Abstract
How can the EU ensure respect for the Rule of Law, enshrined in Art. 2 TEU, by its Member States and by Accession Candidates? How far do the monitoring and supervisory competences of the EU reach in this regard? How effective could such a monitoring be? These questions moved more and more into focus after the 2004/2007 enlargement of the EU. As Romania shifted from the collapse of the Ceausescu régime in December 1989 to EU membership in January 2007, the question of how respect for the Rule of Law could be effectively ensured was an issue of permanent debate, and so it continues to be. The numerous Regular and Monitoring Reports of the Commission on the accession negotiations 1998–2006, its Strategy Papers during this period and its frequent Regular Reports in the framework of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) after 2007 provide a rich source of information about this unique debate, at least from the perspective of the EU.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Wennerström 2007, p. 197 et seq.
- 2.
- 3.
Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006, O.J. L 354/56 (2006).
- 4.
Progress Report of 22 January 2014, COM(2014) 37.
- 5.
Roos 2011, p. 7 et seq.
- 6.
Constitution of Romania of 21 November 1991; English version www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?id=256&idl=2. For the genesis of the Constitution of 1991 see Slavu 2008, p. 156; Hein 2013, p. 285 et seq.
- 7.
Kerek 2010, p. 479, observes that according to the Constitutional Court practice, the Rule of Law is a structural principle which does not have the quality of a legal norm.
- 8.
Hein 2013, p. 309.
- 9.
Kerek 2010, p. 481.
- 10.
Detailed rules for the judicial system were adopted by Law no. 92/1992, Monitorul Oficial no. 197/1992.
- 11.
The SCM was already foreseen in the Constitution of 1909 and existed until 1949; Hein 2013, p. 300.
- 12.
- 13.
Ionescu 2008, p II/71.
- 14.
On the role of the prosecutors in Romania between the executive and the judiciary see Carausan 2009, p. 112.
- 15.
- 16.
Law no. 47/1992 on the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court, Monitorul Oficial no. 643/2004; a comprehensive account is given by Kerek 2010, p. 148. In the following: RCC.
- 17.
Kerek 2010, p. 186 et seq.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
Hein 2013, p. 313; Regular Report of 13 November 2001, SEC(2001) 1753, p. 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
Agenda 2000, p. 41; Regular Report of 5 November 2003, SEC(2003) 1211, p. 22.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
Tschirky 2011, p. 30; Sannerholm 2012, p. 63. See also the Recommendation no. CM/REC (2010) on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. The ECtHR issued numerous judgments against Romania for violation of Art. 6.1 ECHR due to excessive judicial delays; see Tschirky 2011, p. 30; Progress Report of 18 July 2012, COM(2012) 410, p. 8, footnote 23; Regular Report of 5 November 2003, SEC(2003) 1211, p. 27 et seq.
- 28.
Sticht 2006, p. 362.
- 29.
From 1993 until 2007, Romania was also a member of the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA).
- 30.
O.J. L 357 (1994).
- 31.
Commission Communication, The Europe Agreements and Beyond: A Strategy to prepare the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe for accession, COM(94) 320; Maresceau 1997, p. 16 et seq.
- 32.
Art. O TEU‐Maastricht took over the wording of the accession clause of Art. 237 EC.
- 33.
- 34.
Doc. SN 00400/95EN.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
For the scope of their application see inter alia Große Wentrup 2003, p. 49 and 64 et seq.; Brosius‐Gersdorf 2005, p. 17; Scheuing 2005, p. 162–164; Kokott and Sobotta 2010, p. 2 et seq.; Nusser 2011, p. 9, 40, 119 et seq. and 126 (to the right to a fair trial); Ullerich 2011, p. 117; Yowell 2012, p. 107 et seq.; Azoulai 2012, p. 207 et seq.; Blanke 2012, p. 161 et seq. See also Case C‐617/10, Aklagaren v. Fransson (ECJ 26 February 2013) para 17–19.
- 41.
Meyer‐Ladewig 2012, p. 233 et seq.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
Agenda 2000 for a stronger and wider Union, Bull. EU Supplement 5/97. In the section “Political criteria – Human Rights”, the Agenda 2000 briefly referred to the ECHR without going into details.
- 46.
Bull. EU Supplement 8/97; Regular Report of 15 July 1997, COM (97) 2003.
- 47.
Point 1.3. of the “General Evaluation”.
- 48.
- 49.
and with Bulgaria. They actually started on 15 February 2000 and ended on 14 December 2004.
- 50.
Gabanyi 1999/2000, p. 421.
- 51.
Doc. SN 00300/94EN.
- 52.
Doc. SN 400/97; Maresceau 2003, p. 9 et seq.
- 53.
- 54.
Maresceau 1997, p 30; see www.infoeuropa.ro/insidePage.php?webPageld=77&id=18146
- 55.
O.J. L 85/1 (1998), based on former Art. 238 EC.
- 56.
- 57.
Council Decision (EC) No. 98/261/EC, O.J. L 121/11 (1998).
- 58.
Council Decisions (EC) No. 1999/852/EC, O.J. L 335/15 (1999); (EC) No. 2002/92/EC, O.J. L 44/82 (2002); and (EC) No. 2003/397/EC, O.J. L 145/21 (2003).
- 59.
Regular Report of 9 October 2002, SEC(2002) 1409, p. 133; Tatham 2009, p. 362 et seq.
- 60.
Regular Report of 5 June 2002, COM(2002) 256.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
Maresceau 1997, p. 3 and 59.
- 64.
- 65.
Conclusions of the European Council, Doc. SN 400/97, para 10 and 29; Hillion 2004, p. 14.
- 66.
“an incredible amount of documents”: Kochenov 2008, p. 7 and 67–78.
- 67.
- 68.
Kochenov 2008, p. 86 et seq.
- 69.
Regular Report of 8 November 2000, COM(2000) 710, p. 25 and 87, of 13 November 2001, SEC(2001) 1753, p. 30, and of 9 October 2002, SEC(2002) 1409, p. 129.
- 70.
Emmert 2003, p. 306.
- 71.
- 72.
They actually started on 15 February 2000 and ended on 14 December 2004.
- 73.
Doc. 15917/02 of 29 January 2003.
- 74.
The Commission further discusses in section (1) (“political criteria”) several other points such as fundamental freedoms and Human Rights, the fight against corruption (outside the judiciary), combating organised crime, and money laundering; this paper concentrates on the issue of the independence of the judiciary.
- 75.
Regular Report of 9 October 2002, SEC(2002) 1409, p. 25.
- 76.
In 1999/2000: 70 out of 70 appointments, in 2000/2001: 45 out of 53 appointments: OSI Report 2002, p. 176.
- 77.
Regular Report of 9 October 2002, SEC(2002) 1409, p. 11.
- 78.
Regular Report of 5 November 2003, SEC(2003) 1211.
- 79.
Also designated as “High Judicial Council”.
- 80.
- 81.
Regular Report of 9 October 2002, SEC(2002) 1409, p. 25.
- 82.
- 83.
Monitorul Oficial no. 643/2004; Text in English: www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site/page?id=371. See Carp 2007, p. 200; Bormann 2004, p. 207–267; Hein 2013, p. 359 et seq., p. 375 et seq. The draft revision had been checked by the Venice Commission 2002; see its Opinion CDL‐AD(2002) 17 of 9 July 2002.
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
Decision of the RCC no. 148/2003 of 16 April 2003 on the Draft Constitution, Monitorul Oficial no. 317/2003 www.ccr.ro/decisions/pdf/en/2003/D148_03.pdf; Hein 2013, p. 367 and 371. The RCC made numerous reservations to the draft.
- 87.
Decision of the RCC no. 375/2005 of 6 July 2005, Monitorul Oficial no. 591/2005, p. 19.
- 88.
- 89.
Decision of the RCC no 356/2003 of 22 September 2003, Monitorul Oficial no. 686/2003.
- 90.
Regular Report of 5 November 2003, SEC(2003) 1211, p. 20; Hein 2013, p. 378.
- 91.
Resolution 2004 P5_A(2004)0103.
- 92.
Hein 2013, p. 404.
- 93.
Between 2000 and 2005, this law had been amended no less than nineteen times; Coman 2007, p. 195.
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
Carp 2007, p. 224 et seq.
- 97.
With regard to public prosecutors upon a proposal by the Minister of Justice: Hein 2013, p. 392 et seq.; for details on the status, independence and impartiality of the public prosecutors see Carausan 2009, p. 104–128. In the decision no. 375/2005 the RCC emphasised the functional independence of the prosecutors from the Ministry of Justice (see footnote 85).
- 98.
Decision of the RCC no. 419/2005 of 18 July 2005, Monitorul Oficial no. 653/2005.
- 99.
Other constitutional conflicts occurred between 2006 and 2009 concerning the prosecution of high‐level corruption, a subject which is outside the scope of this paper. See Smilov and Toplek 2007.
- 100.
- 101.
Hein 2013, p. 378.
- 102.
Ionescu 2008, p. II/78 et seq.
- 103.
- 104.
Ionescu 2008, p. II/78.
- 105.
“recurs in anulare”. Hein 2013, p. 381; see Regular Reports 2000/2002/2003 and Monitoring Report 2006.
- 106.
- 107.
Comprehensive Monitoring Report of 25 October 2005, COM(2005) 534, p. 10; Coman and Dallara 2012, p. 840.
- 108.
Hein 2013, p. 469 with reference to the period 2003 to 2009 (“ein wesentlicher Teil der rechtsstaatlich prekären Probleme ist im Verlauf des Untersuchungszeitraumes gelöst worden”). This was accomplished with the assistance of the German IRZ‐Foundation which was between 2000 and 2010 the most important “Twinning”‐partner of the Romanian Ministry of Justice; see Trappe 2012, p. 345; Olaru 2012, p. 435 et seq.; critical to the EC method applied in the Romanian Justice Sector: Rem and Gasper 2008, p. 15 et seq.
- 109.
Monitoring Reports of 2005 and 2006.
- 110.
Monitoring Report of 26 September 2006, COM(2006) 549, p. 6.
- 111.
Monitoring Report of 26 September 2006, COM(2006) 549, p. 10.
- 112.
Denis‐Smith 2009, p. 65 et seq.
- 113.
Ionescu 2008, p. II/80.
- 114.
Coman and Dallara 2012, p. 876.
- 115.
- 116.
Parau 2012, p. 619 et seq.
- 117.
- 118.
Geissler and Rebegea 2011, p. 5.
- 119.
- 120.
Comprehensive Monitoring Report of 25 October 2005, COM(2005) 534, p. 4; a critical view is also taken by Rem and Gasper 2008, p. 16–23 who analyse the Twinning Projects at the SCM.
- 121.
- 122.
See for examples Weber 2010, p. 314–317.
- 123.
For the “Pro” and “Contra” see Hein 2013, p. 439 et seq.; Tanasescu and Popescu 2013, p. 306 et seq. Wittreck 2006, p. 617, 641 et seq. and 660 et seq., calls self‐administration of the judiciary “a wrong track” (“Irrweg”); critical also Bobek 2007, p. 110, regarding judicial councils in the new East European Member States, and Parau 2012, p. 619–665. Conversely, see Rieger 2011, p. 126 et seq. on the reform discussion in Germany which seems to favour a stronger role of judicial self‐administration.
- 124.
Conclusions of 13 December 2002, of 13 December 2003 and of 17 December 2004. See O’Brennan 2006, p. 55–73.
- 125.
Conclusions of 13 December 2002, Doc. 15917/02 of 29 January 2003, para 3 and 14.
- 126.
OJ L 157/9 of 21 June 2005.
- 127.
In particular Resolutions P5_TA(2002)0317 and P5_TA(2002)0536. See O’Brennan 2006, p. 95–112.
- 128.
O.J. L 157/7 (2005).
- 129.
Resolution P6‐TA(2005)0531 of 15 December 2005 points 5 and 6; see further Resolution P6_TA(2006)0512 of 30 November 2006 commenting on the Monitoring Report of 26 September 2006, COM(2006) 549.
- 130.
COM(2004) 657.
- 131.
O.J. L 157/3 (2005), point 5. With reference to the Opinion of the Commission, the Council formally accepted Romania’s application for admission: Decision of 25 April 2005, O.J. L 157/9 (2005).
- 132.
O.J. L 157/4 (2005), recital 9.
- 133.
Signed on 25 April 2005 in Luxembourg.
- 134.
Tatham 2009, p. 114.
- 135.
Slavu 2008, p. 144.
- 136.
Germany ratified the Accession Treaty just one week before it entered into force (on 24 November 2006).
- 137.
Slavu 2008, p. 149.
- 138.
Coman and Dallara 2012, p. 10.
- 139.
- 140.
Carey 2011, p. 333.
- 141.
Inglis 2010, p. 210.
- 142.
O.J. L 157/174 and L 157/374 (2005).
- 143.
See footnote 83, part 3.3.
- 144.
Originally it was only conceived for a period of “up to three years”: Monitoring Report of 16 May 2006, COM(2006) 214, p. 9; Monitoring Report of 26 September 2006, COM(2006) 549, p. 9.
- 145.
- 146.
Inglis 2010, p. 7.
- 147.
Objections by the Romanian Government against the extended duration of the monitoring are not known.
- 148.
The issue of corruption in the justice system is beyond the scope of this paper in spite of its high relevance for the independence of the judiciary; see the Progress Reports 2009–2014 and the Commission Communication on Fighting Corruption of 3 February 2014, COM(2014) 38, Annex 23 on Romania; Smilov and Toplek 2007; Roos and Rebegea 2009; Bormann 2009, p. 125 et seq.; Szarek‐Mason 2010, p. 182, 221–238 (on Romania and Bulgaria).
- 149.
Progress Report of 18 July 2012, COM(2012) 410.
- 150.
Progress Report of 30 January 2013, COM(2013) 47.
- 151.
Progress Report of 22 January 2014, COM(2014) 37.
- 152.
Technical Report of 22 January 2014, SWD(2014) 37.
- 153.
- 154.
Hein 2013, p. 463.
- 155.
Also a new framework for judicial inspections was adopted; Progress Report of 30 January 2013, COM(2013) 47, p. 8.
- 156.
Progress Report of 18 July 2012, COM(2012) 410, p. 6.
- 157.
Progress Report of 18 July 2012, COM(2012) 410, p. 3 and 19; Technical Report of 22 January 2014, SWD(2014) 37, p. 5.
- 158.
Urgent Communication of the Romanian Constitutional Court of 3 July 2012; see Venice Commission 2012, p. 14 et seq.
- 159.
Progress Report of 18 July 2012, COM(2012) 410, p. 19.
- 160.
The Council and the European Parliament regularly endorsed the Commission’s evaluation of the functioning of the SCM.
- 161.
For details on the ANI see Progress Report of 18 July 2012, COM(2012) 410, p. 14–16.
- 162.
Law no. 144/2007 regarding the setting up, organisation and functioning of the National Integrity Agency.
- 163.
Technical Report of 20 July 2010, SEC(2010) 949, p. 8 et seq., and of 20 July 2011, SEC(2011) 968, p. 8 et seq.
- 164.
Progress Report of 20 July 2010, COM(2010) 949, p. 9. For details on the constitutional conflict over the parliamentary immunity see Hipper 2014, p. 15.
- 165.
Progress Report of 22 January 2014, COM(2014) 37, p. 6; Technical Report of 22 January 2014, COM(2014) 37, p. 14.
- 166.
Technical Report of 30 January 2013, COM(2013) 47, p. 7/8, and of 22 January 2014, COM(2014) 37, p. 7–10. The new Civil Procedure Code entered into force on 15 February 2013.
- 167.
In 2011, no less than 140 Emergency Ordinances had been issued by the Government (see Venice Commission 2012, p. 5 et seq.), in 2013 the Government issued no less than 96.
- 168.
- 169.
Progress Report of 22 January 2014, COM(2014) 37.
- 170.
- 171.
Therefore they are largely outside the scope of this paper and cannot be discussed here in detail.
- 172.
Technical Report of 28 January 2014, SWD(2014) 37, p. 4. See the detailed survey on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court in Kerek 2010, p. 279–498.
- 173.
See Venice Commission 2012, p. 18.
- 174.
Progress Report of 18 July 2012, COM(2012) 410, p. 18; Carp 2014, p 8 et seq.
- 175.
Decision no. 732/2012 of 9 July 2012, Monitorul Oficial no. 477/2012.
- 176.
Emergency Ordinance no. 38/2012; see Carp 2014, p. 8 and 11.
- 177.
- 178.
Technical Report of 22 January 2014, SWD(2014) 37.
- 179.
- 180.
Decision no. 6 of 21 August 2012; Progress Report of 30 January 2013, COM(2013) 47, p. 3, footnote 4.
- 181.
Venice Commission 2012, p. 12 point 47.
- 182.
Venice Commission 2012, p. 10 point 33.
- 183.
Progress Report of 30 January 2013, COM(2013) 47, p. 6; Gabanyi 2013, p. 442.
- 184.
Progress Report of 22 January 2014, COM(2014) 37.
- 185.
See Venice Commission 2014, passim; Technical Report of 22 January 2014, SWD(2014) 37, p. 5–6. A first proposal had been published in 2011 by the (then) Prime Minister Emil Boc (available under www.rcis.ro).
- 186.
Venice Commission 2014, p. 5 point 23. For a detailed survey of the proposed provisions see Venice Commission 2014, passim; Blokker 2012a, p. 7 et seq.; Carp 2014, p. 8–13. See also www.gov.ro/programme-for-government-2013-2016_12a105576.html
- 187.
Venice Commission 2014, p. 33 and 28.
- 188.
Venice Commission 2014, p. 29.
- 189.
The Venice Commission also recommended a special clause for the transfer of competences to the EU.
- 190.
Venice Commission 2014, p. 4.
- 191.
Progress Report of 30 January 2013, COM(2013) 47, p. 6; Progress Report of 22 January 2014, COM(20143) 37, p. 3.
- 192.
Roos 2011.
- 193.
Resolution P7_TA(2013) 0315 16 February 2013 (with reference to the Resolution of 12 December 2012); see also the Fundamental Rights Reports of the EP 2012, 2013 and 2014.
- 194.
Council Conclusions of 11 March 2013, referring to Doc. 6269/13 of 12 February 2013 and to the resolution of the European Parliament of 3 July 2013.
- 195.
Speech 12/596 by President Barroso: www.europa.eu/rapid/press_release_SPEECH-12-596_en.htm; Speech 13/677 of 4 September 2013 by Vice‐President Reding (with reference to the Romanian rule of law crisis in 2012).
- 196.
Commission Communication of 11 March 2014, COM(2014) 158; Press release of the Commission of 11 March 2014 IP/14/237. See also Carrera, Guild and Hernanz 2013a, p. 50.
- 197.
About this procedure see the Commission Communication, Respect for and promotion of the values on which the Union is based, COM(2003) 606; Schorkopf, in Grabitz et al. (2013), Art. 7 TEU para 62; Carrera, Guild and Hernanz 2013a, p. 50 (for a new “Copenhagen mechanism”). An earlier proposal had already been made by the EP in its Draft Treaty establishing the European Union of 19 March 1984, O.J. C 77/33 (1984), Art. 4.4 and 44.
- 198.
For a critical appraisal of the Commission’s proposals see Bieber and Maiani 2013, p. 1085 et seq.
- 199.
- 200.
Council Regulation (EC) No. 168/2007, O.J. L 53/1 (2007).
- 201.
Carrera, Guild and Hernanz 2013a, p. 5.
- 202.
- 203.
Carrera, Guild and Hernanz 2013a, p. 1, voice doubts whether the Communication had added anything new.
- 204.
De Witte 2003, p. 234.
- 205.
In case of a lack of an EU competence such a mechanism could possibly be created by an agreement between the Member States outside the framework of the TEU; see Case C‐370/12, Pringle (ECJ 27 November 2012); see the comments to the case by Bieber and Maiani 2013, p. 1081 et seq.
- 206.
- 207.
See the annual Communications from the Commission on “Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges”, in particular the most recent Communications of 16 October 2013, COM(2013) 700, and of 8 October 2014, COM(2014) 700; on the negotiations with Turkey see Fierro 2003, p. 148 et seq.
- 208.
Communication of 16 October 2013, COM(2013) 700, p. 2, 6 and 14.
- 209.
- 210.
- 211.
Mendelski 2011a, p. 177 et seq.
- 212.
- 213.
Council Doc. 16238/1/04 REV 1 of 1 February 2005, para 23 “Framework for Negotiations”.
- 214.
Conclusions of 13 December 2002, Doc. 15917/02 of 29 January 2003 (point 18 on Turkey, point 23 on the countries of the Western Balkan) and of 16 June 2006, Doc. 10633/1/06 REV 1 of 17 July 2006, para 56; Communication “Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2013–2014” of 16 October 2013, COM(2013) 700, p. 1; Wennerström 2007, p. 167.
- 215.
See the view of numerous authors cited above under Sect. 5.1.2.
- 216.
Communication of 16 October 2013, COM(2013) 700, p. 7; Inglis 2010, p. 411–425.
- 217.
Communication of 6 November 2007, COM(2007) 663, p. 2; Communication of 16 October 2013, COM(2013) 700, p. 7.
- 218.
Communication of 12 October 2011, COM(2011) 666, p. 5; also, further financial assistance will be required for improving the justice sector, the independence of the judiciary and the fight against corruption and organised crime. For the period 2007–2013, the EU put over 800 Mio. Euro pre‐accession assistance at the disposal of the new Candidate Countries for these purposes; see Communication of 16 October 2013, COM(2013) 700, p. 7.
At the same time, the European Council concluded that Turkey fulfils the political criteria (including the Rule of Law): Conclusions of 16/17 December 2004, Doc. 16238/1/04 of 1 February 2005, p. 4 et seq.
- 219.
Communication of 16 October 2013 “Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2013–2014”, COM(2013) 700, p. 6, and 2014–2015 of 8 October 2014, COM(2014) 700 (see in particular Annex “Summary of findings” p. 30–48).
- 220.
- 221.
- 222.
House of Lords Report 2013, para 24 and 46.
- 223.
Rem and Gasper 2008, p. 5.
- 224.
A systematic strengthening of the monitoring on the basis of Art. 7 and 17 TEU and Art. 352 TFEU is considered possible from the legal point of view by Bieber and Maiani 2013, p. 1091.
- 225.
This view of Nicolaidis and Kleinfeld 2012, p. 16, appears to be a widely held opinion.
References
Adinolfi, A. (2012). The “Procedural Autonomy” of Member States and the Constraints Stemming from the ECJ’s Case Law: Is Judicial Activism still necessary? In H.-W. Micklitz & B. de Witte (Eds.), The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States. Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia.
Alegre, S. (2009). Safeguarding the Rule of Law in the EU: Synthesis Report. In S. Alegre, I. Ivanov, & D. Denis-Smith (Eds.), Safeguarding the Rule of Law in an Enlarged EU: The Cases of Bulgaria and Romania CEPS Special Report (pp. 1–19). Sofia: Open Society Institute. www.ceps.eu/system/files/book/1833.pdf
Azoulai, L. (2012). The Case of Fundamental Rights: A State of Ambivalence. In H.-W. Micklitz & B. de Witte (Eds.), The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States (pp. 207–217). Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia.
Bieber, R., & Maiani, F. (2013). Enhancing centralized enforcement of EU law: Pandora’s Toolbox? CMLRev., 51, 1057–1092.
Blanke, H.-J. (2012). The Protection of Fundamental Rights in Europe. In H.-J. Blanke, & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional Basis, Economic Order and External Action (pp. 159–232). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Blokker, P. (2012a). Constitution-Making in Romania: From Reiterative Crises to Constitutional Moment? Romanian Journal of Comparative Law, 3(2), 187–204.
Blokker, P. (2012b). Romanian Constitutionalism: Form without Content?www.academia.edu/1937927/Romanian_Constitutionalism_Form_Without_Content
Bobek, M. (2007). Iudex ex machina: Institutional and Mental Transistions of Central European Judiciaries. In R. Coman & J.-M. De Waele (Eds.), Judicial Reforms in Central and Eastern European Countries (pp. 107-134). Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Bobek, M. (2012). Why there is no principle of “Procedural Autonomy” of the Member States. In H.-W. Micklitz, & B.de Witte (Eds.), The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States (pp. 305–323). Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia.
Bormann, A. (2004). Die rumänische Verfassungsreform 2003. Jahrbuch für Ostrecht, 45, 207–267.
Bormann, A. (2009). Rumänien: Rechtsrahmen und Institutionen. In H. Küpper (Ed.), Korruptionsbekämpfung in Osteuropa (pp. 185–242). München: forost.
Brosius-Gersdorf, F. (2005). Bindung der Mitgliedstaaten an die Gemeinschaftsgrundrechte. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Carausan, M. (2009). Institutional Uncertainties of the Rule of Law – the Public Prosecutor’s Office between the Executive and the Judiciary. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 28, 104–128.
Carey, H. F. (2011). European Promotion of Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Romania. In R. F. King, & P. E. Sum (Eds.), Romania under Basescu. Aspirations, Achievements, and Frustrations during His First Presidential Term (pp. 313–345). Lanham, Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Carp, R. (2007). A constitutional principle under scrutiny: the immovability of judges – Romanian regulations in a comparative law perspective. In R. Coman, & J.-M.De Waele (Eds.), Judicial Reforms in Central and Eastern European Countries (pp. 199–225). Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Carp, R. (2014). The Struggle for the Rule of Law in Romania as an EU Member State: The Role of the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. Utrecht Law Review, 10(1), 1–16.
Carrera, S., Guild, E., & Hernanz, N. (2013a). Rule of law or rule of thumb? A New Copenhagen Mechanism for the EU. CEPS Policy Brief No. 303. Brussels: Center for European Policy Studies. www.ceps.eu/book/rule-law-or-rule-thumb-new-copenhagen-mechanism-eu
Carrera, S., Guild, E., & Hernanz, N. (2013b). The Triangular Relationship between Fundamental Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in the EU. Towards an EU Copenhagen Mechanism. www.europarl.europa.eu/studies
Coman, R. (2007). Media, Justice and Politics or How the Independence of the Judiciary became an Issue in Romania. In R. Coman, & J.-M.De Waele (Eds.), Judicial Reforms in Central and Eastern European Countries (pp. 157–198). Brugge: Vanden Broele.
Coman, R., & Dallara, C. (2012). Judicial Independence in Romania. In A. Seibert-Fohr (Ed.), Judicial Independence in Transition. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, (vol. 233, pp. 835–881). Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.
Cremona, M. (2003). The enlargement of the European Union. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Dallara, Cr. (2014). The Successful Laggard in Judicial Reform: Romania Before and After Accession. In Cr. Dallara (Ed.), Democracy and Judicial Reforms in South-East Europe (pp. 57-80). Zurich: Springer International Publishing.
De Witte, B. (2003). The Impact of Enlargement on the Construction of the European Union. In M. Cremona (Ed.), The Enlargement of the European Union (pp. 209–252). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Denis-Smith, D. (2009). The case of Romania. In S. Alegre, I. Ivanova, & D. Denis-Smith (Eds.), Safeguarding the Rule of Law in an Enlarged EU. The cases of Bulgaria and Romania. CEPS Special Report. (pp. 52–84). Sofia: Open Society Institute.
Dörr, O., Grote, R., & Marauhn, T. (Eds.). (2013). EMRK/GG Konkordanzkommentar zum europäischen und deutschen Grundrechtsschutz (2nd edn.). vol. II. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Emmert, F. (2003). Administrative and Court Reform in Central and Eastern Europe. Eastern European Law Journal, 9(3), 288-315.
Fierro, E. (2003). The EU’s Approach to Human Rights Conditionality in Practice. London, New York: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Gabanyi, A. U. (1999–2000). Rumänien. In W. Weidenfeld & W. Wessels (Eds.). Jahrbuch der europäischen Integration (p. 421–424). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Gabanyi, A. U. (2013). Rumänien. In W. Weidenfeld, & W. Wessels (Eds.), Jahrbuch der europäischen Integration (pp. 441–444). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Gallagher, Tom (2005). Modern Romania. New York: New York University Press.
Garoupa, N., & Ginsburg, T. (2009). Guarding the Guardians. Judicial Councils and Judicial Independence. American Journal of Comparative Law, 57, 201–232.
Geissler, T., & Rebegea, C. (2011). The Old and the New Romanian Superior Council of Magistracy. Country Report. Rule of Law Program, South East Europe. Berlin: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e. V.
Gionea, V., & Tontsch, G. H. (2007). Die Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Rumänien. In O. Luchterhandt, Chr. Starck, & A. Weber (Eds.), Berichte Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa, (Teilband I, pp. 105–127). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Grabenwarter, C. (2014). European Convention on Human Rights – Commentary. München, Oxford, Baden-Baden, Basel, Portland: C. H. Beck, Hart Publishing, Nomos, Helbing Lichtenhahn.
Grabitz, E., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (Eds.). (2013). Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Kommentar vol. I. Munich: C. H. Beck. Loose leaf.
Große Wentrup, A. (2003). Die Europäische Grundrechtscharta im Spannungsfeld der Kompetenzverteilung zwischen Europäischer Union und Mitgliedstaaten. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Grote, R. (1999). Rule of Law, Rechtsstaat and “Etat de droit”. In C. Starck (Ed.), Constitutionalism, Universalism and Democracy – a comparative analysis (pp. 269–306). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Hatje, A. (2005). Grenzen der Flexibilität einer erweiterten Europäischen Union. Europarecht, vol. 2, 148–161.
Hein, M. (2013). Verfassungskonflikte zwischen Politik und Recht in Südosturopa. Bulgarien und Rumänien nach 1989 im Vergleich. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Hillion, C. (2004). The Copenhagen Criteria and their Progeny. In C. Hillion (Ed.), EU Enlargement. A Legal Approach (pp. 1–22). Oxford, Portland: Hart Publ.
Hipper, A. M. (2014). Political Judicialization – The Quest for the Romanian Constitutional Court. www.bgss.hu_berlin.de/bgssonlinepublications/workshopDocu/advocatesnotariesofdemocracyfolder/paper1
House of Lords (2013). The future of EU enlargement. European Union Committee. 10th Report of Session 2012–13. London: The Stationary Office Limited.
Howard, A.E.D. (2001). Judicial Independence in Post-Communist Europe. In P.H. Russell & D.M. O’Brian (Eds.), Judicial Independence in the Age of Democracy. Critical Perspectives from around the World (pp. 89–110). Charlottesville, London: University of Virginia Press.
Inglis, K. (2010). Evolving Practice in EU Enlargement. Studies in EU External Relations vol. 4. Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Ionescu, C. (2008). Romania. In C. Kortmann, J. Fleuren, & W. Voermans (Eds.), Constitutional Law of 2 EU Member States: Bulgaria and Romania. The 2007 Enlargement (pp. II/1–II/104). Deventer: Kluwer.
Kerek, A. (2010). Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Ungarn und Rumänien. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Kochenov, D. (2008). EU Enlargement and the Failure of Conditionality. Pre-accession Conditionality in the Fields of Democracy and the Rule of Law. Alphen aan de Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Kokott, J. & Sobotta, Chr. (2010). The Charter of Fundamental Rights after Lisbon. AEL Working Papers 2010/6. Florence: Academy of European Law.
Kuijer, M. (2004). The Blindfold Lady Justice – Judicial Independence and Impartiality in Light of the Requirements of Article 6 ECHR. Leiden: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Mangiameli, S. (2012). The Union’s Homogeneity and its Common Values in the Treaty on European Union. In H.-J. Blanke, & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The Treaty on European Union. The European Union after Lisbon. Constitutional Basis, Economic Order and External Action (pp. 21–46). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Maresceau, M. (1997). Enlarging the European Union – Relations between the EU and Central and Eastern Europe. London, New York: Longman.
Maresceau, M. (2003). Pre-accession. In M. Cremona (Ed.), The Enlargement of the European Union (pp. 9–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mendelski, M. (2011a). Romanian Rule of Law Reform: A Two-Dimensional Approach. In R. F. King, & P. E. Sum (Eds.), Romania under Basescu (pp. 155–179). Lanham/New York/Toronto/Plymouth: Lexington Books. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/profiles/Romanian_Rule_of_Law_Reform_%20Mendelski_2011.pdf
Mendelski, M. (2011b). Rule of Law Reform in the Shadow of Clientelism: The Limits of the EU’s Transformative Power in Romania. Polish Sociological Review, 2, 235–253.
Meyer-Ladewig, J. (2011). EMRK. Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention. Commentary (3rd edn.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Meyer-Ladewig, J. (2012). The Rule of Law in the Case Law of the Strasburg Court. In H.-J. Blanke, & S. Mangiameli (Eds.), The European Union after Lisbon: constitutional basis, economic order, and external action (pp. 233–250). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Müller, L. F. (2009). Judicial Independence as a Council of Europe Standard. German Yearbook of International Law, 52, 461–486.
Nicolaidis, K., & Kleinfeld, R. (2012). Rethinking Europe’s „Rule of Law“ and Enlargement Agenda: The Fundamental Dilemma. OECD/EU. SIGMA Paper No. 49. http://dx.dol.org/10.1787/5k4c42jmn5zp-en
Nusser, J. (2011). Die Bindung der Mitgliedstaaten an die Unionsgrundrechte: Vorgaben für die Auslegung von Art. 51 Abs. 1 S. 1 EuGrCh. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
O’Brennan, J. (2006). The Eastern Enlargement of the European Union. New York, London: Routledge.
OSI Report (2001). Monitoring the EU Accession Process. Judicial Independence. Budapest: Open Society Institute.
OSI Report (2002). Monitoring the EU Accession Process.Judicial Capacity in Romania. Budapest: Open Society Institute.
Olaru, A. (2012). Activities of the Ministry of Justice in Collaboration with the German Foundation for International Legal Cooperation – IRZ. In S. Hülshörster, & D. Mirow (Eds.), Deutsche Beratung bei Rechts- und Justizreformen im Ausland: 20 Jahre Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Rechtliche Zusammenarbeit (pp. 435–438). Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Oppermann, T. (2005). Die Grenzen der Europäischen Union oder Das Vierte Kopenhagener Kriterium. In C. Gaitanides (Ed.), Europa und seine Verfassung. Festschrift für Manfred Zuleeg zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (pp. 72–79). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Parau, C. E. (2012). The Drive for Judicial Supremacy. In A. Seibert-Fohr (Ed.), Judicial Independence in Transition (pp. 619–666). Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.
Reding, V. (2013). The EU and the Rule of Law – What next? Speech/13/677. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
Rem, D., & Gasper, D. (2008). Romania’s accession process into the European Union. ISS Working Paper, vol. 463. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies.
Rengeling, H.-W., & Szczekalla, P. (2004). Grundrechte in der Europäischen Union. Charta der Grundrechte und Allgemeine Rechtsgrundsätze. Köln, Berlin, München: Carl Heymanns.
Rieger, A. (2011). Verfassungsrechtliche Legitimationsgrundlagen richterlicher Unabhängigkeit. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Roos, S. R. (2011). Die (un)endliche Geschichte der bulgarischen und rumänischen Justizreform. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Auslandsnachrichten, 1, 7–24.
Roos, S. R., & Rebegea, C. (2009). Anticorruption Policies in the Justice System. Debate and Book Launch. Berlin: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung. www.kas.de/rspsoe
Roth, A. (2006). Verfassungstext und Verfassungswirklichkeit in Rumänien. In D. Fischer (Ed.), Transformation des Rechts in Ost und West. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Herwig Roggemann zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 137–150). Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Rothacher, A. (2002). Im Wilden Osten. Hinter den Kulissen des Umbaus in Osteuropa. Hamburg: Krämer.
Sannerholm, R.Z. (2012). Rule of Law after war and crisis: ideologies, norms and methods. Cambridge: Intersentia.
Scheuing, D. H. (2005). Zur Grundrechtsbindung der EU-Mitgliedstaaten. Europarecht, 162–191.
Schmidt-Aßmann, E. (2004). Der Rechtsstaat. In J. Isensee, & P. Kirchhof (Eds.), Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepubik Deutschland 3rd edn. (vol. II, pp. 541–611). Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.
Schorkopf, F. (2000). Homogenität in der Europäischen Union. Ausgestaltung und Gewährleistung durch Art. 6 Abs. 1 und Art. 7 EUV. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Seibert-Fohr, A. (2009). Judicial Independence in European Union Accessions: The Emergence of a European Basic Principle. German Yearbook of International Law, 52, 405–436.
Seibert-Fohr, A. (2012). Judicial Independence – The Normativity of an Evolving Transnational Principle. In A. Seibert-Fohr (Ed.), Judicial Independence in Transition (pp. 1279–1360). Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.
Slavu, S. (2008). Die Osterweiterung der Europäischen Union. Eine Analyse des EU-Beitritts Rumäniens. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Smilov, D., & Toplek, J. (2007). Political Finance and Corruption in Eastern Europe: the transition period. Farnham: Ashgate.
Smith, K. E. (2003). The Evolution and Application of EU Membership Conditionality. In M. Cremona (Ed.), The Enlargement of the European Union (pp. 105–139). Oxford, New York: OUP.
Sticht, M. (2006). Der Beitrag des Europarats zur demokratischen Transformation in Mittel- und Osteuropa seit 1989 am Beispiel von Ungarn, Rumänien und Aserbeidschan. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Szarek-Mason, P. (2010). The European Union’s Fight Against Corruption. The Evolving Policy Towards Member States and Candidate Countries. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tatham, A. F. (2009). Enlargement of the European Union. Alphen/Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
Tanasescu, S. E., & Popescu, R. D. (2012). Romanian High Judicial Council – Between Analogy of Law and Ethical Trifles. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 36, 165–176.
Tomescu, C., & Levai, M. C. (2012). The Principle of Equilibrium and Separation of Powers under the Romanian Constitution. The USV Annals of Economics and Public Administration, 12(1), 284–293. http://www.seap.usv.ro/annals/ojs/index.php/annals/article/viewFile/483/483
Trappe, J. (2012). EU-Twinning-Projekte als Chance der internationalen rechtlichen Zusammenarbeit. In S. Hülshörster, & D. Mirow (Eds.), Deutsche Beratung bei Rechts- und Justizreformen im Ausland: 20 Jahre Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Rechtliche Zusammenarbeit (pp. 341–348). Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Trechsel, St. (2005). Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Tschirky, A. (2011). The Council of Europe’s activities in the judicial field. Zürich/Basel/Genf: Schulthess Juristische Medien.
Ullerich, R. (2011). Rechtsstaat und Rechtsgemeinschaft im Europarecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Valea, D. C. (2010). The Competence of the Constitutional Court of Romania to settle the Constitutional Conflicts between the Public Authorities. Curentul Juridic, 42, 95–102. www.ideas.repec.org/s/pmu/cjurid1.html
Venice Commission (2002). Opinion of 5–6 July 2002 on the Draft Revision of the Constitution of Romania. CDL-AD, 012.
Venice Commission (2003). Opinion of 14–15 July 2003 on the Draft Revision of the Constitution of Romania. CDL-AD, 004.
Venice Commission (2010). Report on the Independence of the Judicial System, Part I: The Independence of Judges. CDL-AD, 004.
Venice Commission (2012). Opinion no. 685/2012 of 14–15 December 2012 on the Compatibility with Constitutional Principles and the Rule of Law of Actions taken by the Government and the Parliament of Romania in respect of Other State Institutions. CDL-AD, 026.
Venice Commission (2014). Opinion no. 731/2013 of 21–22 March 2014 on the Draft Law on the Review of the Constitution of Romania. CDL-AD, 010.
Wagener, H.-J. (2011). Wirtschaftsordnung im Wandel. Zur Transformation 1985–2010. Marburg: Metropolis.
Weber, A. (2010). Europäische Verfassungsvergleichung. Ein Studienbuch. München: C. H. Beck.
Wennerström, E. O. (2007). The Rule of Law and the European Union. Uppsala: Iustus Förlag.
Wittreck, F. (2006). Die Verwaltung der Dritten Gewalt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Yowell, P. (2012). The Justiciability of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Domestic Law of the Member States. In P. M. Huber (Ed.), The EU and National Constitutional Law (pp. 107–123). Stuttgart: Richard Boorberg.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
von Borries, R. (2015). Romania’s Accession to the European Union: The Rule of Law Dilemma. In: Blanke, HJ., Cruz Villalón, P., Klein, T., Ziller, J. (eds) Common European Legal Thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19300-7_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19300-7_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19299-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19300-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)