USR submitted to the Senate a draft law that contradicts the CCR’s decision regarding the secrecy of asset declarations. The initiative is awaiting the opinion of the Legislative Council, and later support in the coalition could be discussed. USR representatives say they will come up with other legislative options. “Nobody really wants to talk about the core of the problem.” however, Professor Radu Carp claims.
Contrary to a CCR decision, the statements must no longer be published PHOTO Inquam Photos / Octav Ganea
We remind you that in the spring the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) established that the declarations of assets and interests of dignitaries, officials and employees of public institutions must no longer be published, citing the protection of private life.
The decision, handed down at the end of May, declared unconstitutional the articles of Law 176/2010 that required the publication of statements on the institutions’ websites and the inclusion of information about the wealth and income of the spouse and children. According to the decision, the statements are still submitted to the National Integrity Agency (ANI), but they can no longer be published.
The USR project
What the project provides
The initiative submitted by USR provides for the publication of statements on the ANI platform. Certain information, such as real estate and land addresses, will be classified, apart from the county and country, as well as the full name of relatives.
Also, the draft law stipulates that the persons submitting declarations will also mention the wealth of family members, but being responsible only for the information they could reasonably know.
The party is considering several work options
“The project is being worked on by the USR. In the coalition, we have not reached a common form. The USR claims that the statements must remain public, the other parties prefer that they be only at the ANI. We do not have any transparent project from the Government. In our opinion, the project reflects solutions that are in agreement with the decision of the CCR”explains co-initiator senator Simona Spătaru.
Oana Murariu shows that the initiative tries to bring back the original version. “We discussed several options and registered the option closest to the law in force, the decision of the Constitutional Court. (…) They will be public, with some small changes to respect private life. That is, let it be known that I have three buildings, but not know where they are. Let it be known that I share with someone.”
The initiative submitted by USR, however, depends on the opinion of the Legislative Council. Depending on this opinion, there could also be interventions on the project:
“The CCR said that the right to privacy is violated by publication. That it is published on the ANI website, that it is published elsewhere, without the person’s consent. And then, practically, following the decision of the CCR, it cannot be published anywhere. What we envisioned was the publication by the ANI website. (…) I said that we will see depending on the opinion from the Legislative Council, if we will intervene on the project eventually and manage to form a majority or if not, it is effectively testing, at least from the point of view of the Legislative Council, regarding constitutionality. To see what we do, if we go with this one or try something else. (…) If from the beginning the Legislative Council tells you that it does not respect the decision of the CCR, then, clearly, we will not be able to continue with this project. But we have several project forms. We don’t want to leave the subject”, says Murariu.
If the project will not be successful, another proposal of deputy Oana Murariu is that the declarations of assets can be published with the consent of the holder.
“Have we come this way?”
Even if the project passes, “it won’t be what it was before”, is the opinion of professor Radu Carp for “Adevărul”. “If you vote in this form, it does not mean that you return to the old posting system, that is, that posting on the institutions’ own pages. The fundamental problem is the following. Here there are two issues that collide. The need to have transparency on the income from public positions and, respectively, the right to private life to the privacy of civil servants. Romania had a very tough legislation in this field for a long, long time and that produced effects. In the sense that reading these statements made it possible to discover acts of corruption that probably would not have been discovered otherwise.
Now, the question is and nobody gives any answer among the politicians. It is a transitional period until having the system that exists in all European countries, through which a balance was reached between transparency and private life respectively. We’ve come this way or we’re somewhere halfway there and we have to keep going. This is the whole problem. No one really wants to talk about the core of the problem. In my opinion, I think that CCR wanted to convey that this transition period is over and that at the moment we are starting to go to the other level, respecting private life. Now, for sure, arguments can be made for and against”.
CCR motivation
In reasoning, the Court invoked the right to private life: “The text of the Constitution opposes a mass processing of personal data through the publication of wealth declarations with the consequence of exposing the person to unjustified public attention. The Court emphasizes that the development of artificial intelligence technologies makes it possible to create personalized models and patterns of behavior in relation to each individual declarant, which, combined with the abundance of private information disclosed, through the effect of the law, in the public space, presents a risk in the sense of disregarding the human dignity and individuality of the person, weakening to the point of cancellation the constitutional protection that he must enjoy regarding his private life”.
According to the constitutional judges, it was not ensured “a fair balance between the two competing fundamental rights. Thus, the need to inform the public and the need to control assets cannot lead to a disproportionate interference in the private life of individuals”.
CCR also argues that declaratory liability must be individual: a public official cannot be held liable for information about a spouse or children that he does not directly possess. Three judges of the CCR, Iulia Scântei, Livia Stanciu and Mihaela Ciochina, had separate opinions at that time.
Wave of criticism
The decision sparked an instant wave of criticism at the time. The President of Romania requested the intervention of the Parliament, and representatives of ANI warned that Romania risks being sanctioned by the European anti-corruption bodies. In political terms, several political leaders, including the current president Nicușor Dan and the interim prime minister at the time, Cătălin Predoiu, stated that the Parliament will correct the Law after the Constitutional Court will justify its decision.
“The surprising decision of the Constitutional Court announced today is in contradiction with an essential principle of democracy – transparency in the exercise of public functions. Citizens’ access to information on the wealth declarations of dignitaries is a guarantee of integrity and responsibility in the public space, and this principle must be firmly defended. If the reasoning of the decision identifies deficiencies of a technical nature in the legislative framework currently, it is the Parliament’s responsibility to correct them quickly”declared the president of Romania, Nicușor Dan.
So far, in Parliament at least, it does not seem that the subject has been opened, although such an initiative of the coalition requires debate in the Legislature.
“We’ll have to read it, let’s all look at it. Let’s see what it’s about, see if it goes against the CCR decision,” says the PSD Chamber of Deputies leader. The leader of the UDMR deputies, Csoma Botond, states that there will be discussions if the project reaches the Chamber.
