Financiarul

In Romania, a constitutional democracy with a multiparty, parliamentary system, the June European parliamentary elections and November-December presidential elections were judged generally free and fair.

Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, reads the 2009 Human Rights Report on Romania released by the US Department of State on Thursday. The constitution provides for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence in practice.
However, the judiciary lacked the public’s trust that judges were accountable and did not serve political or financial interests. There was a widespread public perception that the judiciary was corrupt, slow, and often unfair, reads the report.

The report also says that the law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice. Journalists and private citizens could criticize government authorities, including those at senior levels. There were isolated cases of authorities intimidating or censoring the press or attacking journalists.

Laws restricting freedom of speech continued to cause concern among the media and NGOs. Insulting state insignia (the coat of arms, national flag, or national anthem) is also an offence punishable by imprisonment; however, there were no reports of prosecutions or convictions under these provisions during the year.
The religion law includes a provision that forbids acts of „religious defamation” and „public offences to religious symbols”; there were no reports of prosecutions or convictions under this law’s provisions during the year.

The independent media was active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction. However, politicians and others with close ties to various politicians and political groups either owned or indirectly controlled numerous media outlets outside of the capital, and the news and editorial tone of these outlets frequently reflected the views of the owners. The tendency towards the concentration of national news outlets in the hands of a few wealthy individuals continued.

Chapter 4 Official Corruption and Government Transparency mentions that the law provides criminal penalties for official corruption; however, the government did not implement the law effectively, and officials sometimes engaged in corrupt practices with impunity.

Authorities’ ineffective response to corruption remained a focus of intense public criticism, political debate, and media scrutiny throughout the year.
The National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) was responsible for investigating and prosecuting high-level corruption, including cases involving members of parliament and government officials, and it continued its coordination with antifraud units set up within various ministries.