Predoiu admits integrity bill contains amendments he opposes, but says compromise was needed to avoid losing EU recovery funds
Interim Justice Minister says two parties conditioned support on including their amendments, and the interim government could not initiate legislation, so he tabled the bill as a senator.
The bill and the PNRR milestone
The legislative proposal on consolidating normative acts in the field of integrity was drafted by the Ministry of Justice together with the National Integrity Agency (ANI) and sent to the European Commission. It contains every transparency guarantee requested by ANI and derived from national and European case law, according to interim Justice Minister Cătălin Predoiu. The bill is one of six required for Romania to access the remaining funds under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR); missing the milestone would have blocked those disbursements.
- Ministry of Justice and ANI draft bill with transparency guarantees; sent to European Commission as a PNRR milestone.
- Prime minister initiates talks; PNL, USR and UDMR participate, propose amendments; two parties make their support conditional on inclusion of those amendments.
- Predoiu submits the bill as a senator on 21 July 2026, incorporating party amendments because the interim government cannot initiate legislation.
- 12 NGOs publish an open letter arguing the project violates international obligations, removes civic monitoring tools, and contains unconstitutional provisions.
- On 24 July 2026, Predoiu states some amendments do not reflect his legal vision but were necessary to avoid losing the PNRR milestone and to allow Parliament to debate the law.
Political consultations and amendments
At the prime minister's request, consultations were held with parliamentary parties willing to take part. PNL, USR and UDMR attended; PSD stayed away. The three parties proposed amendments, and two of them made it explicit that they would support the parliamentary debate and final adoption of the law only if their amendments were included in the text submitted to Parliament. One amendment, originating with UDMR, removes the obligation to publish the declaration of financial interests, meaning asset and interest declarations would still be filed with ANI but would no longer be publicly accessible.
The only way to trigger the parliamentary debate procedure was to notify Parliament with a bill that included the parties' amendments.
Why the minister tabled the bill as a senator
The interim government lacks the legal authority to initiate legislative projects. After consulting the prime minister, Predoiu decided to deposit the proposal in his capacity as a senator, exercising the right of parliamentary initiative. He emphasised that the version sent to the European Commission remained unchanged and reflects his full legal vision, while the version submitted to Parliament is a mechanism to unlock the legislative process and to let Parliament decide the final shape of the law.
The alternative was keeping the process blocked, with a project drafted by the Ministry of Justice and ANI, deposited with the European Commission, but without Parliament being notified.
Criticism from civil society
Twelve non-governmental organisations published an open letter arguing that the project breaches Romania's international commitments, deprives citizens of civic instruments for monitoring corruption, contains unconstitutional provisions, and is incompatible with the rule of law. The contested provision on non-publication of financial interest declarations is at the centre of that criticism.
Predoiu's position and next steps
Predoiu acknowledged that some amendments "do not faithfully reflect my legal vision" but described the decision to include them as "a political and state decision, meant to offer a chance to escape an impasse, with all the image costs that come with it, of which I was aware." He reiterated that the official government position towards the European Commission remains the project originally drafted with ANI, and that the parliamentary process will now determine the final content of the law.
The way the parliamentary process will conclude depends on the will of the MPs and the parliamentary parties that will debate the legislative proposal.
