidence in the neutrality and impartiality of certain offices and institutions and to secure a greater degree of integrity and independence for the persons holding those offices. → the text of the article
The addition of paragraph 10 to Article 44, consolidating the right of property and the economic freedom of citizens, may have positive consequences for the business environment in Romania. By guaranteeing the right to dispose of one’s own property and to use any currency in cash, the Romanian State shows a commitment to the principles of the market economy and to supporting private initiative.
The amendments proposed to Article 48, founding the family on marriage between two human beings of opposite sex whose sexual identity acquired at birth is unchanged, may generate broad social and cultural debate. These changes have the potential to influence the traditional perception of family and marriage in Romania and also to raise questions concerning the rights of sexual minorities.
Article 52, in its new drafting, underlines the liability of the State and of magistrates for judicial errors and introduces the possibility of sanctioning magistrates who have acted in bad faith or with gross negligence. This amendment has a direct impact on citizens’ confidence in the judicial system, providing a clear mechanism of liability and consolidating the principle of accountability in the exercise of public office. This can lead to greater professionalisation of the magistracy and to a reduction in judicial errors, while providing injured persons with effective remedies to protect their rights.
The amendment proposed to Article 62 concerning the threshold of representativeness in the Parliament of Romania may, in the context of a multi-party political system, have the effect of greater diversity in the political sphere. Through this change, smaller parties could have a better chance of being represented in the legislature, which could lead to a more equitable representation of the diverse interests of citizens and to a more inclusive political dynamic. At the same time, this amendment could boost civic participation and stimulate a broader political dialogue at national level.
The introduction of the new point (l) into Article 65(2), governing the appointment by Parliament of the Prosecutor General and of the chief prosecutors of important directorates, may be interpreted as a measure increasing accountability to the elected representatives of the people. This change can help consolidate parliamentary supervision of appointments to key positions in the judicial system and secure greater transparency and accountability in the appointment of top prosecutors.
The amendment of Article 83(1), providing for the shortening of the term of office of the President of Romania from 5 to 4 years, exercised from the date of taking the oath in the same calendar year as the election of Parliament, could have the effect of aligning the presidential with the parliamentary electoral cycles. This could lead to a synchronisation of political agendas and to a potential stabilisation of the electoral cycles. In addition, this amendment can improve the coherence and efficiency of the legislative process by reducing periods of cohabitation between the President and a Parliament with a different majority.
The revision of the rules on organising referendums, laid down in the additions to Article 90, may have a significant impact on the exercise of national sovereignty and on participatory democracy. By prohibiting the organisation of referendums simultaneously with elections and by clarifying the subjects that may be submitted to popular consultation, the aim is to avoid the overlapping of, or confusion between, different electoral and referendum processes. This could contribute to a better understanding of, and participation by, citizens in important national decisions, and to greater legitimacy of referendum results.
The amendment of point (b) of Article 94, making the conferring of the high ranks of marshal, general and admiral conditional on the opinion of the specialised committees of Parliament, underlines the wish to increase civilian oversight of the armed forces. This change may be interpreted as a step towards strengthening democratic control over the armed forces and as a measure ensuring that promotions to the high ranks of the army are subject to a transparent and equitable process based on merit and professional competence.
Article 97, in its new form, which facilitates the initiation of the procedure for removing the President by referendum, may be seen as an extension of the mechanisms of democratic control over the highest office in the State. By lowering the number of citizens required to initiate a removal referendum, the active participation of citizens in political life is encouraged and a direct channel is provided for expressing the popular will on matters of national importance. → the text of the article
The amendment to Article 103, concerning the procedure for designating the candidate for the office of Prime Minister, seeks to optimise the process of forming the Government. This amendment seeks to secure a closer link between the parliamentary majority and the executive, in order to facilitate stable and effective governance. It may have the effect of greater cohesion within political alliances and of a better reflection of the will of the electorate in national policy.
The amendments to Articles 108 and 115, concerning the regulation of government decisions and ordinances, are designed to consolidate the principle of the separation of powers within the State and to limit the executive’s ability to issue rules without adequate parliamentary control. These amendments underline the importance of a transparent legislative process in which laws are submitted to debate and approval by the elected representatives of the people, thereby avoiding legislation by ordinance without a solid foundation in the legislative will. In addition, these changes could lead to greater predictability, with normative acts better founded and less subject to ad hoc change, which could improve the business climate and citizens’ confidence in the act of governing.
The newly added paragraph to Article 116, establishing the duration of terms in appointed public office, introduces a clear limit on the number of consecutive terms, with the aim of preventing stagnation in certain positions and of encouraging a more dynamic circulation of administrative elites. This change can contribute to greater efficiency in the administration and to avoiding the concentration of power in the hands of a small number of persons.
The amendments to Article 118, governing the organisation of the intelligence services and of those assimilated to them, reflect a concern to consolidate civilian oversight and transparency within the structures of national security. These changes seek to ensure that intelligence activities are conducted in accordance with the principles of the rule of law and that military personnel are assigned only to the structures specific to the armed forces. This could result in a better delimitation of roles within the security apparatus and a clearer definition of civilian and military responsibilities.
The addition of paragraph 6 to Article 118, establishing a ceiling for the national defence budget, may be interpreted as a measure balancing budgetary priorities, ensuring that investment in security will not adversely affect other essential fields such as education or health. This limitation to 2% of the national budget underlines a commitment to a responsible and sustainable defence policy that does not place excessive pressure on the country’s financial resources.
The amendment of Article 119, including the introduction of the new paragraph (2), reflects a wish to increase the representativeness and legitimacy of the Supreme Council of National Defence (CSAT). By including additional members and establishing a clear framework for designating the heads of the intelligence services, the aim is to secure greater transparency and enhanced democratic control over institutions vital to national security. This change could lead to more effective oversight of the decisions influencing Romania’s defence and security policy.
The revision of Article 120 concerning the election of local authorities and the procedure of removal by local referendum represents an attempt to bring citizens closer to the process of local governance and to provide them with a direct mechanism of response where their representatives fail to meet the community’s expectations. These amendments can encourage greater civic engagement and can contribute to increasing the accountability of local elected representatives to their electors.
The amendments to Article 124, which underline the independence of judges and prohibit their association with intelligence services or occult organisations, seek to consolidate public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system. These changes seek to ensure that judges exercise their office in full independence and free from external influences capable of compromising their even-handedness and fairness.
Article 125, in its new wording, states the irremovability of judges and sets out in detail the procedures of appointment, promotion and sanction, all of which fall within the competence of the Superior Council of Magistracy. This structure seeks greater clarity and a more rigorous framework for the career of the magistrate, strengthening judicial independence and professionalism. → the text of the article
The amendment of Article 126, concerning the role of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in securing the uniform interpretation and application of the law by the courts, is crucial to the coherence of the legal system and to avoiding contradictory interpretations of the law. This can have a positive impact on the predictability and uniformity of judicial practice and can help consolidate citizens’ confidence in justice.
In the context of Article 132, which addresses the incompatibilities of the office of prosecutor, the aim is to secure a clear line between professional activity and other interests capable of affecting the objectivity and impartiality of prosecutors. This clarification is intended to guarantee a prosecution service that is upright and focused on discharging its mission of enforcing the law and conducting criminal investigations, without interference from other spheres of activity. → the text of the article
The revision of Article 133, concerning the structure and functioning of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM), reflects a concern to strengthen the independence of justice and to secure a transparent process for appointing and sanctioning magistrates. These amendments seek to increase the accountability and efficiency of the CSM in its role as guarantor of the independence of the judicial system. Greater involvement of civil society and a clear separation of powers within the State are also proposed, through the limitation of executive and legislative influence over the decisions of the CSM.
Article 134, in its new drafting, addresses the procedure for appointing judges and prosecutors, placing the emphasis on a rigorous and transparent selection process. By establishing an annual national competition for admission to the magistracy, the aim is to secure a high level of competence and professionalism among those who will serve in judicial office. This can positively influence the quality of the administration of justice and can increase public confidence in the capacity of judicial institutions to administer justice equitably and effectively.
The amendment of Article 136(4), concerning the inalienability of goods in public ownership, has the potential to protect national interests and to prevent unjustified or speculative privatisations. This change can have a significant impact on the national patrimony, ensuring that valuable resources and goods remain in State ownership and are used in the collective interest. By making the administration, concession or leasing of public goods conditional on compliance with a strict legal framework, better management of resources and protection against the improper use of these assets can be secured.
Article 140, in its new drafting, strengthens the role of the Court of Auditors in supervising the management of public resources, underlining the importance of transparency and fiscal responsibility. The Court’s periodic and public reporting can contribute to greater awareness of how public funds are spent and can lead the authorities to act with greater prudence in administering the budget.
The amendment of Article 142, governing the composition of the Constitutional Court, is intended to secure a balance among the various powers of the State and their representatives within the Court, and to strengthen the independence of that institution, which is essential to democracy. This change seeks an equitable and diversified representation reflecting different perspectives and securing impartial and effective constitutional review.
As regards Article 143, the amendment of the conditions for appointing the judges of the Constitutional Court underlines the importance of higher legal training and of an unblemished professional and moral reputation. By prohibiting political affiliation in the five years preceding appointment, the aim is to avoid partisan influence and to secure objective and neutral constitutional adjudication. This can lead to greater confidence in the Court’s decisions and to better protection of civic rights and freedoms.
The amendments proposed for Article 146, concerning the powers of the Constitutional Court in matters of constitutional review, strengthen its role as guardian of the supremacy of the Constitution. By extending the possibilities of referral to the Court and by setting out the review procedures in detail, a clearer framework is provided for defending the constitutional order and for preventing the adoption of normative acts contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law.
The revision of Article 147, clarifying the effects of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, is essential in order to secure compliance with those rulings and to establish a coherent legal framework. These amendments underline that the Court’s decisions are binding and of general effect, thereby contributing to the uniformity of judicial practice and to the prevention of conflicts of norms. In addition, the introduction of the new paragraph (5) establishes a clear sanction for failure to comply with the decisions of the Constitutional Court, which can lead to greater legal discipline and to the consolidation of the rule of law.
The Title VI added to the Constitution, dedicated to Romania’s participation in international bodies and alliances, evidences a modern and pragmatic approach to foreign policy, based on respect for international commitments and on the protection of national interests. These amendments underline the importance of the sovereignty of the Romanian people in taking the major decisions affecting the country’s status in the international arena, such as accession to or withdrawal from bodies and alliances. This can lead to a closer alignment of foreign policy with the will of citizens and to greater transparency in the process of acceding to or withdrawing from international structures, ensuring that national interests are always duly protected and promoted.
Finally, the newly inserted paragraph in Article 154, establishing the applicability of the amendments to the term of the President in office, is an example of legislative clarity and of predictability in managing the constitutional transition. This change balances the need to respect the will expressed by citizens at the last elections with the need to secure a correct and orderly application of the new constitutional provisions. A transitional framework is thereby established allowing adaptation to the new constitutional context without creating discontinuities or uncertainties in the exercise of State functions.
In conclusion, the analysis of the 50 proposed amendments to the Constitution of Romania highlights a concerted effort to update and adapt the fundamental legislative framework to the realities and needs of contemporary Romanian society. From strengthening the separation of powers within the State and consolidating civic rights and freedoms to optimising political processes and reinforcing the mechanisms of democratic control, every proposed change has the potential significantly to influence the country’s social, political and legal structure. It is essential that these amendments be submitted to a broad process of public consultation in which all interested parties — citizens, State institutions, civil-society organisations and political parties — have the opportunity to express their views and to contribute to the final form of the Constitution.
4. Impact on the environment
Not applicable.
5. Other information
Not applicable.
Section 5 — Effects of the present normative act on the legislation in force
(a) normative acts in force that will be amended as a result of the entry into force of the draft normative act:
Through this draft revision of the Constitution, Romania prepares to take significant steps towards consolidating the rule of law, guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of citizens and making the mechanisms of governance more efficient. What follows reviews and analyses the changes proposed by the latest draft revision of the Constitution of Romania, underlining the impact they could have on national legislation. We shall also highlight which laws and normative acts could be amended as a result of these constitutional revisions:
1. First, the revision of Article 1(4) and (5) brings additional clarifications concerning the organisation of the State, the principles of the separation of powers and the supremacy of the Constitution. These amendments could influence the interpretation and application of normative acts governing the functioning of State institutions, such as laws on judicial organisation and laws defining the powers of Parliament, of the Government or of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
2. The repeal of Article 19(2) has consequences for the rights of citizens, who will no longer be extraditable to third States, with effects on Law No 302 of 28 June 2004 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
3. The amendment of Article 21(3), emphasising the right to a fair trial and to an optimal and predictable resolution of cases, could have a significant impact on the Code of Civil Procedure (Law 134/2010) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 135/2010). It could lead to a revision of the rules on judicial procedure and to the acceleration of proceedings, with the aim of securing the efficiency of the judicial system.
4. The amendment of Article 22(2) concerning the prohibition of experimental treatments could have effects on health legislation (Law 95/2006) and on legislation concerning patients’ rights (Law 46/2003), consolidating protection against abuse and establishing clearer standards for the treatment of persons.
5. The introduction of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 after Article 22(3) marks an important stage in the recognition and protection of sexual identity and of the physical and mental integrity of the person. This could influence the Civil Code (Law 287/2009), legislation on the rights of minors (Law 272/2004) and of persons with disabilities, as well as specific laws on medical technologies and biotechnologies (Law 95/2006).
6. The amendment of Article 23(4) consolidates the rules on pre-trial detention, directly affecting the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 135/2010) and possibly also the conditions of detention, with an impact on the rights of persons involved in criminal proceedings.
7. The addition of paragraphs 14 and 15 to Article 23 underlines the protection of private life in the context of criminal investigation and the interception of communications, with the potential to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 135/2010), the legislation on the protection of personal data (Law 506/2004) and the legislation on the surveillance and interception of communications (Government Emergency Ordinance No 111/2011 on electronic communications and Law No 198 of 6 July 2022 amending and supplementing certain normative acts in the field of electronic communications and establishing measures to facilitate the development of electronic communications networks).
8. The extension of Article 24 by paragraphs 3 to 5 reaffirms the right to a defence in criminal proceedings and the principle of equality of arms, creating pressure to adjust criminal procedure — the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 135/2010) — and the legislation on the classification of State information (Law 182/2002).
9. The amendment of Article 27(3), concerning the conditions for carrying out searches, could require revisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 135/2010) with a view to securing a stricter legal framework for the protection of the home and of private property.
10. The introduction of the new paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 after Article 28(1), dedicated to the secrecy of correspondence and to interception, could lead to significant reforms in the legislation governing the surveillance and interception of communications (Government Emergency Ordinance No 111/2011 on electronic communications and Law No 198 of 6 July 2022 amending and supplementing certain normative acts in the field of electronic communications and establishing measures to facilitate the development of electronic communications networks), with direct implications for the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens and also for the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 135/2010).
11. The amendment of Article 32 through the addition of paragraph 8, concerning the financing of national education, could lead to budgetary adjustments and to amendments of the public finance laws, with the aim of securing the allocation of the established percentage of GDP to education, with direct effects on the State Budget Law.
12. The addition of paragraphs 4 and 5 to Article 34, concerning medical treatment and the financing of health care, could require amendments to health legislation (Law No 95/2006 on the reform in the field of health, patients’ rights and public finances), in order to guarantee the right to informed consent and the allocation of the necessary financial resources.
13. The changes to Article 40(3), restricting membership of political parties for certain professional categories, could have an impact on the laws governing the status of magistrates (Law No 303/2022 on the status of judges and prosecutors), of public officials and of other categories of professionals (Law No 188/1999 (republished) on the Status of public officials).
14. The amendment of Article 44 by the addition of paragraph 10 concerning the right of property and the use of goods, including currency, may influence fiscal legislation (the Fiscal Code of 8 September 2015 (Law No 227/2015)) and banking legislation (Law No 312/2004 and the related financial-banking legislation), as well as the rules on transactions and the holding of financial assets.
15. The revision of Article 48 on marriage and the family, through paragraphs 1 and 2, will have a significant impact on family legislation, requiring adjustments to the Civil Code and possibly to other normative acts governing family relations, the conclusion and dissolution of marriage and the status and rights of children.
16. The reformulation of Article 52, concerning the right to a fair trial and to compensation for damage, may bring about changes in the legislation on the liability of the State and of magistrates (Law No 303/2022 on the status of judges and prosecutors), as well as in the procedures for challenging administrative acts and judicial decisions.
17. The amendments to Article 62 concerning representation in Parliament will have consequences for electoral legislation (Law 208/2015), changing the threshold of representativeness for parties and the conditions of access to Parliament for independent candidates.
18. The addition of a new point (l) to Article 65, providing for the appointment of the Prosecutor General and of the heads of the principal investigative directorates, could influence Law No 304/2022 on judicial organisation.
19. The extension of Article 70 through the introduction of paragraph (3) concerning the cessation of the mandate of deputies or senators following a local referendum would have an impact on the electoral laws (Law 208/2015) and on the rules concerning the status of members of Parliament and the procedures for their removal (Law No 96/2006 on the Status of deputies and senators).
20. The amendment of Article 72(3), concerning parliamentary immunity in cases of flagrante delicto, could have consequences for criminal legislation and for the status of deputies and senators, requiring adjustments to the rules on the procedure for lifting parliamentary immunity and the conditions in which it may be suspended (Law No 96/2006 on the Status of deputies and senators).
21. As regards Article 74(1), the amendments proposed to the legislative initiative could lead to a redefinition of the process by which citizens can contribute directly to the formation of national legislation, directly affecting the legislation on the popular legislative initiative (Law No 189/1999 on the exercise of the civic initiative by citizens).
22. Article 75(2), by amending the time-limits within which the first Chamber notified rules on draft laws, could have implications for the efficiency of the legislative process and could lead to a revision of Parliament’s internal rules on legislative procedures.
23. Through the amendment of Article 83(1), redefining the term of office of the President of Romania as 4 years conditional on the date of taking the oath in the year of the parliamentary elections, a revision of the legislation on the election of the President (Law No 370/2004) is required, and the electoral laws may also be affected (Law 115/2015, as updated in 2024).
24. The addition of paragraphs 2 and 3 to Article 90, governing the organisation of referendums, could influence the legislation on procedures for consulting the population and could impose new restrictions on the timing and circumstances in which referendums may be initiated.
25. The amendment of point (b) of Article 94 consolidates Parliament’s role in the process of conferring senior military ranks, which could require adjustments to military legislation and to the procedures for promotion within the military hierarchy, entailing greater transparency and parliamentary control over that process.
26. The amendment of Article 97(2), concerning the removal of the President by referendum on the initiative of citizens, could generate a need to revise the laws on the organisation and conduct of referendums (Law 3/2000) and those establishing the conditions and terms for exercising this civic right.
27. As regards Article 103(1), concerning the procedure for designating the candidate for the office of Prime Minister, the proposed amendments could influence electoral legislation and the legislation on the functioning of the Government (Law 90/2001), with possible implications for the balance of power among State institutions.
28. Article 108(2) and (3), concerning the issue of decisions and ordinances by the Government, could bring about a reassessment of the legislative framework governing secondary normative acts and could limit the executive’s ability to intervene in the field of primary legislation without a clear mandate from the legislature.
29. The amendments to Article 115 concerning Government emergency ordinances and the procedure for their approval by Parliament could lead to a restriction of the use of this legislative instrument and to greater accountability of the Government to Parliament, thereby requiring a revision of the laws governing the legislative process and parliamentary control over governmental acts.
30. The introduction of Article 116(3), limiting the duration of terms in appointed public office, may have implications for the legislation on public administration and on the status of public officials (Law No 188/1999), possibly requiring revisions of the laws establishing the duration of terms and the conditions of renewal for various offices within the State.
31. The amendments to Article 118, through paragraphs 4 and 5, concerning the organisation of the intelligence services and the conditions for stationing foreign troops on Romanian territory, could lead to revisions of national security and defence legislation (Law 51/1991, Law No 14/1992, Law No 1/1998, Law No 92/1996, Law No 191/1998), including the rules on international cooperation in the military and intelligence fields.
32. The addition of paragraph 6 to Article 118, concerning the national defence budget, could entail budgetary adjustments and amendments to public finance legislation, with the aim of clearly delimiting the percentage of funds allocated to defence in relation to the national budget.
33. The introduction of paragraph (2) into Article 119, stipulating the composition of the Supreme Council of National Defence, could affect national security legislation and could require clarifications concerning the powers and the procedures for appointing the members of that council (Law 415/2002).
34. The amendments proposed for Article 120, through the introduction of paragraphs (3) to (6) concerning the election of the presidents of county councils and of mayors and the possibility of their removal by referendum, could have a profound impact on local electoral legislation (Law 155/2015), on the status of the local public administration authorities (Law 393/2004) and on the procedures for removal from office (Law 215/2001).
35. The changes to Article 124, which focus on the independence of judges, could influence the legislation on the status of the magistracy (Law 303/2002), the independence of the judicial system and the restrictions on judges’ professional activities outside the judicial system. These could lead to amendments of the laws governing the careers of judges and to possible revisions of the laws on the incompatibilities and prohibitions applicable to them.
36. The introduction of paragraphs (4) and (5) into Article 124, prohibiting judges from being agents or collaborators of the intelligence services and from being members of secret associations, could have effects on national security legislation and on the normative acts governing the activity of the intelligence services and their relationship with the judicial system (all of those mentioned above).
37. The reformulation of, and the addition of new paragraphs to, Article 125, concerning the irremovability, appointment and incompatibilities of judges, entails revisions of the justice laws, in particular those concerning the status and professional career of magistrates (Law 303/2002). These changes will concern transparency and the criteria for appointment to office, as well as the clarification of the role of the Superior Council of Magistracy in the processes of appointing and sanctioning judges.
38. The amendment of Article 126(3), consolidating the role of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in securing the uniform interpretation and application of the law, will entail adjustments to judicial legislation and may influence the processes for resolving questions of law, with direct implications for the uniformity of judicial practice and for case-law.
39. The changes to Article 132 concerning the incompatibility of the office of prosecutor could require revisions of the laws on the status of prosecutors, their professional careers and the activities compatible or incompatible with membership of the Public Ministry (Law 303/2002).
40. The reform of Article 133, redefining the structure and functioning of the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM), will have a major impact on the organic law of the CSM and may profoundly influence the way in which the independence and accountability of the magistracy are guaranteed. The amendments will also entail a possible reassessment of the role and powers of the Judicial Inspectorate.
41. Article 134, through the proposed amendments, raises the procedures for appointing judges and prosecutors and strengthens the independence of the judicial system by establishing stricter conditions for those processes. This could lead to a revision of the laws on judicial organisation (Law 303/2002) and to a reform of the processes of selection and promotion within the magistracy.
42. Through the amendment of Article 136(4), concerning the inalienability of goods in public ownership, additional restrictions may be imposed on the management of those goods, possibly affecting the legislation on privatisation and on the administration of State patrimony, as well as the rules on concessions and leases (Law No 100/2016 on works concessions and service concessions).
43. The change to Article 140(3), concerning the role of the Court of Auditors in auditing the management of public resources, could lead to greater transparency and accountability in the use of public funds, thereby requiring adjustments to financial legislation and to the rules on reporting and monitoring budgetary expenditure (Law 94/1992).
44. The amendment of Article 142(3), concerning the appointment of the judges of the Constitutional Court, could influence the process of their selection and appointment, with the potential to amend the legislation on the functioning of the Constitutional Court and on the status of constitutional judges (Law 47/1992).
45. The reformulation of the sole paragraph of Article 143, establishing the criteria for the judges of the Constitutional Court, could lead to revisions of the appointment rules and to a possible redefinition of the professional and ethical profile expected of the Court’s judges (Law 47/1992).
46. The amendments proposed for points (a) to (d) of Article 146, extending the possibilities of referral to the Constitutional Court and the conditions for examining the constitutionality of laws, will require a reassessment of the mechanisms of constitutional review and of the procedures for referral to the Court. These changes will have consequences for the Court’s role within the judicial system and for the balance among the powers of the State.
47. Article 147(3) and (4) consolidate the authority of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and this will have implications for the applicability of, and compliance with, those decisions within the national legal system. This could lead to legislative clarifications concerning the effects of the Court’s decisions on laws and treaties.
48. The introduction of paragraph (5) into Article 147, establishing the consequences of failure by magistrates to comply with the decisions of the Constitutional Court, will require revisions of the legislation on the disciplinary liability of judges and prosecutors and of the rules governing the sanctioning of disciplinary offences within the magistracy.
49. The amendment of Title VI of the Constitution brings to the fore the role of the people and of the referendum in the process of acceding to, ratifying amendments of the founding treaties of, or withdrawing from international bodies and alliances. These changes could require adjustments to the legislation on the national referendum (Law 3/2000) and will have an impact on the sovereignty and independence of the Romanian State in its relationship with international bodies and alliances.
50. The addition of paragraph 3 to Article 154, concerning the applicability of the amendment of the term of office of the President of Romania, will have direct implications for electoral legislation and for the continuity of the term of the President in office (Government Emergency Ordinance No 64/2019 amending and supplementing Law No 370/2004 for the election of the President of Romania and amending Law No 208/2015 on the election of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies).
In conclusion, the draft revision of the Constitution of Romania provides for a series of significant amendments that will have a major impact on the entire national normative framework.
(b) normative acts to be drawn up in implementation of the new provisions: the same as those mentioned above.
1¹. Compatibility of the draft normative act with the legislation on public procurement — Not applicable
2. Conformity of the draft normative act with Community legislation in the case of drafts transposing Community provisions — No documents were identified in Community legislation in this field.
3. Normative measures necessary for the direct application of Community normative acts — Not applicable.
4. Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Not applicable.
5. Other normative acts and/or international documents from which commitments arise — Not applicable.
6. Other information. — Not applicable.
1. Information on the process of consultation with non-governmental organisations, research institutes and other bodies involved | Not applicable
2. Justification of the choice of the organisations consulted and of the way in which their activity is connected with the object of the draft normative act | Not applicable
3. Consultations organised with the local public administration authorities, where the draft normative act concerns activities of those authorities, under the conditions of Government Decision No 521/2005 on the procedure for consulting the associative structures of the local public administration authorities in the drafting of normative acts | Not applicable
4. Consultations conducted within the interministerial councils, in accordance with the provisions of Government Decision No 750/2005 on the establishment of permanent interministerial councils | Not applicable.
5. Information on the opinions of: | The advisory opinions will be obtained after completion of the stages provided for by Law 189/1999.
(a) the Legislative Council
(b) the Supreme Council of National Defence
(c) the Economic and Social Council
(d) the Competition Council
(e) the Court of Auditors.
Section 7 — Public information activities concerning the drafting and implementation of the draft normative act
1. Informing civil society of the necessity of drafting the normative act — The draft law for the revision of the Constitution was submitted to public debate for 18 months and is the direct result of those open consultations.
2. Informing civil society of the possible environmental impact of the implementation of the draft normative act, as well as of the effects on the health and safety of citizens or on biological diversity — Not applicable.
3. Other information — Not applicable
Section 8 — Implementation measures
1. Measures for the application of the draft normative act by the central and/or local public administration authorities — the establishment of new bodies or the extension of the competences of existing institutions — Not applicable.
2. Other information — None identified
Comments on this text
Comments here go into the document’s section of the Sovereigntist forum. One argues on the text, with reasons.
See the whole discussion in the forum →