Full text of the interview with Monica Macovei

VALENTINA POP

08.01.2007 @ 16:54 CET

This article contains the full text of an interview with Romanian justice minister Monica Macovei by Valentina Pop, European affairs editor with the Romanian daily newspaper "Romania libera," conducted for EUobserver on 3 January.

EUobserver : EU justice Commissioner Franco Frattini said that you are to be thanked for "a big part of the success of Romanian accession." Do you feel that your mission is accomplished?

• Print
• Comment article

"A part of it is accomplished, yes. Romania is a full member of the European Union. On the other hand, the reforms of the judiciary have to continue, as well as the fight against corruption. In this sense, there are still things to do. But the basis is here. For instance, the Anti-corruption Prosecutor's Office (DNA) is working very well, they indicted a lot of politicians from all the parties and they have all the funds and equipment they need – here it is just a matter of continuation."

But the European Commission has also established a mechanism of continued "assistance" after accession in the fields of justice and fight against corruption – with four benchmarks to be met in the following months. Why was that necessary?

"People in the commission have asked me during the whole year 2006 about this and I said we need this post-accession monitoring process. In my view, it's good to stay in touch with the commission and to have periodical reports, in order to ensure that these reforms have a "happy end"."

Is the political support "shrinking" for the reforms and the fight against corruption, now that Romania is an EU-member?

"If I think of the parliament's actions in 2006 regarding different anti-corruption legislation and in some cases even within the government, yes. There is less enthusiasm for anticorruption measures than in 2005. For instance, the Agency for Integrity, but also other anti-corruption laws which were initially rejected by the parliament: the law by which we introduced integrity-testing, a procedure meant to catch very quickly people who are taking bribe. It was an emergency ordinance adopted by the government and rejected by the parliament. It was then resent by the president and is now pending in the parliament. But the most vivid example is the Agency for Integrity."

What does this Agency stand for and why is it so necessary in Romania?

"It is one of the four benchmarks – and I can quote from the commission's decision: "to establish an Integrity Agency with responsibility for verifying assets, compatibilities and potential conflicts of interests and for issuing mandatory decisions on the basis of which dissuasive sanctions can be taken". We need this, because nobody is doing this today. We have a commission in the Supreme Court for assets verification, but we have nothing for verifying incompatibilities and conflicts of interests. There are disciplinary bodies for each institution, like the disciplinary commissions in the parliament or in the Superior Council of Magistrates, a controlling body for the members of the government – but at any point in time there was no incompatibility verified. I don't think incompatibility and conflicts of interests were seen as a problem. We started to talk about this only two years ago, although to me the conflict of interests is a huge source of corruption. For instance, if I am the mayor of a city and there is a public tender for building a bridge – among the companies that bid for the public funds is the company belonging to my mother or my brother. This happened a lot in Romania, the media reported that, but nothing happened. And it's a clear situation of conflict of interest which produced and helped developing those "local barons" and other acts of corruption in the administration. Also, in Romania it's hard to believe that those disciplinary bodies will act against its own institution. That the MP squad in the parliament will do something against their colleagues. But the Agency would be independent – that's how it was conceived – and it would do all these investigations. It wouldn't apply the sanctions, but its decisions would be mandatory for the disciplinary commissions."

And the deadline for establishing this agency is March?

"The first one, yes. In March Romania is due to submit the first report to the European Commission."

What happens if the parliament does not adopt this law until March?

"It won't be good. But from the signals I have so far from the Senate, they want to adopt it and they will discuss it in January. The problem is that we might end up with an agency with no hands and teeth. The version adopted by the Chamber of Deputies is completely unnecessary. It only provided that the Agency makes some preliminary investigations and only if there is evidence that criminal offence is committed. The results of their investigation would be send to the prosecutor's office, so everything is within the criminal area. We don't need that. We have the police and the prosecutor's office, if the assets come from corruption cases. We don't need another institution to look into criminal cases. On the contrary, we need an institution to look into the grey area, which was never covered by an institution so far."

Commissioner Olli Rehn sent a letter to the Romanian prime minister asking him to persuade the parliament to adopt this law...

"I saw that letter, dated December 14, insisting on the need not only to adopt this law, but also on certain provisions to give power to this agency."

But the premier's response was that according to the principle of separation of powers, he cannot influence the parliament. Is that a sign that the government does not really support this project?

"To me, it shows the wish of noninvolvement. If you are in a government and run a government as a prime minister, you cannot adopt any legislation, you cannot put into practice your governing program if you don't have a majority to approve your decisions in the parliament. There is no such thing as the full separation of powers between government and parliament, because then no government could ever fulfill its program. I want to remind you that the prime minister denied me the right to discuss this draft law in the government for a few months. And it was only when the president came one week to the government's meeting and put it on the agenda, that it was adopted."

Wasn't anti-corruption one of the main priorities on the government's agenda when it came into power in 2004?

"Yes, of course it was. And it was also a measure to be adopted in the Anti-corruption Strategy drafted in March 2005 and adopted by the government's decision. I was thinking that probably people didn't really believe that I was going to do everything that was written there."

You mean people in the government?

"Yes, people in the government. Maybe they thought this is another nice paper and we'll send it to Brussels and that's it."

The president was speaking of a double language Romania should avoid to have – before and after accession. Do you think this is a proof of this double language?

"It started even before the accession, because the politicians changed the law in the Chamber of Deputies before accession. I see things very clearly: when it's about their personal assets, their friend's assets, their incompatibilities and conflicts of interests – when it's personal, they don't care about anything else. Why care about the public interest more than about your own situation? Because we have a political class that has not been investigated, neither controlled, nor subjected to standards for 16 years and they want to continue like this."

The peer reviews conducted by the European Commission showed these cases to be solid, as well. But do you expect the judges to act as professional as the prosecutors?

"I'm not too happy to notice that in many of these cases there are lots of postponements. All the defendants claim they want their cases to be brought to justice in court, to prove their innocence, and then when the cases are in the court, they continue to ask for postponements. For instance, in the case of Mrs. Huza, a member of the Superior Council of Magistrates, the Supreme Court postponed her case for a whole year, so that nothing happened. The same in the case of the vicepremier Copos – a lot of postponements. So with the judges, we have to wait and see. I was thinking to make public statements and to do this in January – to inform the public on each case – how many postponements and for what reasons and to request quicker procedures. Regarding the MPs, all of those cases have to be tried by the Supreme Court. Here we have judges, appointed for life by the former president Iliescu without formal procedures, any criteria, any transparency. Including the president of the Supreme Court, who was never a judge in his life, his previous position being a counselor to president Iliescu. These people could have at least sentimental or psychological attachments to the party who promoted them into the Supreme Court. But this is a fact we can't change. These people are there until their retirement age and that's it. It's difficult to make a reform with irremovable judges. We should have done it the other way around."

Do you feel your reforms are being pushed aside within the government, now that Romania has been granted EU membership?

"I think among the members of this cabinet and my colleagues in the Parliament, nobody loves me. I saw that while we were nearing the date of accession and being certain of this date, the anticorruption measures were more and more unwanted and criticized. I heard statements like "we don't have so much corruption so we don't need so many measures"."

If the benchmarks are not met, the European Commission can enforce a safeguard clause by which the Romanian verdicts will not be recognized in the EU. Is this a useful tool to ensure the continuation of the reforms and fight against corruption?

"It's the only thing the commission had, because it's the only tool that was mentioned in the accession treaty. In a way, I don't think it's fair, although I asked for this mechanism, because it's not the institutions who don't do their job who are paying for it, but the people, by not having their judgments recognized. But still, this will create public pressure upon these institutions. We need a watching eye and support from the commission in certain areas – in terms of experts and funds."

You don't see this mechanism as casting a "second class" membership upon Romania?

"No, I don't think in these terms. I want reforms to happen in Romania. Accession came as a result of reforms, my main objective was to reform the judiciary and to start the fight against corruption and to have professional prosecutors to investigate cases. This happened. If we want to continue this, we still need the eye of the commission and the member states after accession. For a simple reason, and that's the only I'm afraid of: the political class. They are investigated independently, regardless of the party they come from. We pushed them to publish their assets, shares and interests, we also look into their past – collaboration with the former secret police. Now we want to create this agency to control them. Probably it's too much for the politicians in one year. And it's a normal human reaction. But at the end of these anticorruption actions, the result will be the change of the political class."

A more accountable political class?

"Yes, and I am sure this will also show in the next elections. The parties will be more careful whom they promote for MP or for members of cabinets, people will look more closely at the names. Plus, if there is no immunity, contrary to what we were used to in Romania for 16 years – if you are a MP, nothing wrong can happen to you or your friends and family – if this is gone, then probably some won't be attracted by this job any longer."

There are two trends in the political scene right now – one that speaks for stability and not changing anything, although there is no majority any longer – and one that wants early elections. What would the best solution be?

"I have a clear view on that. Some people want to stay in power, no matter what. So when they want to stay in power, they claim it's for the stability of the country. We had other experiences like this in the past. We need early elections, because we don't have the majority to pass our laws. If the prime minister is going to ensure that by talking to the opposition, it's fine. But I don't see him doing this. For instance, in the case of the Integrity Agency, he says the parliament is independent, so he doesn't care what happens in the parliament. That's not a way to govern the country. So how is it possible to stay for two more years in this situation? To do what? To draft legislation that is rejected by lack of majority? That's a way to govern the country? And I'm very worried, because we prepare a new criminal code, we have under way procedural codes – criminal and civil. What will happen to all this if there is no majority?"

Do you expect a motion by the opposition against this government?

"They could do it, because they have the majority. The opposition kept on claiming this government is very bad, but they don't file such a motion, which only shows they don't want early elections either. Double language, as well."

Romania is still brand marked as a country with widespread corruption, especially in the health and education systems. When do you expect these problems to be addressed?

"For many years, we have been told to focus on the big fish. Now that we have initiated that, we are told to focus on the small corruption. Sure, both are very important, but I think the big cases of politicians are the test for the judiciary. In a doctor's case, there won't be political pressure. But politicians have relationships and power. So that's the main test. So far, the prosecutors at least passed it very well. In the health and education systems little has been done, indeed. We need a short and medium-term anticorruption plans, and here there are not only criminal, but also a lot of administrative means that can be implemented. I'm thinking, although it's not my area, to initiate and draft such a strategy, together with the ministry of health and education, which will be responsible for its implementation."

Books on EU

Selection of EU books for sale on EUbookshop.com.