http://www.soros.ro Feed Description en-us http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=30 (May 30, 2007) We are expressing our deep concern regarding the recess of the antidiscrimination campaign that, according to plan, should have placed clear antiracism messages during the Romanian Football Cup final, on May 26, 2007. Given that yourselves and the institutions you represent were active partners in this campaign, we are publicly addressing this question to you now: why did the mentioned action did not take place, since - to the best of our knowledge - was already set and planned to the detail?
We are regarding the decision to give up this action as a huge step back in the campaign against racist and discriminatory manifestations on stadiums, in a time when this campaign - after considerable efforts - managed to generate a positive opinion trend in favor of tolerance.
We are hoping the campaign will be continued, since it is an important part of the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All, under the European Commission's decision and under the high patronage of the president of Romania.


Costel BercuÅŸ Renate WeberPresident CARR President of Soros Foundation Romania
http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=29 (May 30, 2007) Mister President,
We are drawing your attention upon a posted link on the website you used  during the recent campaign for the May 19 referendum. On this website, from May 24 until May 30, when we spoke publicly on this subject during a debate attended by members of the press, one could easily find a message containing a link to another webpage, http://www.reporterdeocazie.ro/, where a Protest against the ethnic Romas is posted.
This protest, signed under pseudonim, is deeply racist, incompatible with the democratic and European principles and unacceptable in a state of law, in the 21st century Europe.
We appreciate the fact that, in less than two hours from the public signal gave by us during the mentioned debate, the messages containing links to the http://www.reporterdeocazie.ro/ page were withdrew from http://www.basescu.ro/ page.
Nevertheless, in the Forum page of your site one can still find opinions and ideas that are most definetely racist.
Since this is your personal webpage, we are asking of you to distance yourself from the racist type messages that many of the comments posted there are transmitting.
At the same time, to avoid further incidents of this type or the association of your name with such messages, we are suggesting to appoint a Forum moderator who should filter the messages posted on http://www.basescu.ro/ .
            We are against censorship, which you are also disavowing in your message posted on the Forum page, where you are thanking those who write on the site and ask them to continue to express their opinions. However, we consider the fact that you are allowing racist messages to be posted on your site as giving a very dangerous negative sign, considering that you have the maximum responsibility in the state to protect the democratic values and human rights.

Costel Bercuş                                                      Renate WeberPresident CARR                                                   President of Soros Foundation Romania

http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=27 Since the Technical Assessment Committee (TAC), comprised of government officials from various Ministries of the Romanian Government involved in the permitting process of Rosia Montana mining project should - according to the law - schedule a meeting until mid June [1], Soros Foundation Romania issues a new warning regarding the fact that the studies deposed by Rosia Montana Gold Corporation S.A. (RMGC) are incomplete and corrupt.
We take as very serious the Romanian Government's lack of reaction to the fact that not all the chapters of the Rosia Montana Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study, delivered by RMGC to the Romanian Environment Ministry, are recognized by established experts; the fact that the authors of some parts of the study are not established experts, according to the Romanian law [2]; the fact that a part of the report assumed by established experts was truncated [3].
An extremely relevant example - although not the only one - is the Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the historical center of Rosia Montana. The Plan's authors [4] complained - back in September 2006 - that their documentation was just partially included in the Report delivered by RMGC to the Environment Ministry, which - in their expert opinion - completely annuls the purpose of fair evaluation of the environmental impact [5].
At the same time, art. 12 and 13 from the G.O. no. 864/2002 for approval of the EIA procedure and of the public participation to the decision making process regarding trans-border projects were violated.
In other words, we consider that a very important step of the procedure was not followed, namely the preliminary consultation on the territory and with the affected public in Romania; that procedural step was followed only in the neighboring country, Hungary.
Also, a study signed by experts from the European Law Institute from the Vienna Law University [6] is that the mining project is violating not only the EU environment legislation, but also the basic principles and standards of the European Convention of Human Rights.

In conclusion, the documents being analyzed by you, esteemed members of the Romanian Government, are not just corrupt, but also incomplete. One remedy for this problem would have been to at least ask for the remake of the affected parts of the report. As far as our knowledge goes, this has not been asked from RMGC and therefore has not been done.
We are sincerely hoping that our call - as well as previous ones coming from the civil society and Romanian and foreign renowned experts - will not be ignored and the Romanian and European laws are upheld in the public interest.

Chair,                                                                                                      May 23, 2007Renate Weber
                       

[1] The Annex consisting of answers to all questions presented during the Public Consultation and Disclosure Process phase was delivered by RMGC to the Environment Ministry on May 4, 2007. According to the Romanian law, the TAC is required to schedule a meeting within 40 business days to review the project, the EIA and RMGC responses to the questions asked during the public consultation.
[2] A complaint was forwarded by dr. Horia Ion Ciugudean, former director of National Unity Museum in Alba Iulia
[3] http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?id=206117&data=2006-08-26  
[4] SC OPUS - ATELIER DE ARHITECTURA SRL, represented by architects with
[5] http://www.simpara.ro/mip_rm.swf
[6] http://www.rosiamontana.ro/img_upload/c77c3453789af5de5049783baaa35f31/rosia_montana_expert.pdf
http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=26 (May 21, 2007) The Soros Foundation is protesting against the discriminatory and uncalculated behavior of Romanian president, Traian Basescu, in an incident regarding a mass-media representative, namely Antena 3 TV reporter, Andreea Pana. Traian Basescu's gesture of taking the mobile phone belonging to the journalist and only returning it several hours later represents a violation of the property right and it is an act that falls under the provisions of the criminal law.

At the same time, this represents a violation of the freedom of expression, since it all happened in a public space, in a moment when the whole Romanian nation had its eyes on the president, which completely justifies the journalist's gesture of bringing information forward to the public.
We are equally concerned with the discriminatory attitude and with the racist remarks done by president Traian Basescu in the context of the same incident.
The following press release of the Romanian president shows exactly his racist attitude, since he chose to address his apologies to the journalist and not to the whole Roma community, for what he calls "an inappropriate expression", but which is, in fact, a clear racist expression.
The fact that the president apologises for the fact that a private conversation became public and not for the content of that conversation shows us that the president - even if he agreed to formulate an apology - is not fully aware of the negative effects of misusing words.
Therefore, we consider that, through his attitude, president Traian Basescu is seriously harming the efforts of the Romanian society to promote tolerance and social inclusion policies.

Chair,                                                          May 21st , 2007Renate Weber       http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=25 (May 12, 2007) Soros Foundation Romania warns about the disinformation induced by the management of Rosia Montana Gold Corporation S.A. during the Annual Shareholders Meeting of Gabriel Resources Ltd, which took place in Toronto, on May 9th, 2007.
During the presentation he held on this occasion, Mr. Alan Hill, CEO of RMGC, stated that, while the shareholders own 80% of the company, through Canadian-based GABRIEL RESOURCES Ltd, "the Government of Romania has the other 20%".
In reality, the Romanian state participation is limited to 19.31% owned by the MINVEST S.A state mining company, which is associated with GABRIEL RESOURCES Ltd in the new company ROSIA MONTANA GOLD CORPORATION S.A., registered in Romania.
The statement claiming that the Romanian Government - and not a state company - owns 20% of the RMGC, could very easily lead to the conclusion that the Romanian Government is directly interested in the development of this mining project in Romania. This could be considered as a manipulation attempt on the Toronto Stock Exchange, where Gabriel Resources is listed.
One government's interest is not limited to the interests of one commercial entity owned by that state. Therefore, when reaching a decision whether to approve or to reject the RMGC mining initiative, the Romanian Government will have to take under consideration not only the economic implications of this project, but also all the other aspects regarding the public interest, even ones which could conflict with the economic interests.
Soros Foundation Romania warns that the statements made by RMGC representatives are an infringement on the public interest that the Government has the duty to represent.
Soros Foundation Romania requests that the Romanian Government takes a public stand against this disinformation and stops the manipulation of the public opinion, in general, and of the Gabriel Resources shareholders, in particular.
Concurrently, in the spirit of transparency, Soros Foundation requests that the Romanian Government makes public all information regarding the Romanian state's participation in the Rosia Montana mining project.
The sustained efforts initiated so far by Soros Foundation Romania in order to obtain relevant information on this subject have been turned down by the public authorities,

For further details, please contact Mirela Rus, Communications Manager for Soros Foundation Romania, tel. 0040-723.532.030, mrus@soros.ro.
http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=23 (March 6, 2007) It is with great concern that we have learned about UNDP Romania Country Office's alleged endorsement of the controversial Roşia Montană gold mining project. Recent reports in the Hungarian and Romanian media, together with documented statements by international and local civil society organizations, point out to an already-existing relation of collaboration between UNDP Romania and the Canadian-based company Gabriel Resources.

If confirmed, this collaborative venture between a UN agency and a private mining company could only be regarded as an undue attempt to lobby the decision-making process of the Romanian Government on the extremely sensitive issue represented by a very controversial project, which is of the highest public concern both in Romania and across its borders. In absence of transparent communication describing the precise nature of UNDP's intentions regarding Roşia Montană, we can only warn that any UN commitment to the development of the Roşia Montană area in a hypothetical post-mining phase represents, at this stage, the equivalent of an implicit endorsement of the mining company's strategy.           
As you know, well-grounded doubts and open opposition to the project have been  repeatedly and publicly expressed by Romanian and Hungarian parliamentary and governmental representatives, the Romanian Academy, representatives of European institutions, leading cultural and civil society figures and, last but not least, by an ever-growing number of concerned citizens from Romania and Hungary. There is significant and undisputable evidence that the materialization of the mining project would cause complex and irreversible damage to the town of Roşia Montană and the larger area of the Alba county: social dissolution of local communities, forced displacement of local land owners, devastation of unique cultural heritage and massive environmental destruction. The additional risk of a new environmental disaster in the wider Tisa and Danube area is also uncontrollable and therefore unacceptable in any sound decision-making process carrying regional implications. 
The Open Society Foundation Romania also regards as most alarming the lack of due and timely action by Romanian authorities that have so far been in charge with legally regulating the case of Roşia Montană. Numerous reports by the locals, NGOs and media point out to the lack of transparency and bypassing of the law in issuing mining licenses, abuses against the rights of the local population and possible conflicts of interest in local public decision-making. Both the business practices of the mining company and the actions or inactions of authorities can be described at least as questionable, and have actually resulted in a number of legal cases currently being handled by the justice system. In our view, this adds a higher significance to the Roşia Montană case and actually makes it a test for the functioning of the rule of law and democratic governance in present-day Romania.  
While public opposition to the destructive mining project is growing both in Romania and on European level, a UN agency entering an ambiguous and obscured relation with a controversial mining company would only add to the climate of public mistrust and lack of transparency and integrity that has so far surrounded the case of the Roşia Montană mining project. 
We strongly believe that UNDP needs now to act in a transparent manner, thus proving respect for the Romanian public, and to express an unequivocal public position clarifying the nature of its involvement in the case of Roşia Montană.

Renate Weber                                                                                       Chair of BoardOpen Society Foundation-Romania6 March, 2007 http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=22 (February 19, 2007) 45% of Roma population in Romania think of themselves as assimilated to the Romanian culture - that category of Roma people that barely keep in touch with the cultural dimensions of their ethnics, being educated within the spirit of the Romanian culture, reveals the data of the Roma Inclusion Barometer, released by the Open Society Foundation. Approximately 15% of them identify with the "rudari" and the "vatrari" kindred, also relatively assimilated within the culture of the majority. Another 15% identify with some rather traditional branches of the Roma ethnics - the "caldarari"(bucket makers), the "ursari"(bear tamers), the "caramidari" (brick makers) - and the rest of approximately 25% name themselves "just gipsy" or affiliate to another kindred.
Roma population in Romania is, culturally, a rather inconsistent ethnic group, but share important issues related to the poor standard of living, reduced access to public services, limited educational capital and precarious dwelling conditions.
Serious financial problems add to poor dwelling conditions (up to a half of Roma people and one tenth of Roma households did not have a single source of income in the month previous to the data gathering). This justifies the fact that almost 40% of Roma households are in financial debt (twice the percentage compared to the debts of the majority population) and for most of the families the debts surpass the summed up monthly revenues.
The Roma Inclusion Barometer indicates a fairly different educational pattern for Roma compared to the rest of the population: 23% of Roma respondents have no education whatsoever, 27% have the primary school and 33% graduated secondary school - as opposed to 2%, 11% and 24% among other ethnic groups taken as a whole; 95% of the Roma have no high school education, compared to 60% among the other respondents. Furthermore, the Roma seem to have had, in time, a rather insignificant educational development than the members of other ethnic groups in Romania. Therefore, survey data show that the educational difference between persons over 40 years old and under 40 is significantly smaller in the case of the Roma population than other respondents. Even among younger Roma respondents, 95% have no high education and 21% have no education whatsoever.
In addition, school attendance among Roma children is significantly lower compared to the other children. Out of all 0 to 6 year old children within non-Roma households, 48% go neither to the kindergarten, nor to the day-nursery - compared to 80% in the case of Roma children. 19% of 7 to 11 Roma children do not attend school, compared to 2% of Romanian children in the same age category. For over 11 year old children category, 39% of Roma do not attend school, whereas only 9% of non-Roma subjects are deprived of education.
Though Romanian society became much more tolerant towards the Roma (in 1993 over 70% of the Romanians were refusing to have a Roma neighbor, in 2006 only 36% still favors this position), Roma population continues to feel discriminated within the society. The Roma talk about discrimination when interacting with town hall clerks, policemen or health service employees. Of all public institutions, school is pointed out as the smallest source of discrimination for the Roma.
The survey uses data gathered from two parallel probes between 16th and 30th of November 2006, with a unique questionnaire, the first with a sampling representative for the entire Romanian population (1215 respondents, a margin of error of ±2,9%), and the second representative for Roma population (1387 Roma ethnics, margin of error of ±2,6%).
The survey, carried out by a team of experts of the Open Society Foundation, is part of the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005-2015 initiative.

Partners:National Agency for RomaRoma Civic Alliance in Romania
One can access the whole survey here.

For further details, please contact us.
Ovidiu Voicu - Program Manager (ovoicu@osf.ro)
Mihai Şepeţean - Manager of Communications (msepetean@osf.ro) Denisa Ionescu - Receptionist (dionescu@osf.ro)
http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=21 (December 18, 2006) According to Public Opinion Barometer conducted in October 2006 by the Open Society Foundation, 12% of Romanian citizens consider communism a positive and well-established idea (ideology), 41% think of it as good, but mismanaged, whilst 34% consider it a bad idea. Survey's data analysis provides three types of arguments on Romanians' positive perception on communism.
     •   The economic argument
The profile of those who belive in communism respects several general coordinates: over 55 year old, primary educated respondents, with under 4 million ROL income (low status occupations - workers and day workers) and no beneficial relationships. They are predominant in the poor rural areas of Moldova and Muntenia. Overall, one can conclude that persons with actual low resources (income, fortune, relationships etc.) that had, relatively or absolutely, to lose after the fall of communism tend to regard it, in a greater proportion, to be a positive, well-applied idea.
Furthermore, respondents with relevant resources during communism that managed to adapt to the inherent post-communism economic changes, still holding great resources, tend to affirm that communism was a bad idea.
     •  The ideological argument
The predominant economical argument is complementary with an axiological and ideological argument. People tend to get attached to things they know and understand better, especially to those within a period of socializing. Those who consider communism a good idea stand for social equity, small differences in income, state property, a greater responsibility of the state, disregard competition and generally think that people get rich to others' cost.
     •  The experiential argument
Life experience in communism strongly influences one's evaluation. Data reveal that people who suffered (directly or indirectly) over communism tend to have a more negative evaluation. Logically, those who did not suffer politically evaluates communism more positively.
The lustration
Half of Barometer's respondents consider that a lustration law which to restrain access to public dignities for ex-communist leaders is more than necessary, while 22% consider it unnecessary (the rest of 28% do not have an opinion). The heft of those in favor of a lustration law reaches 58% among people that consider communism a bad idea. Even amongst those appreciating communism, a significant percentage (41%) agrees with lustration.
Persecutions during communism
According to statements, 6% of the present adult population suffered political persecutions during communist (the figure is 8% if taking into account over 34 year old population, that is respondents over 18 years old in 1989). Broadening the reference and including family members, 12% of the present adult population experienced a form of political persecution (14% within 34-year-old respondents). 9% of the respondents that were 18 in 1989 declare they had a family member or a relative with at least a political persecution issue. 6% had one such problem, and 3% more than one. In the light of these indicators, we come to a 14% figure of respondents in the category of those who suffered politically, directly or indirectly, during communism, or have been persecuted under various accounts (personal guilt or a relative's guilt).
The most common forms of political persecution are dispossession of properties (land, house), duress (arrest, emprisonment, forced labor at the Canal, house arrest) and deprivation of certain rights (access to education, professional advancement). Approximately 3% of the population can be categorizing in each of these general situations. Isolating only the 34-year-old population, the percentage rises to 4. Among these, land dispossession is the most common persecution, whether it is a personal sufferance, or of a family member's. The most frequent accusations brought to these persons were: kulak (5%), unhealthy social origin and people's enemy (both with 2%).

The Public Opinion Barometer is built on a series of surveys (carried out between October 7 and October 19, 2006) on a sample of 1975 over 18 year old respondents, reprezentative for non institutionalized adult Romanian population, with a tolerated margin of error of ± 2.3%. Data was collected by the Gallup Organization Romania. The sample is built upon election lists, thus it provides a good coverage, ranging from urban population to the most secluded rural regions. The Public Opinion Barometer a registered mark of the Open Society Foundation.
For further details please contact us.
Ovidiu Voicu - program manager (ovoicu@osf.ro)
Mihaela Ştefănescu - program coordinator (mstefanescu@osf.ro)
Denisa Ionescu - receptionist (dionescu@osf.ro)
http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=20 (December 14, 2006) Over one third of Romania's households, approximately 2 million and a half citizens, have had at least one member abroad since 1989 reveals a study, Living Abroad on a Temporary Basis - The Economic Migration of Romanians: 1990 - 2006, released today by the Open Society Foundation. 12% of 18 to 59 year old Romanians have worked abroad after 1989. The phenomenon took significant proportions after 2002, as soon as Romanians gained the right to free circulation within Schengen space. Presently, temporarily working abroad is threefold the phenomenon in 2002.
Moldova, Muntenia and Oltenia are the historical regions in which temporary migration for working prevails over tourism-visit-type temporary departures, more frequent in Banat, Transylvania, Dobrogea and Bucharest. "Moldova becomes the main migration reservoir. Things happen as though the historical flow from Moldova to Banat, Brasov and Bucharest was interrupted in the early 90s to move towards Italy, after 2001" declairs PROF. Dumitru Sandu, the scientific coordinator of the survey.
Constructions, for men (98% have activated at least once in this field of work), housekeeping, for women (88%), and agriculture (72% men and 28% women) are the main occupations for Romanians temporarily working abroad. Housekeeping and agriculture are the top two illegal practices in the destination country. "The dominant pattern is that in which the migrant looking for a place to work already has a relative at the destination spot. This one "fixes him up" illegally, most of the times", points out Dumitru Sandu. The percentage of clandestine work is rising, starting from a 34% in 1990-1995 and reaching a 53% in 2001.
At this point, Italy and Spain are the main destinations for Romanians working abroad. For the past five years, Italy has a quota of 50% of all working migrations on a temporary basis, followed by Spain with 25%.
Unofficial statistics reveal that there are approximately one million Romanians in Italy. Leaders of Romanians' associations claim that the number is somewhere near one million and a half. Self-perception of Romanians living there presents the following reality: "there are millions of us ... one can hear Romanian all around Rome. Needless to speak about Torino, there we are becoming the majority. As for the rest of Italy, it is impossible not to find a Romanian in whatever city, you name it" (migrant, 28 years old). Among these, only approximately 300.000 have legal papers (permessi di soggiorno anuali or permanenti).
Work abroad is an important source of income for a significant part of the population. Currently, one out of ten households receives incomes from international migration. Households with members working abroad benefit from long-term assets, compared with households of the same socio-economical status without migrating experience. 
On a national level, about 10% of each type of investment in the past five years has been carried out with international migration resources. When it comes to priority expenses, Romanians invest in personal dwellings, they buy appliances, cars and other long-term assets. The residential area mainly influences business investments. In the country, people tend to invest migration incomes in agriculture, whereas the urban area attracts others types of investment.
People with an abroad working experience develop a specific attitude pattern: they tend to develop a more criticizing position towards the state of things in Romania, but are much more optimistic about the future. They return with superior standards, which favor social criticism both on state of things in their communities and in present day Romania. Furthermore, people without working experience abroad who intend to go to work in a foreign country are the most dissatisfied with their community and country. The dynamic optimism - discontent for the present and optimism about the future - is a common element among people intending to migrate and those that has already done it. At the opposite side, the chronic pessimism - "it is not working and we have not seen the worst yet" - appears most commonly is households without migrating experience.
Survey data reveals respondents' belief that the main negative consequences of temporary migration are related to family. Almost half of the respondents that consider people going to work abroad a bad thing (46%) sustain their position with arguments related to family life. The distance, equivalent to a certain level of affectivity deprivation, is the highlighted negative consequence (35%). In the same category arguments such as "family breaking" (9%) or "suffering of those left home" (1%) are also mentioned.

For further details, please contact us.
Mihaela Ştefănescu - Program Coordinator (mstefanescu@osf.ro) Mihai Şepeţean - Manager of communication (msepetean@osf.ro)
Denisa Ionescu - Receptionist (dionescu@osf.ro)
  http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=19 (December 12, 2006) "Romania adheres to EU without the disabled, that is approximately 500.000 of its citizens that are still condemned to apartness", declairs Linda Fischer, the coordinating manager of "Take my Spot, Bear my Lot" program within the Open Society Foundation. "Institutions such as the Town Hall, Local Council or the Court are still forbidden ground to these persons. One can invoke a multitude of causes, but the problem resides mainly in the scarcity of information about standards of accessibilizing public space for disabled persons. We have a law that regulates the conditions for accessibilizing public space so that it efficiently responds to the needs of disabled persons, but the authorities are still failing to consider it. The result: inaccessible ramps, incomplete developments which only provide limited access and an almost total lack of the necessary adaptations for persons with sensorial deficiencies - the blind, the deaf etc. An access ramp at the entrance can be a good start, but this does not constitute by far a fully accessible space."
Out of 401 objectives evaluated from October until December 2006 by the Open Society Foundation, in association with the National Organization of Persons with Handicap in Romania and other six local NGOs, only 88 buildings can be declared as partially accessible and 75 as accessible to disabled persons. None of the buildings could be declared as completely accessible.
The present report comes as a result of an evaluation project, fundamented on a standard methodology in accordance with the Normative for Adapting Civil Buildings and Public Space to the Needs of Persons with Handicaps (NP 051/2001). The project considered provisions regarding both persons with locomotor handicaps and persons with sensorial problems.
The evaluation exercise conducted by partner organizations focused on the degree of implementation of legal provisions in adapting public space to the requirements of disabled persons in the case of:

The Government and other central administration institutionsLocal administration institutionsEducational institutions Infrastructure and local transport networkShopping, tourism and recreational space At town hall level, the main problems are:  counters inadequate in height which do not permit communication with persons in wheelchairs, lack of pictogram posters, of guide marks for the sightless, difficulties in movement on the vertical and access to toilets. Bucharest (60.36 points[*]) and Satu Mare (56.92 points) have the only partially accessible town halls. The other town halls evaluated were declared inaccessible to persons with handicap due to the lack of facilities or mismatching to legal standards.
Similar problems have been identified in buildings functioning as headquarters for General Directories for Social Assistance and Child Protection, of which only Satu Mare (61.95 points) and Ramnicu Valcea (64.25 points) proved partially accessible. Though such institutions advocate for the protection of persons with handicaps and for services of social assistance, access of disabled persons within these institutions is only possible with assistance of an attendant. This state of things disseminates furthermore the permanently assisted status of the disabled, sustaining a distorted perception within the community.
Hospitals still have great difficulties in providing access to the disabled (none of the evaluated units presented a satisfactory level of accessibilizing). The poor state of the buildings makes even difficult the process of proper accessibilization. Bacau District Hospital is an alarming example with a mere 14.96 score at the evaluation.
As for the high schools evaluated, the results are even more disappointing. Whereas the inclusive education proves more and more encouraging, Romanian high schools have the lowest level of physical space accessibility. The medium score on all high schools evaluated did not surpass 35 points.
Bucharest (51 points), Bacau (50 points) and Satu Mare (52 points) assure a critical minimum level of accessibility when it comes to pharmacies. Only Ramnicu Valcea obtained a satisfactory score of 80 points.
Among the evaluated bank headquarters, only Bucharest obtained a somewhat decent result (66 points). The majority of banking units have access ramps, but access to services within the buildings is deterred by the lack of relevant facilities.
Supermarkets present a good level of accessibility, with a top score of over 90 points for Bucharest and Ramnicu Valcea and a minimum of around 30 points for shopping units in Constanta. To notice the remarkable initiative of Carrefour that marks parking spots for disabled persons with the following inscription: "If you take my spot, also take my handicap", fact that denotes a real concern for accessibility.
The transport system has been found satisfactory in Bucharest, Satu Mare and Valcea if only taking into account the rolling stock. The accessibility of bus stations is still a matter to address. An alarming fact is that transport system in Bacau and Constanta has no accessibility whatsoever.
For further details, please access the website of the Open Society Foundation or The Virtual Center for Accesibility developed by the National Organization of Persons with Handicap in Romania at http://www.integration.ro/.

Local Partners:Bacau - The Society of Physical HandicappedBucharest - Motivation Foundation RomaniaConstanta - The Foundation for a Better LifeRamnicu Valcea - The Independent National Society of Handicapped Persons in RomaniaSatu Mare - Physical Handicapped Association

Contact person:Linda FischerProgram ManagerOpen Society FoundationTel: 021 212 1101Fax: 021 212 1032Email: fischer@osf.ro
[*] The final score, interpreted as follows: 0-50 - inaccessible; 50-75 - partially accessible; 75 -99 - accessible; 100 - permits independent and unrestrictioned access. http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=18 (December 5, 2006) Whereas only one half of the electorate confirms their presence at the poll, party leaders continue to attract the main voting capital, reveals the Public Opinion Barometer released by the Open Society Foundation. Another factor that groups parties' sympathizers is the access to similar resources (human, material, relational), values and shared ideologies proving less important.
Parties improving their position within electorate's voting intentions are associated with a strong leader. Traian Băsescu (61%), Corneliu Vadim Tudor (13%) and George Becali (10%) are the first three choices of voters that stated their voting intentions, while the political structures they are associated with - DA Alliance, PRM, PNG - grow in charts. The majority of PSD voters identifies with none of the party leaders, which contributes to the party's stagnation in Romanian's voting options.

Three patterns of voters can be found when focusing on DA Alliance electorate. The most numerous are those identifying with the alliance as a whole (27%), but they are also the most uninterested in politics and less informed. Generally, they have a weak capital of relationships and they are concentrated in wealthy rural areas. The second group of voters ties their voting intention to PD (Democrat Party) - 19%. This is a rather strong segment in big cities, especially in Bucharest, but they are the poorest DA Alliance voters. The most active segment of DA Alliance voters and also the fewest (7% of the Romanians holding a voting opinion) is the one sympathizing with PNL (The Liberal National Party). They are numerous in small and medium cities, dropping in rural areas, and can be localized in more economically developed areas of the residential unit. PNL is well placed among the young, among those with considerable incomes, among workers and entrepreneurs or those searching to develop a business. Generally, DA voters position themselves at the center-right of the political scene, with PD voters drawing close to the center and PNL sympathizers considering themselves the "rightest" electoral group.
The principal opposition party, PSD (Social Democrat Party) does not have a well defined leader. Among party sympathizers, many chose to vote for Traian Basescu rather than sustaining Mircea Geoană. PSD has a rather uniformly distributed electorate in residential areas, showing a better representation in marginal villages and a poor one in big cities. Moreover, the structure of its electorate is dominated by aged and inactive population (retired, unemployed, housewives). The number of PSD voters drops at half in Transylvania, Maramureş or Bucharest and is still constant in Moldova, Oltenia and Muntenia. PSD sympathizers generally position themselves at the left side of the political axis.
As for the principal political leaders, the electoral profile of the Romanian voter shows few surprises. President Basescu is more popular among women (67% of the women stating their voting intention), among big cities inhabitants (66%) and those with high school (75%) and superior education (75%). At the same time, 40% of PSD's voters would sustain a new mandate of the current president, despite the fact that PSD defines itself as "the main opposition party". Corneliu Vadim Tudor is more popular amongst men (15% of the men that have crystallized a position would give him their vote). The voting intention for PRM ("Romania Mare" Party) president is significantly lower among women (11%), among 18 to 34 years old segment (4%), dwelling in cities with over 200.000 inhabitants (9%).
The Public Opinion Barometer data shows that Gigi Becali is significantly popular amongst the young that express a voting option (21%), among men (12%), those who have at least one working experience abroad (24%), are not married (20%) and live in cities ranging from 100.000 to 200.000 inhabitants (17%). There are four attitude patterns that structures Gigi Becali's electorate: a chronic sense of mistrust regarding public institutions, media exposure, a moral liberalism, a general passion for football and a particular one for Steaua football club.
The information gathered by the Barometer build a non-leader portrait for Mircea Geoană, since he fails to significantly mobilize the social antagonisms or to convert social discontent into voting intention. Though he should be the electoral locomotive of the party he leads, Mircea Geoana obtains a mere 6% of the voting intentions, compared to the 20% that PSD has in charts. Mircea Geoana is significantly popular among pensioners (10%) and people over 55 (9%). Putting together gender and age variables, we can identify the socio-demographic category that offers him the most consistent support - men over 55 years old (a 13% voting intention).
The great majority of the Romanians consider that the main attributes of a president should be: fighting against corruption (67%), good organizer (66.8%), impose order and discipline (65%), good Romanian (58.2%). Only 32% consider that is important the president did not collaborate with the former "Securitate", and 20% think that the president ought to be sustained by the party they voted for.
The Public Opinion Barometer is built on a series of surveys (carried out between October 7 and October 19, 2006) on a sample of 1975 over 18 year old respondents, reprezentative for non institutionalized adult Romanian population, with a tolerated margin of error of ± 2.3%. Data was collected by the Gallup Organization Romania. The sample is built upon election lists, thus it provides a good coverage, ranging from urban population to the most secluded rural regions. The Public Opinion Barometer a registered mark of the Open Society Foundation.
http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=17 (September 10, 2006) Open Society Foundation, Transparency International Romania and the Center for Legal Resources express their deepest concern regarding the way the anticorruption legislation is being debated in Romania, more precisely the new approach on the draft bill regulating the National Agency for Integrity. The debates within the judicial committee of the Deputy Chamber are currently converging towards a shallower bill, which only results in its loss of legitimacy. Thus, the bill becomes a major stepback compared to the provisions of laws 161/2003 and 115/1996.
The main causes for this superficial approach can be found, on the one hand, in Government's one year and a half delay in sending this draft bill to the Parliament, and, on the other hand, in taking this debate to the level of a responsibility-free, cynical political confrontation among parties, regardless of the citizens, which are still waiting for the state to guarantee superior standards of public life integrity.
Another issue that leads to this void and ultra politicized discussion is the lack of clarity of the present bill, namely the confusion between an instrument of prevention and one of combating. Some political parties considered this ambiguity the best argument for rejecting any provisions which could have compelled politicians to act within the limits of moral integrity, respecting strict rules regarding incompatibilities, conflicts of interest and unjustified accumulation of assets.
At the same time, we draw attention to the numerous surface and in-depth irregularities of the present draft bill, such as presented by the Legislative Council in its notice.
The signatory organizations appeal to all political parties and their representatives within the judicial committee of the Deputy Chamber for they approach with responsibility this public anticorruption policy, thus ensuring its efficiency. Also, they solicit that representative of the Ministry of Justice to the debates show more flexibility and that he accept revising the in-depth and surface errors of the draft bill. We think it is imperious that the report of the judicial committee of the Deputy Chamber should hold the nominal vote of the members so that the civil society could find the point of view expressed by each parliamentary.

Renate Weber - Chair, Open Society FoundationGeorgiana Iorgulescu - Executive Director, Center for Legal ResourcesVictor Alistar - Executive Director, Transparency International Romania
http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=9 The Open Society Foundation mentions that the information that was poste on the FreeEx discussion group and received by some newsrooms, containing a reduced number of results of a public opinion survey that measures voters intention IS NOT part of any survey contracted by the OSF. The Open Society Foundation does not undertake political surveys and is inclined to believe that this is a gesture meant to manipulate public opinion into believing that the Foundation is stongly linked to the political world.

The launch of the traditional product - The Public Opinion Barometre will take place at the beginning of July and will contain apart from the usual extensive social research, a distinctive theme that regards perceptions about the media, in Romania. You will of course receive the invitation to its launching ceremony, in due time, and as in previous cases, in the spirit of transparency, the entire data package will be available on our website.

Open Society Foundation  http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=1 The Open Society Foundation and the Center for Legal Resources express their deep concern regarding the future of the state of law in Romania. Upon the pretext of fighting corruption and bearing the flag of some alleged European Union requirements, the recent changes in the Penal Procedure Code are, in fact, severe infringements on human rights, especially on one's right to private life, legal defense, with serious implications upon the country's democratic evolution.
1. We consider as unacceptable the prosecutors' right to intercept mail and tap phones for 48 hours without a proper warrant issued by a judge. This aspect is highly aggravating as the Ministry of Justice (which firstly solicited that this operation should be possible for 72 hours!!) did not provide any solid argument for this restriction of one's right to private life which ignores art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The sole official justification resides in the eternal excuse regarding the fight on corruption, organized crime and terrorism. We strongly state that these goals, never contesting their importance, should be approached without abdicating the principles of a state of law and of a functional, human rights respect-based democracy.

2. At the same time, we find the interference between the citizen and his legal representative through phone tapping unacceptable, the inner confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship serving as an essential premisis for guaranteeing the right to legal defense, stated by art.6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

3. Pursuing with the present practice which sees SRI (Romanian Intelligence Service) in the position of taping phones even in the situation of prosecutor-instrumented cases is another violation of one's right to private life and legal defense, and thus, of the right to a fair, equitable trial. The excuse of  SRI's logistic advantage is quite pathetic for an alleged state of law. Equipping prosecutors' offices with proper technology, expensive as it is, would be much more consonant with the principles that Romania should function upon. Secret Service's immixture - be it as a simple act of taping phones - in prosecutor's activity, thus in the judicial authority, is unacceptable.

Instead of amending the national security law and the present law projects which allow SRI to intercept communications, including telephonic ones, for 48 hours without a warrant, the Ministry of Justice chose the opposite, allowing prosecutors as well to proceed with such actions. This explains why the Ministry of Justice never issued a critic point of view on the matter of intelligence and counterintelligence agents' exaggerated rights, including the right of taping phones without a warrant.
 
Apart from the signaled violation of human rights, we insist upon another serious consequences derived from these last legislative decisions: instead of a judiciary reform which to strengthen judges' position, to make them more accountable, thus leading to a progress on people's confidence in the act of justice, the present regulations produce the opposite effect - the impairment of judges' position, transforming them in a rather "negligible quantity", depending on the immediate interest of the prosecutor. Instead of a functional state of law, with an efficient Prosecutor's Office controlled by the judiciary, we face the risk of witnessing the rebirth of the old communist Prosecutor's Office, which we thought long gone.
Such a penal policy, much more appropriate for a police state, will not bring us closer to the European Union, as it is not through violation of human rights that we shall become compatible with EU's standards and requirements. Within a functional democracy, to which Romania aspires, any kind of fight against criminality is waged with the outmost respect for democratic rules and human rights.

Renate Weber - Chair, Open Society Foundation
Georgiana Iorgulescu - Executive Director, Center for Legal Resources
Victor Alistar - Executive Director, Transparency International Romania

http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=8 The subscribers of the present press release sustain the necessity of a law which to ensure an efficient and consequent control regarding the declaration of assets, conflicts of interest and incompatibility situations. For this reason, the law project elaborated by the Ministry of Justice (posted on the MJ web site) that regulates these domains and sets the foundation for the National Agency for Integrity requires a profound analysis. It must be stressed that the present project has some major deficiencies with serious consequences on both the respect for human rights and the efficiency of the fight against corruption.
1. The present project stands as a clear regress when compared to the law project adopted in 2004 by the Chamber of Deputies (which has been waiting for more than a year for Senate's vote), not only because it will take time to get through the legislative process, but especially because of its content. The project currently in the Senate (the decisional chamber) contains comprehensive definitions regarding conflicts of interests and incompatibilities, as well coherent regulations covering professional categories not taken into consideration by the Ministry of Justice's new project (for example, the scientific councils and advisory commissions of central authorities, such as the National Agency of Medicine or the commission within the Ministry of Education entrusted with task of awarding scientific titles and academic degrees). The present MJ project practically dismisses the possibility of an administrative sanction when conflicts of interests occur, transferring them in the area of penal incrimination, which is general. Only when the prosecutor's office announces there are no grounds for initiating the penal prosecution, the National Agency of Integrity (NAI) will have the authority to commence the administrative investigation for the "rest" of the conflict of interests' forms. What this "rest" stands for remains unclear.
2. Many texts contain indefinite concepts or vague formulations, which puts the project on a contradictory basis with the requests of CEDO and its entire jurisprudence which states that the law has to be "clear and predictable".  For example, regarding the magistrates, "tight affective connections" or the "strong affective connections" are being incriminated without any reference to the evaluative instrument of this fact, one with very serious consequences on judges' career.

Or NAI's competency to develop partnerships with citizens and to provide "assistance services". There is no reference as to identify what assistance services are to be provided, which is a rather serious issue if one takes into account that any citizen may appeal to NAI.

Or the sanction for "not justifying reasonably" the difference between one's actual assets and those which could be acquired out of licit income. Obviously, the criteria in regards to which the "reasonableness" of justification is being appreciated are not specified.
 
In the same category of vague statements which can be abusively interpreted, stipulations regarding "family's costs according to life standard" are also implied, without any indication on the criteria of estimating life standard.

The income control is based on the "unjustified" notion, yet there is no explanation of the term, which is absolutely necessary in context of art. 44 (8) from the Constitution that institutes the licit acquiring assumption (the licit character of the acquiring is presumed).
3. The normative act contains a series of procedural confusions between the administrative legal department procedure, the fiscal procedure, the civil procedure, mixed with elements from the penal procedure, an amalgam which renders the law inapplicable and, thus, inefficient. We fear that judges, who will have serious difficulties in deciding the necessary procedure, will be the eternal fall guys. 
4. The project elaborated by the Ministry of Justice adds to Romanian Constitution, giving NAI the competency of deciding on President's incompatibility, as the procedure of notifying the Parliament for the implementation of a disciplinary sanction!
5. For magistrates, and not for them only, the law is even more drastic stipulating that, in case of leaving the judiciary on incompatibility grounds, they are not allowed to exercise any judicial function for the next 3 years, which represents a serious violation of human rights, the magistrates facing the situation of doing, eventually, unqualified work.
6. There are more stipulations which constitute serious violation of human right to legal defense, implicit of art.6 in European Convention of Human Rights. Here are some examples: Instead of stipulating NAI inspector's "obligation" to inform the controlled citizen about the case records and his "right" to be assisted by a lawyer, with the inherent sanction of the inspector that disregards these obligations, the project specifies only the possibility of consulting the case records and receiving legal assistance.
Even more serious, it is stipulated that the papers issued during the preliminary investigation - thus, before the control begins - can be used in a court of law, although during the preliminary investigation one does not have the possibility to defend he/herself, for he/she is not even subpoenaed. Whoever decides to attack NAI's decision in a court of law, and the solution proves unsatisfying, doesn't have the possibility to make a motivated appeal, because the term of issuing a decision (5 days) is the same with the term for filing an appeal. There is no other stipulation to set another filing term for the appeal's motives.
7. Another extremely serious issue is "Time O" element initiated by the Ministry of Justice: art. 18 paragraph 2 states that assets acquired before the enforcement of Law nr. 161/2003 can not be subjected to control, so the first fortunes to be investigated are those in the 2004-2008 mandate. We consider that these provisions can constitute an important base for hiding onerous gains. The option of the Ministry of Justice is hard to understand and stands as an enormous regress compared to the provision of Law 115/1996 which issued the procedure for the period after 1st of January 1990.
8. There is no provision that refers to the experience and expertise required by the ANI staff, although their inspectors play a decisive role in fighting corruption. Besides, excepting the first 25 that are to be detached (nobody knows the criteria) from several ministries and agencies, no procedure is in place for selecting them. It is interesting to point that first president of the Agency will have to work with an imposed staff, the president being selected only after ANI will have designated a functional staff.
9.  An unaccountable agency. No procedure for evaluating the Agency is in place, the external audit mentioned by the project dealing strictly with management quality evaluation. In fact, this Agency, an autonomous administrative authority, will account to no one for its efficiency, the National Council for Integrity playing more of a facade role, lacking even the competence to revoke the president in case of mismanagement.
There were talks around the possibility that the government should assume political responsibility for this project. Considering the severe project deficiencies, we think it would be a serious mistake. We add that the participant organizations support without reserves the effective policies on prevention and dealing with corruption, as well as the judiciary reform, when these issues pose sufficient efficiency arguments and coherence. Regardless of how much we desire Romania's EU integration, which we are constantly promoting through all our actions, this cannot be an argument for acts of law that breach human rights and represent acts of individual will, further throwing into chaos the judicial order in Romania. In the annex, we present several technical documents that can justify signatory organizations' worry.

Renate Weber - Chair of Open Society Foundation
Georgiana Iorgulescu - Executive Director of Centre for Legal Resources
Victor Alistar - Executive Director of Transparency International Romania

http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=10 The Open Society Foundation took a public position on the recently adopted National Security Strategy. Applauding the intention of demilitarizing the services, we wish to draw attention on some specific issues that we consider severely deficient within the legislative package.
One can access the entire analysis here.
For further references, please contact our Communications Manager, Mihai Şepeţean (tel. 0728 88 90 73)
http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=11 (April 18, 2006) Romania took some important steps towards its EU integration. „Brief assessment on Romania's compliance with some Critical EU requirements" - a report issued by the Open Society Foundation together with the Center for Legal Resources and the Resource Center for Roma Communities - presents Romania's achievements in some key areas of activity, at the same time pointing to all the deficiencies that need to be overstepped in the near future.

The three NGOs firmly support Romania's joining the EU on January 1, 2007, regardless of the possible special monitoring from the EU. The report discusses some of the institutional dysfunctions ranging from politics and justice system to the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the situation of the mentally disabled or minority rights. The report also insists on the legislative and institutional deficiencies related to the environmental protection. Finally yet importantly, it presents the ups and downs of the recent public administration reform process.
„Presently, political life in Romania is dominated by a series of tensions and conflicts within the Government, between the Parliament and the Executive, and also within the parliamentary opposition. Romania must maintain political stability not only for its good image in Brussels, but also for internal reasons that concearn the pursuit of the necessary reform. Romania has to prove it is a reliable and predictable partner," stated Renate Weber, Chair of the Open Society Foundation.
Georgiana Iorgulescu, Center for Legal Resources' executive director expresses her hope that „under the auspices of a most courageous action plan for reforming the judiciary, a plan with very tight deadlines, we shall be able to grasp, in the near future, the results of a reformist vision that contains civil and penal policies as well as the reform of other juridical professions."
"Six months after the last European Commission's Report, progress registered in public administration reform is not very satisfying. Although, immediately following the Report, the Ministry of Administration and Interior issued an ambitious agenda for recovering areas that lagged behind, it still has limited impact on issues like public servants' statute and public local administration reform. Especially due to the initial strategic inconsistency, the Law of the Prefect was submitted to rather inadequate amendments through an Emergency Ordinance", thinks the independent expert, Valerian Stan.
The three NGOs invite the authorities to elaborate a vision on Romanian society's progress as a whole, considering that the strategy of specific areas of activity under their management must be in accordance with this vision, consistency that has to be found when it comes to implementing. Romania and its citizens would be the first to benefit from it.
For further details, please contact Mihai Sepetean - the PR Manager for the Open Society Foundation, tel. 0728 88 90 73.
http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=15 (February 1, 2006) Almost one quarter of the inhabitants of Romanian villages endorse the EU integration and two thirds expect a life improvement afterwards, reveal the data of the Rural Eurobarometer, just released to the public by the Open Society Foundation (OSF). Still, the Romanians living in rural areas consider themselves poorly informed on the European Union, on its policies and institutions, and a great majority still has serious difficulties in answering simple questions about the Union.

The main source of information about the European Union is the television (named by 58% of the respondents), followed by discussions with relatives, friends, colleagues (24%). 23% of the rural inhabitants state that they are interested in such information.
Hope is the primary feeling the European Union brings among rural inhabitants. 55% of the respondents claim that the European Union brings them hope, whereas 33% speak of confidence and 8% of enthusiasm.
Romanian villages are looking forward to European integration, but 85% still use their outdoor closet, 68% of the families still supply with current water from the fountain in the farm stead or in the street, and only 9% have access to the natural gas infrastructure.
Rural EuroBarometer is a research program initiated by the Open Society Foundation in 2002. The research is a quantitative analysis instrument and a base for the rural public opinion qualitative analysis, where there is almost a half of the active Romanian population. Also, the Euro Barometer was conceived as a testing instrument of the way the European Union integration process is seen by rural population.
Data that fundament the current edition of the Rural Eurobarometer were gathered between November 22 and December 6 2005 by Metro Media Transylvania on a 1516 people sample, representative for the adult uninstitutionalized rural inhabitants. The error margin of the survey is ± 2.5%.
The second edition of the Rural Eurobarometer was possible due to the financial support of the European Union through the Micro-Projects - Europe Fund 2005 Phare program. http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=16 (July 31, 2006) The Government issued last week a national security draft bill. Regarding this initiative, the Open Society Foundation would like to make the following specifications:
1. The hierarchy of laws could render this bill unfunctional. The idea of creating a frame law to regulate what national security means and the risks endangering it may prove salutary, but if we want it functional it is imperative that this should be a part of a larger package, which should contain the other laws regulating this activity area and which should not contradict the frame law. The Romanian Constitution does not state that the national security should be regulated through an organic law, thus making all the laws in this activity area judicially equal. The Romanian jurisprudence does not accept elaborating frame laws which to subordinate the others. On the contrary, a principle of law states that the special law derogates from the general one. Consequently, not harmonizing these laws from the beginning and adopting the national security law first could result in effects contrary to the initial intentions. Should it contain contradicting provisions, a law adopted afterwards - the law regarding the information, counter information and security activity or the status of intelligence officers, for example - will apply, despite the security law, for two simple reasons:
either the fact that it is the latest adopted, in agreement with the principle which solves the conflict of laws in time,or because of the fact that it shall be considered a special law, which derogates from the general one, the national security law.Therefore, the same concepts, definitions, procedural guarantees should reign all these laws. Otherwise, the national security frame law will be but an inapplicable declaration of good intentions.

As a matter of fact, the legislative technicalities themselves impose such an approach when it comes to regulating an activity area through multiple laws.
In this context, the Open Society Foundation would like to express its fear regarding the high number of laws taken into account (three at this moment) to regulate the national security issue and thinks that, within this newly instated legislative maze, the only things to be lost will be citizens' rights and liberties, the protection of which was so frequently mentioned lately. The Open Society Foundation considers that creating and adopting a single law which to rule this activity area, which to clearly state what national security means and what the risks are, as well as to regulate the information and counter information activity and the status of intelligence officers is the best solution. Contradictory definitions and provisions would be avoided and the law would prove much more clear, accessible and predictable.


2.  Institutions left unregulated
Government's draft bill dissolves two institutions, the Protection and Guard Service, which becomes a service within the Ministry of Administration and Interior, and the Service for Special Telecommunication, which goes under the wing of the Ministry of Technology and Information.

In time, numerous criticizing opinions have been issued concerning the independence of the two up-mentioned services. The way they will function is a question of Parliament's political will, but it is impossible that they activate, even for a day, without a precise legislative frame. The current draft fails to even mention that laws regulating the two services are been abolished, settling it with by stipulating that "any previous provisions regarding the national security are been abrogated". However, no appropriate modifications to the laws regulating the Ministry of Administration and Interior and Ministry of Technology and Information have been applied. Without the instant modification of all these texts, which to legally settle the activity of these structures, the two services could not function for a period of time, which is, obviously, unconceivable.


3.  Confusing and unwanted effects
The present draft holds a chapter concerning the sanctions attracted by infringements against national security, chapter that speaks about "crimes and delinquencies" regulated by the titles III and IV of the Penal Code. But the reference is to a Penal Code which, though adopted and promulgated, is not applicable, its coming into effect being postponed due to the firm opposition of the Ministry of Justice towards this Code. Obviously, it's unconceivable that infringements against national security should be left unpunished due to confusion.

On the other hand, the final provisions of the draft bill confirm that "any previous provisions regarding the national security are been abrogated". It must be mentioned that European Council's Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) has repeatedly recommended to Romania to be very clear in this sort of situations and to list all abrogated normative acts. Apart from this, the consequences in the present case could be null and void as there is no legislation regulating the "national security", the employed concept being "national safety" (Law 51/1991).


4.  Lack of guarantees concerning the respect for human rights
Just like the draft bills of the four law package adopted by the Supreme Council for National Defense (CSAT), the present draft sins through the same declarative way of referring to the respect for human rights and access to justice of those affected by the activity of national security defenders, without providing any procedural guarantees.

Therefore, no matter how positive are the provisions of article 21, according to which "the components of the security system function in order to fully guarantee the liberty and fundamental rights of the Romanian citizens, in a climate of lawfulness and stability" and the fact that these structures "serve the citizens", all these threaten to remain simple declarations as long as there are no provisions on how the abusive behavior of these services or other intelligence structures is to be sanctioned.

In the same context, article 22 provisions can be applied: "The methods of obtaining news regarding security matters respect the person's human rights and liberties and do not infringe his/her personal privacy.  Everyone has the right to the protection of law against any interference in his private life".

It's obvious that the complex activity regarding the national security protection must face some restrictions on the human rights area, including interferences in persons' private life. Otherwise, the entire international legislation/ set of laws, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights up to the European Convention on Human Rights looks upon the effective protection of the national security as authorizing the restriction on the free exercise of the certain fundamental rights and liberties. The importance of the aspect is based on the proportionality between the value actually to be defended (how serious is the threat to the national security or if it is just an impression or just an excuse) and how bigger it's the right restriction, including the intervention in the under suspicion person's private life. Otherwise, the Romanian Constitution itself, in its article 53, stipulates the restriction possibility upon free exercise of certain rights in order to protect the national security, but only if that restriction is imperative in a democratic society. Hence, a national security law must make the provisions in detail about the situations which allow the restraints over certain rights.
  
In the line to become effective the article 24 provisions on the citizen (in fact, every person, regardless of citizenship) free access to justice which stipulate that "everyone who considers that the exercise of any rights he possess was restraint in order to get some security information" we need to acquire some guaranties as for the notification of that person that she was subject to this kind of supervision for the purpose of "acquiring security data". Thus, we find again the same provisions without issue in the proposition regarding the information officers' statute, where is specified that the office will pay the damages, but concurrently all data about the information officers' identity and their official quality are called "state secrets"!

Evidently, this proposal doesn't make any remarks on the information officers' rights and duties, on the procedure to follow to interfere with the persons' private life when security national issues appear. No topics about the route described by these data after their gathering, so that that information must be, probably, regulated by other laws.


5.  41 risks and situations which can concern the national security
From the 12 cases examined as threats to the national security in the Law no. 51/1991 we now face 41 of such similar cases. The questioned proposal counts 24 risks and threats to the national security and 17 states and phenomena the scope of which can generate major difficulties with a view to alter the sound functioning of the national security: from terrorist activities to ammunition illicit trading, to jeopardizing the country defensive ability and up to the earthquakes, massive snowfalls, climate changes, altering the medical resources mobility and availability. Taking into account that all these situations justify the restraints on fundamental rights and liberties, we consider nevertheless that this catalog is extreme. Although the person protection as the core of the national security is the main issue, we believe that the effects will be totally in the reverse direction.

Besides, there are many blurred provisions that can be construed as to give birth easily to abuses. We will illustrate with some examples:
Knowledge deprivation in the domain of the public interest information, when these data are imperative to accomplish the security frame for the citizens and Romanian societyJeopardizing the classified information security - taking into account that professional secret is classified information, any breach in an ordinary confidential obligation can be treated as threat to the national securityOutrages to the life, health, bodily and physical integrity or liberty of the Romanians or foreigners who act as public servants of common knowledge and national or international prestige - so, an misplaced action of a rock band fan, for example, may be treated as a risk or a threat to the national security, because there is no remarks about what the "public celebrity" means and no remarks either on the ""well - known status" or national/ international "prestige"."Jeopardizing the social security through the non - observance of the certain groups rights" - this will be a situation liable to affect the national security and will be able to open the way to restrain some rights. And we can go further with such examples.

We can notice, as well, that these provisions have failed to treat as recipients of the security information the law courts (article 20). We think, under the circumstances that  the criminal pursuance bodies are recipients of the security information, that this data have to be accessible to the judges in their cases to solve. The curent variant of the proposal may lead to the conclusion that, if in one case the law court requests some information treated as of national security importance, information of great significance for the case, this body will not receive them because there is no specific observation on it in the regulations. From this point of view there is no distinction facing the curent legislation and we consider as a requisite the introduction of a clear provision on the basis of which the judge can receive this kind of information necessary to solve a case. 

Open Society Foundation requests that all the curent propositions about the national security to be revised and completed simultaneous with the view to elucidate and harmonize the concepts used, while the legislation on the whole to pass over the generous declarations phase regarding the protection of the human rights to the concrete procedural guaranties. http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=31 hjkhjkhjk http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=32 hjkhjkhjk