Freedom of association

CSOs reported a shrinking civil space and a negative image being propagated against CSOs performing watchdog activities or criticising the government, which are presented as being political opponents. CSOs now have an obligation to report every year, and if they do not so, they risk being dissolved. The same reporting obligations apply to very large CSOs performing public services (for example building hospitals) and small CSOs with much smaller budgets and which rely on voluntary work. Most CSOs can de facto not meet these reporting obligations, and are therefore dependent on the goodwill of the government, which can choose to close them at any time for non-compliance.

According to CSOs, the government only responded to popular demand after lots of pressure, and was in turn applying a lot of pressure on CSOs. This pressure on CSOs took the form of stigmatisation and creating obstacles to their access to funding. This has even affected CSOs which provide social services to compensate the absence of public services. Some organisations reported that threats had been made against them. Legislation was used to burden CSOs with disproportionate administrative requirements. For example, the money laundering legislation was used to require excessive reporting obligations on funding.

According to CSO representatives, negative developments in other EU Member States have not helped improve the situation in Romania. They felt that the authorities were testing the limits in the absence of a proper response at EU level, including by using methods such as manipulation and propaganda. Participants also mentioned the weakness of the opposition as part of this systematic lack of maturity in the democratic culture.

The CSOs complained about the government’s planned transposition of the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, as it was planning to include CSOs as “beneficial owners”, increasing reporting requirements for CSOs. The CSOs felt that the EU should look into this. The CSOs also thought that it would be helpful if the EESC were to establish an annual platform/forum, where CSOs could meet and provide information at European level.

CSOs also mentioned the lack of proper consultation. Despite the existence of the socalled “Sunshine Law” (Law 52/2003 regarding Transparency of Decision-making in Public Administration) most public consultations were done on a website, which was not easy to find. Furthermore, the government and public authorities did not respond to suggestions made and were extremely reluctant to meet face-to-face. When meetings were organised, documentation was not made available or was provided at extremely short notice. Consultations generally took place in spaces that were inappropriate for a proper consultation exercise, preventing real interaction and contribution by the audience. Many misgivings were also expressed with regard to the government’s recourse to urgency procedures, leaving little or no time for consultations with civil society, but others felt that it was less problematic. However, there was a consensus that consultation could be improved, notably to improve trust.

A deadly fire in a nightclub in November 2015 led people to understand that corruption – in this instance the issuing of an operating license without a fire safety permit – could literally kill people. This event propelled massive grassroots demonstrations mobilising tens of thousands of citizens, which led to the fall of the government.