The Situation of Human Rights Defenders in Romania: Good Practices and Protection Gaps

The Situation of Human Rights Defenders in Romania: Good Practices and Protection Gaps 10 February 2026

1 The Situation of Human Rights Defenders in Romania: Good Practices and Protection Gaps Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 4 INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK AND THE ODIHR GUIDELINES ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS ................................................................................................................... 6 NATIONAL LEGAL, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ................................................. 6 I. PHYSICAL INTEGRITY, LIBERTY AND SECURITY, AND DIGNITY OF HRDS .................. 8 1.1. REPORTED THREATS, ATTACKS AND OTHER TARGETING OF HRDS ...................................................... 8 PROTECTION POLICIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ABUSES AGAINST HRDS ......................................... 10 1.2. PROTECTION FROM ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL HARASSMENT /ARBITRARY ARREST AND DETENTION ............................................................................................................................................. 12 1.3. HRDS IN THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE ......................................................................................................... 13 II. OTHER ASPECTS OF A SAFE AND ENABLING ENVIRONMENT CONDUCIVE TO HUMAN RIGHTS WORK .......................................................................................................................... 14 2.1. FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION AND FREEDOM OF THE MEDIA ............................................. 14 ACCESS TO INFORMATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST ..................................................................................... 15 PROTECTION OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS ...................................................................................................... 16 2.2. FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY ...................................................................................................... 16 2.3. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION / ACCESS TO FUNDING AND RESOURCES ................................................... 18 2.4. RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS ......................................................................................... 19 2.5. RIGHT TO PRIVATE LIFE ........................................................................................................................ 19 III. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 21

2 Executive summary In line with its mandate to assist OSCE participating States in implementing their commitments, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has long been engaged in promoting the protection of human rights defenders (HRDs). This is done through regular monitoring and reporting on the situation of HRDs across the OSCE region, the provision of expert advice and legislative reviews, raising the awareness of OSCE participating States about their obligations to protect HRDs, and facilitating dialogue between participating States and civil society on issues related to the work of HRDs. In line with these aims, ODIHR developed the “Assessment Cycle on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders” (now in the second cycle). Each cycle involves assessment visits to selected OSCE participating States. The purpose of the visits is to examine the situation of HRDs vis-à-vis international human rights standards, as elaborated in the ODIHR Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, and to provide recommendations for further improvement. This report provides a summary of ODIHR’s findings from a visit to Romania in May 2022, during which ODIHR held dozens of meetings with State and civil society stakeholders, and is supported by desk research. In this context, ODIHR collected information about good practices and gaps in the protection of the physical integrity, liberty, security and dignity of HRDs, and other aspects of a safe and enabling environment for human rights work. Besides offering assistance to Romania, ODIHR seeks to use the findings more broadly and assist participating States across the OSCE region on measures they could take to advance the situation of HRDs. In its assessment related to Romania, ODIHR noted certain efforts by the authorities to ensure the protection of HRDs and to establish accountability in response to challenges that HRDs face in the country. However, ODIHR also identified a number of worrying cases of HRDs facing intimidation, threats and physical attacks. ODIHR gathered information suggesting that some incidents remained unreported, and that a number of reported incidents were not followed by effective investigations. ODIHR noted cases of concern, where HRDs were also subjected to judicial harassment, for example, in the form of defamation lawsuits, some of them seemingly in retaliation for their human rights work. ODIHR also gathered information about worrying cases of reproachful language and remarks that could smear HRDs, particularly of concern when used by public officials. Overall, ODIHR identified women HRDs, environmental HRDs, journalists, and HRDs belonging to or protecting the rights of minority groups, such as LGBTI activists, as the groups most exposed to various challenges, smears and judicial harassment. ODIHR noted mixed experiences regarding the access by HRDs to information of public interest. Concerns were reported about information not being provided in full or provided with unjustified delays. The protection of whistle-blowers existed in law, but it was rarely exercised, and the perception of those reporting corruption often remained negative. Whereas various groups of HRDs reported that they were able to enjoy their right to freedom of peaceful assembly without undue hinderance, ODIHR noted instances of disproportionate fines for peaceful protesters. There also remained scope for improvement in the law governing the area of freedom of peaceful assembly, among others, by making provision for spontaneous and simultaneous assemblies, removing excessive restrictions on the time, place and manner of holding peaceful assemblies, and generally allowing for better facilitation of this right, aligning with the presumption in favor of freedom of peaceful assembly.

3 Freedom of association appeared to be largely respected, and ODIHR noted no major challenges. Whereas the authorities were providing some public funding and other resources to HRDs, various interviewees noted that administrative procedures were excessively burdensome, in particular for smaller organizations, and that a lack of sustainable funding became an increasing challenge. According to information received by ODIHR, there was a good legal basis with regards to mechanisms for participation of civil society in public decision-making processes through consultations, including online. On the other hand, ODIHR found that not all decision-making processes appeared to have benefitted from meaningful and inclusive consultations with HRDs in practice. In relation to privacy rights, ODIHR noted the concern of HRDs regarding potential negative consequences that national security legislation, such as the Cybersecurity Law, could have on the work of civil society and journalists. ODIHR also noted cases of reported unlawful surveillance, with possible intimidating consequences for journalists. Based on its findings from the assessment, ODIHR makes a series of recommendations to various institutions, proposing steps to overcome gaps in the protection of HRDs and to further improve their overall situation across the country.

4 Introduction 1. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) conducted an assessment visit to Romania, focusing on the situation of human rights defenders (HRDs), 1 from 5 to 22 May 2022, meeting with the authorities at various levels and with a broad spectrum of HRDs working in the country. The objective of the visit, and of research conducted by ODIHR before and afterwards, was to provide an independent and impartial assessment of the situation of HRDs in the country. In particular, ODIHR sought to identify and analyze both good practices and challenges in the protection of HRDs in the context of the legal and political obligations of the state, as set out in OSCE commitments and other international human rights standards and elaborated in the 2014 ODIHR Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (the Guidelines). 2 In this way, ODIHR seeks both to provide assistance to the authorities of Romania and to use the findings of the assessment to assist OSCE participating States more broadly on measures that can be taken to improve the protection of HRDs. 2. ODIHR thanks the authorities of Romania for facilitating the visit. ODIHR is also grateful to HRDs, including journalists, representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs), individual activists and staff of the People’s Advocate Institution – Office of the Ombudsman (Instituția Avocatul Poporului), the Romanian Institute for Human Rights (IRDO – Institutul Român pentru Drepturile Omului), and the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD – Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării), as well as to representatives of the authorities on various levels and independent agencies in the country for meeting with the ODIHR delegation and contributing to this assessment. ODIHR looks forward to discussing the findings and recommendations of the report, as well as more recent developments, in a multi-stakeholder in-person event to be organized in Romania. Methodology 3. In line with its mandate to monitor the implementation of human dimension commitments and assist OSCE participating States in this respect, 3 ODIHR visited Romania in 2022, continuing its second assessment cycle focusing on the situation of HRDs. 4 Throughout the cycle, ODIHR aimed to ensure geographical balance and coverage of different contexts across the OSCE region, while offering assistance to participating States in the area of protecting HRDs. This allows ODIHR to make a long- term contribution to the improvement of the situation of HRDs, both within the individual participating State in question, and across the OSCE region, through the identification of challenges and good 1 The term “human rights defender” is defined according to the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, in which the UN General Assembly recognized the right of all people to act, “individually or in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms”, through peaceful means and without discrimination. See General Assembly Res. 53/144, “Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders), UN Doc. A/RES/53/144 (9 December 1998), available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Defenders/Declaration/declaration.pdf. Among others, journalists who promote and report on human rights, corruption or mismanagement or on the work of whistle-blowers are human rights defenders, regardless of their accreditation status and the media through which they work (print, radio, television or the Internet). 2 Available at: https://www.osce.org/odihr/guidelines-on-the-protection-of-human-rights-defenders. 3 Helsinki Document: The Challenges of Change, Helsinki 1992; CSCE Budapest Document 1994 Towards a Genuine Partnership in a New Era, Budapest 1994; Document of the Seventh Meeting of the Ministerial Council, Oslo 1998; Document of the Eleventh Meeting of the Ministerial Council, Maastricht 2003. 4 The countries covered in the first cycle were Czechia, Georgia, Italy, Mongolia and Montenegro. The findings of assessment visits and recommendations to 57 OSCE participating States were summarized in the report The Situation of Human Rights Defenders in Selected OSCE Participating States – The Final Report of the First Assessment Cycle, OSCE/ODIHR, 28 July 2021, available at: https://www.osce.org/odihr/493867.

5 practices and the formulation of recommendations to particular stakeholders, and by conducting follow- up activities in co-operation with the selected participating States. 4. The period analyzed in the report was from January 2020 to 31 May 2023. Earlier cases of attacks and intimidation targeting HRDs and other developments were covered in the assessment, provided those cases were still being processed during the reporting period and provided those developments had a considerable impact on the situation of HRDs. ODIHR is ready to discuss these and other relevant developments outside the reporting period in the multi-stakeholder follow-up event. 5. ODIHR has sought to identify significant good practices and protection gaps and needs, rather than providing an exhaustive list of developments concerning HRDs in the country. 6. As a core part of the assessment, ODIHR held 68 meetings. These included meetings with representatives of authorities (18 meetings); 5 the People’s Advocate Institution, IRDO and the CNCD (3 meetings); and with representatives of civil society (47 meetings). In total, ODIHR met with 144 individuals (87 women, 55 men and two people not exclusively identifying as either). Seventy-four individuals (44 women, 28 men and two people not exclusively identifying as either) represented civil society. ODIHR met with CSOs, journalists and human rights activists working on a wide range of issues in Bucharest, Timișoara, Iași, Cluj-Napoca, and Brașov. ODIHR’s visit, therefore, provided an opportunity to learn from the diverse experiences and knowledge of HRDs working on a range of human dimension issues, at both the national and local levels, and from civil society representatives of different genders and ages, and with various disabilities. 7. Throughout this report, the interview data from civil society representatives and organizations is anonymized. ODIHR obtained informed consent to refer to individual cases that are illustrative of identified trends. These were either brought to ODIHR’s attention during the visit or reported in the local or international media, by civil society groups and/or by intergovernmental organizations. 8. For the purpose of trend analysis and verification, ODIHR also considered documents issued during the assessment period, such as observations, conclusions and reports by intergovernmental organizations, publications by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and media reports and news items. 9. ODIHR’s findings and recommendations are presented in this country-specific report, shared with the authorities of Romania, as well as the People’s Advocate Institution, IRDO and the CNCD, and they will serve as a reference for joint follow-up action. 6 The report is expected to guide ODIHR in offering tailored assistance to the authorities and to HRDs. 5 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Labor and Social Solidarity (including the National Authority for the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), Ministry of Internal Affairs (including the Romanian Police, General Anticorruption Directorate, General Inspectorate for Immigration, National Office for Witness Protection, General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations), National Agency for the Protection of the Environment, Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (including the National Anticorruption Directorate), Parliament of Romania (Commission on Human Rights, Religious Affairs and National Minority Issues of the Chamber of Deputies, and Commission on Human Rights, Equal Opportunities, Worship and Minorities of the Senate), National Agency for Roma and Open Government Service (both under the General Secretariat of the Government), Economic and Social Council (advisory body of the Parliament and of the Government of Romania), National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men (under the Ministry of Family, Youth, and Equal Opportunities), National Audiovisual Council, National Supervisory Authority for the Processing of Personal Data, Department of Relations with Public Authorities and Civil Society within the Presidential Institution, Gendarmerie and Romanian Intelligence Service. 6 ODIHR appreciates the consent of Romania to publish this report, as an example of good practice.

6 10. On completion of the cycle, ODIHR will issue a Final Assessment Report of the Second Assessment Cycle Focusing on the Situation of HRDs, which will give an overview and analysis of the findings of all country visits during the assessment cycle, and make recommendations to all 57 OSCE participating States. International framework and the ODIHR Guidelines on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders 11. OSCE participating States have confirmed “the right of the individual to know and act upon his [her] rights”. 7 They have also affirmed “the right of the individual to seek and receive assistance from others in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to assist others in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.” 8 Participating States have recognized the important and positive role of HRDs (“organizations and persons”) in assisting states to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law, 9 and emphasized the need for ensuring their protection. 10 12. OSCE human dimension commitments reaffirm the particular importance of participating States’ realization of their obligations under international and regional human rights treaties. 11 Romania is a party to most core international human rights conventions, and has accepted a number of individual complaints and inquiry procedures. 12 13. The ODIHR Guidelines are based on the universally recognized human rights standards and OSCE commitments that participating States have undertaken. They focus on the responsibility of states to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of HRDs, 13 without seeking to create “special” rights for them. 14 National legal, policy and institutional framework 14. Title II of the Constitution of Romania guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms, including the freedom of conscience (Article 29), the freedom of expression (Article 30), the right to information 7 Helsinki Final Act 1975 (Questions Relating to Security in Europe: 1(a) Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States – Principle VII). 8 Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, Copenhagen 1990. 9 Op. cit. notes 7 and 8; see also Budapest Document 1994 and Astana Commemorative Declaration Towards a Security Community 2010. 10 Budapest Document 1994. 11 They call on all participating States to act in conformity with international instruments and respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all within their jurisdiction, without discrimination. See Concluding Document of the Madrid Meeting (Second Follow-up Meeting to the Helsinki Conference), Madrid 1983; Copenhagen Document, 1990; Document of the Moscow Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE, Moscow 1991. 12 With the exception of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW) and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (CED), Romania has ratified all core human rights treaties of the UN. Among the individual complaints mechanisms it has not accepted are those to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The full list of the core international human rights instruments ratified by Romania and the complaints and inquiry procedures it has accepted is available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=143&Lang=EN. 13 These obligations require states to refrain from any acts that violate the rights of HRDs; to protect them from abuses by third parties, including business enterprises and other non-state actors; and to take proactive measures to facilitate the full realization of the rights of HRDs, including their right to defend human rights. 14 Op. cit. note 2.

7 (Article 31), the freedom of assembly (Article 39) and of association (Article 40), and the right to private life (Articles 26-28). 15 15. National legislation and sectoral strategies are important to set the general framework for the observation and effective operationalization of these and other fundamental rights, as well as the inclusion of and support for vulnerable persons. According to information obtained by ODIHR during the assessment visit, however, there were no sectoral strategies or programmes exclusively dedicated to the protection of HRDs or an overarching human rights strategy. 16. Each of the two chambers of the Romanian Parliament has a committee responsible for human rights issues. 16 While formally mandated to address a broad range of human rights issues, however, the two committees were often perceived as the “(ethnic) minorities’ committees”, because of their work on promoting the rights of members of ethnic minorities. According to some of ODIHR’s interlocutors, they were less active on the broader topics of human rights, such as the protection of HRDs. Among other committees relevant for this assessment is the Joint Standing Committee of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate for the exercise of parliamentary control over the activity of the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI). While the Committee can analyze potential infringements of rights by the SRI, its reports, however, are considered state secrets. 17 17. Romania has several national institutions with different mandates to promote and protect human rights: the People’s Advocate, IRDO, the CNCD, and the Monitoring Council for the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). As of the end of the reporting period, however, none of these had been accredited with the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) as a national human rights institution (NHRI) meeting the minimum requirements of pluralism, independence and effectiveness in accordance with the United Nations Paris Principles. 18 18. The People’s Advocate Institution issues mandatory recommendations to public authorities in various areas of its human rights mandate. 19 Besides acting ex officio, associations and private individuals, among others, may request the Institution to act. Whereas they did so occasionally, according to ODIHR’s interlocutors, there were no statistics as to the number of cases brought by HRDs or NGOs to the People’s Advocate Institution. The Institution co-operated with various NGOs otherwise, however, as confirmed in ODIHR’s meetings and interviews, including within the framework of the Institute’s mandate as National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) under the Optional Protocol to the 15 In accordance with the Constitution, international human rights treaties to which Romania is a party take precedence over national law, unless the Constitution or domestic legislation provide for a higher level of protection (Article 20). Similarly, the Treaties of the European Union and other binding EU legal instruments take precedence over conflicting provisions of national laws (Article 148). See Constitution of Romania, 2003. 16 The Commission on Human Rights, Religious Affairs and National Minority Issues in the Chamber of Deputies and the Commission on Human Rights, Equal Opportunities, Worship and Minorities in the Senate. 17 See: Întrebări frecvente - Serviciul Român de Informații. 18 Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles), adopted by General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993, see: https://ganhri.org/paris-principles/. In 2020, both IRDO and the People’s Advocate Institution applied for accreditation with GANHRI but the process has not been completed, see European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI), https://ennhri.org/rule-of-law-report-2021/romania/#articleTOC_1. In the process of finalization of this report, ODIHR received information from the Romanian authorities and the People’s Advocate Institution about developments after the reporting period. According to this information, in March 2024, People’s Advocate Institution and IRDO concluded a collaboration protocol, given that both institutions applied for accreditation. In July 2024, the Prime Minister of Romania communicated the agreement of the Government of Romania to support the accreditation to GANHRI of the People’s Advocate Institution as A-status and of IRDO as B-status institutions. The decision on the next steps regarding multiple applications from the same country was pending with GANHRI. 19 See: https://avp.ro/index.php/en/contact-the-ombudsperson/atributiile-avocatului-poporului-engl/.

8 Convention against Torture (OPCAT). 20 One area of NGO and inter-institutional co-operation that the People’s Advocate Institution highlighted, in particular, was in countering violations of the rights of LGBTI people. For example, a working group was set up in 2022, on the enforcement of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments on sexual orientation and gender identity. The group was facilitated by the People’s Advocate Institution, NGO ACCEPT and the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, with the participation of the ECtHR Government Agent. Within this framework, the Institution proposed the implementation of legal, policy and practical changes in various areas to improve the lives and well-being of LGBTI people. 21 19. IRDO is the country’s oldest national human rights structure, and it is mandated, inter alia, to provide training on human rights, provide information nationally and internationally on the protection of human rights in the country, operate a documentation centre, and conduct research. 22 The Institution informed ODIHR about how it delivered on its mandate, but admitted experiencing shortage of human and other resources to meet all demands. IRDO’s mandate and work was largely unknown or unclear to civil society stakeholders interviewed by ODIHR. 20. The CNCD is specialized in combatting discrimination. It works on awareness raising and capacity building, mediation investigation and monitoring, and provides assistance to victims of discrimination. 23 Whereas the imposition of fines was not its goal, the CNCD underlined in ODIHR’s assessment that it was mandated to sanction discriminatory acts and omissions. The CNCD established co-operation with some CSOs, and most HRDs who ODIHR interviewed on the topic held the CNCD in high regard. HRDs and NGOs brought some cases to the CNCD, but, according to the CNCD, the number of NGOs working on strategic litigation had decreased over the years. 21. While the three institutions generally informed ODIHR on some level of co-operation or referrals among them, it appeared that more co-ordination would be beneficial both to these institutions themselves, and for the situation of HRDs more broadly. Also, against this background, the adoption of a clear and robust legislative and institutional framework for the protection of human rights, with a fully independent and effective NHRI in accordance with the UN Paris Principles, is of vital importance. I. Physical integrity, liberty and security, and dignity of HRDs 1.1. Reported threats, attacks and other targeting of HRDs 22. The authorities have taken steps to strengthen the protection of HRDs. 24 Civil society representatives across the country continued, however, to be targeted in various ways. During the assessment visit, ODIHR received information about physical and verbal attacks, gender-based intimidation, threats, including death threats, attacks on physical property and other instances of targeting HRDs. Journalists, environmental human rights defenders and HRDs belonging to or defending the rights of minorities 20 A growing number of NGOs concluded collaboration protocols with the Institution in connection with its role as NPM – 43 NGOs as of 2023. See https://avp.ro/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/RAPORT-2023-REZUMAT-ENG.pdf, p. 5. 21 ODIHR appreciates other examples of co-operation, advocacy, awareness-raising, litigation and capacity-building that the Institution provided to ODIHR, some of which took place outside the reporting period. 22 IRDO was established pursuant to the 1991 Act regarding the establishment of the Romanian Institute for Human Rights. See also: https://irdo.ro/mandatul.php. 23 See: https://www.cncd.ro/despre-cncd-prezentare-generala/. 24 See chapter on Protection policies and accountability for abuses against HRDs.

9 were consistently reported as the HRDs most exposed to threats and smear campaigns. Harassment and intimidation frequently occurred on online platforms. 25 23. Reportedly, environmental activists and journalists involved in documenting illegal logging were particularly at risk of physical violence. An environmental activist told ODIHR that he had been the target of numerous attacks over the last seven years, including beatings and other forms of violence. His case was part of a pattern of concerning accounts. 24. According to one civil society report, at least four serious attacks on environmental activists and journalists took place in 2021 alone. 26 In one of those cases, two journalists and an activist were reportedly physically assaulted by a group of about 20 people, with two of the victims hospitalized as a result. A police investigation showed that employees of the local Forestry District were among the aggressors. Not long after, an environmental activist was reportedly beaten up and abducted in another region. 27 While the police identified some perpetrators, as of the end of the assessment period, ODIHR did not have information that the criminal proceedings were concluded. 25. The violence against activists, whistle-blowers and journalists involved in exposing illegal logging in Romania prompted a debate in the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, where some parliamentarians supported the call for a mission to be sent to the region of Bucovina and for a resolution to be adopted by the European Parliament. 28 26. Instances of physical violence that were flagged to ODIHR in the course of the assessment were not limited to activists and journalists focusing on environmental issues. For example, in Buzău County, an activist was reportedly assaulted by a group of people that included local politicians and officials, while trying to film a private party held by public officials at the time when such gatherings were illegal due to COVID-related restrictions. 29 In another instance, it was reported that two journalists were assaulted at the ruling party's congress in Bucharest when they tried to film it. Reportedly, this happened in the presence of law enforcement personnel, who did not react. 30 27. In its meetings with CSOs and activists, ODIHR also learned about threats and hate speech that many of them reported having experienced on a regular basis. This was particularly true for HRDs working in the field of equality and non-discrimination. 28. Members of LGBTI organizations told ODIHR that they received offensive messages on social media and by email almost daily. Occasionally, they reported threats to the police, but they could not give an example of a successful investigation. For instance, in 2020 and 2021, one of the interviewed organizations reported three episodes of threats and hate speech against its staff to the police. It told 25 The Coalition "NGOs for the Citizen" (2023) The State of Democracy in 2022, May 2023. 26 The Coalition "NGOs for the Citizen" (2022), The State of Democracy in 2021, April 2022. 27 Ibid. See also: “Greenpeace - Journalists in Romania severely beaten during investigation on illegal logging”, 2021 and Zin.ro (2021), Un activist de mediu a fost bătut cu bestialitate de către hoţii de lemne [Environmental Activist Savagely Beaten by Wood Thieves], 14 November 2021. 28 Agerpres (2021), Tăierile ilegale de păduri: Apel în PE pentru o misiune în România și o rezoluție pentru protejarea activiștilor și jurnaliștilor [Illegal Logging: EP Calls for a Mission to Romania and a Resolution to Protect Activists and Journalists], 8 November 2021. 29 Reporterbuzoian.ro (2022), Sentință în dosarul agresiunii de la Vadu Pașii [Sentence in the case of the aggression in Vadu Pașii], 25 October 2022. 30 The Coalition "NGOs for the Citizen" (2021), Solicităm conducerii PNL să ia măsuri pentru protejarea integrității presei [We Ask the PNL Leadership to Take Measures to Protect the Integrity of the Press], 28 September 2021.

10 ODIHR that it had periodically checked the status of those cases, but noted that there was no progress in the investigation. 29. ACCEPT Association, an LGBTI rights organization, reported to have been the target of hate incidents in 2020 and 2021. Those included multiple death threats and, twice, the vandalizing of their offices. 31 One of those attacks took place during daytime, when staff members were in the building. Unknown people painted a swastika and other offensive symbols and words on the wall. According to information available to ODIHR, the police investigations were not concluded by the end of ODIHR’s reporting period. Another LGBTI organization was reported to have received death threats on their social network channels, with references to the Holocaust. On one occasion, the walls of its office were covered with posters showing a man being gassed. 32 30. In April 2021, a death threat against the president of the CNCD was scribbled on a bus stop in the centre of Bucharest. 33 According to the information ODIHR received during the visit, the investigation did not lead to the identification of the perpetrator. 31. Roma rights organizations also told ODIHR about receiving offensive messages on social media and by email. According to one organization working on the rights of Roma women, attacks on their staff were often linked to both their gender and the fact that they were Roma. 34 32. According to several civil society interlocutors, women HRDs were at higher risk of harassment, which was also often gender-specific. A representative of a feminist organization based in Bucharest told ODIHR that she and her colleagues had received many abusive messages, including from public figures. This often happened as a reaction to the organization’s public positions and statements. For example, when the organization publicly defended a female politician who had reportedly been subjected to particularly vile abuse by a male adversary, the latter attacked the executive director of the organization on social media. According to accounts provided to ODIHR, the organization’s staff working with socially and economically disadvantaged women at the grassroots level were also verbally abused, and even threatened, by local officials. In one instance, a public official reportedly threatened a pregnant staff member with beating. The affected activists did not report the incident, for fear of not being able to continue working in those communities. Protection policies and accountability for abuses against HRDs 33. From its assessment visit, ODIHR noted that there were no specific protection measures in place that would provide physical security to HRDs, including journalists, at risk, while broadly ensuring that they were able to carry on with their activities. In Romania, HRDs could benefit, in principle, from the general protection mechanisms available to everyone else, including various support measures 31 News.ro (2020) Accept Association: The Accept mural was vandalized today and a swastika was drawn on it / It is no coincidence that the incident occurs after AUR entered Parliament, 14 December 2020. 32 Violență și discurs al urii împotriva comunității LGBTQ+. Ce s-a întâmplat în ultimele săptămâni [Violence and Hate Speech Against the LGBTQ+ Community. What Has Happened in Recent Weeks?], MozaiQ, 10 August 2022. For similar cases, see also the Council of Europe Report for Romania on Hate Speech, Hate Crimes, and Other Hate-Motivated Incidents Against the LGBTI Community in Romania, January 2023 - https://www.cncd.ro/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Infractiuni- motivate-de-ura-si-alte-incidente-motivate-cu-ura-impotriva-persoanelor-LGBTI-din-Romania-raport-national.pdf. 33 G4Media.ro (2021), Amenințări cu moartea la adresa șefului CNCD Csaba Asztalos, scrise într-o stație de autobuz din centrul Bucureștiului [Death Threats Against CNCD Head Csaba Asztalos, Written at a Bus Stop in Central Bucharest], 9 April 2021. 34 See also: CoE Report for Romania on Hate Speech, Hate Crimes, and Other Hate-Motivated Incidents Against the LGBTI Community in Romania, January 2023.

11 envisaged for victims of crime. According to Ministry of Justice guidelines, 35 victims of crime should, depending on the assessment of the support and protection departments/services, for example, receive information on their rights, psychological counselling, social integration services and direction to other specialized services (social services, medical services, education services). Witness protection measures envisaged in Romanian legislation included integration into a new social environment, professional retraining, and ensuring an income until finding another job. 36 34. Concerning hate crimes, the Romanian Penal Code established that the commission of crimes for reasons related to race, nationality, ethnicity, language, gender, sexual orientation, political opinion or allegiance and a number of other bias motives constituted aggravating circumstances (Article 77) and that incitement to violence, hatred or discrimination was punishable by imprisonment from six months to 3 years, or with a fine (Article 369). 37 At the beginning of 2021, a law came into force to combat so- called "anti-Gypsyism". 38 The law stipulated that verbal or physical manifestations motivated by hatred against Roma, directed against a person belonging to the Roma community or against NGOs working on Roma rights were punishable, including by imprisonment. While human rights organizations generally welcomed this legislation, some civil society interlocutors criticized the use of the term “anti- Gypsyism” in its title as derogatory language re-enforcing stigmatization. 39 ODIHR, instead, uses the term anti-Roma racism to denote the specific form of racism against Roma. 35. Many interviewed civil society representatives expressed concerns over the length of criminal investigations and trials in cases of attacks on HRDs. Moreover, ODIHR heard that HRDs felt discouraged and unprotected because the investigation of even the most high-profile cases of physical violence against them took a long time, and the perpetrators were not always brought to justice. Representatives of the authorities interviewed attributed the slow pace of investigations to the lack of resources. 36. ODIHR heard from civil society interlocutors that hate crimes were one of the biggest problems for HRDs, but was concerned to learn that many human rights organizations and activists had stopped reporting hate crimes to the police because of the lack of trust in the ability of law enforcement institutions to tackle them. Representatives of the CNCD and the People’s Advocate Institution confirmed that hate crimes were underreported. 40 37. In its 2021 submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Anti-Discrimination Coalition provided the following information: “According to the Ministry of Justice not even one person was definitively convicted between 01.01.2018-31.12.2020 [sic] for committing the crime of incitement to hatred or discrimination (Art. 369 Criminal Code) or for crimes under the law prohibiting fascist organizations and symbols (GEO 31/2002). 41 Furthermore, the organization noted that, according to data provided by the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police in 2020, there were 96 reports based on Article 369 of the Criminal Code, of which only ten were sent to the Prosecutor’s Office for 35 Ministry of Justice, Victims’ Rights, updated periodically. 36 Law on witness protection, (Lege nr. 682 din 19 decembrie 2002 (**republicată**) privind protecția martorilor). 37 Penal Code (Lege nr. 286 din 17 iulie 2009 privind Codul penal). 38 Romania, Law no.2 of January 4, 2021 on certain measures to prevent and combat anti-Gypsyism, published in the Official Gazette no.8 of January 5, 2021. 39 See also: Franet National contribution to the Fundamental Rights Report for 2022, Romania, June 2022. 40 See also: US State Department, 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Romania, March 2023; and Council of Europe, Hate Crimes and Other Hate Motivated Incidents against LGBTI people in Romania, National Report, January 2023. 41 Council of Europe, Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers, Supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Communication from Anti-Discrimination Coalition of Romania in the case of M.C. and A.C. v. Romania (application no. 12060/12).

12 investigation; according to the General Prosecutor’s Office, in 2020, 215 hate crimes were to be investigated, and only five were sent to the court. 42 38. According to representatives of NGOs interviewed, several factors contributed to the lack of effective investigations of hate crime. These included the absence of a clear criminal law framework and a single investigation methodology of the General Prosecutor’s Office and the General Inspectorate of the Romanian Police, the lack of centralized data collection on hate crime, inadequate support for victims of hate crime, insufficient training of criminal justice actors (police officers, prosecutors, judges) who interact with victims of hate crimes, and insufficient public awareness. 43 Law enforcement representatives told ODIHR that combating online hate speech was one of the priorities of the police for 2022, and that the police had conducted training for its staff and public information campaigns, in co-operation with other public institutions and NGOs. 39. The CNCD, an autonomous agency in the field of discrimination, did not have legal competence to adjudicate criminal cases involving hate crimes. CNCD representatives told ODIHR, however, that an increasing number of magistrates were voluntarily seeking the CNCD’s opinion in such cases, particularly in cases of anti-Semitism. 40. Overall, while ODIHR identified efforts to protect HRDs and attain accountability, it also noted serious cases of threats and attacks, including physical attacks, which appeared unaddressed. Enhancing physical protection, taking further measures to prevent attacks, and doing more to ensure the effectiveness of investigations and accountability for abuses remained necessary to improve the situation of HRDs in the country, and should be prioritized by the Romanian authorities. 1.2. Protection from administrative or judicial harassment/arbitrary arrest and detention 41. In the course of its assessment, ODIHR learned that human rights defenders, in particular environmentalists and investigative journalists were frequently targeted with civil lawsuits for libel, including by politicians, public authorities and businesspeople. For example, an environmental activist told ODIHR that, in 2020, he was threatened with a defamation lawsuit from the regional Forestry Authority, after he became involved in action against illegal logging. 42. Other examples from the assessment period included reports from 2021 that one Bucharest district mayor initiated over 20 lawsuits against Libertatea and Newsweek Romania because of their critical reporting on his public procurement activities. 44 While almost all of the cases were ruled in favour of the journalists, whether in first instance or on appeal, 45 some defamation proceedings were still underway as of May 2023. Rise Project, an investigative group, was also the subject of libel lawsuits 42 Ibid. 43 See also: Centre for Legal Resources, An overview on hate crime and hate speech 2021-2022 Romania – country profile, February 2023. 44 Libertatea.ro (2021), Cum arată agenda unor jurnaliști de investigație, cu termenele de judecată în procesele intentate de politicieni [What the Agenda of Some Investigative Journalists Looks Like, with the Trial Deadlines in the Lawsuits Filed by Politicians], 4 November 2021. See also: Center for the Independent Journalism Romania, Case Study SLAPP in Romania, 2023. 45 Libertatea.ro (2021), Anul 2021, încheiat cu trei procese pierdute de primarul PSD Daniel Băluță, pe 17, 20 și 22 decembrie, în fața jurnaliștilor de investigație [The year 2021 Ended with Three Lawsuits Lost by PSD Mayor Daniel Băluță, on December 17, 20 and 22, Against Investigative Journalists’], 31 December 2021; see also: International Press Institute, SLAPPs in Romania: The rise of lawsuits used to threaten the media and free speech (Libertatea), 14 July 2022.

13 brought by political figures. 46 While the first-instance court ruled against the journalists, the cases were being considered by the appeals court at the end of ODIHR’s reporting period. 43. Recorder.ro, an independent media outlet, was also the subject of a defamation lawsuit for its investigative reporting on public procurement, this time brought by two businesspeople. While the case was decided in favour of the plaintiffs in first instance, that decision was reversed on appeal, and the lawsuit was rejected in its entirety. 47 44. In 2023, IRDO became the focal point for the implementation of the EU Commission’s Recommendation 2022/758 on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“strategic lawsuits against public participation” or SLAPPs). 48 45. ODIHR is not suggesting that all defamation lawsuits are baseless, per se, but the Office was provided with credible information that points to the use of defamation legislation for SLAPP suits. HRDs reported that this became a serious challenge in their work. SLAPP suits essentially aim to exhaust HRDs financially and morally, especially journalists, and prevent them from carrying out their important work, such as covering stories of public interest. Romania should prevent such abuses of judicial proceedings, through law and training for judges. 1.3. HRDs in the public discourse 46. Several representatives of CSOs told ODIHR about being publicly smeared, including by political or public figures. According to them, smear campaigns against human rights NGOs and anti-corruption activists peaked in 2017-2018, when civil society was calling for judicial reform, but have not stopped since. 47. According to reports received by ODIHR, in some segments of the media, NGOs were portrayed as being inimical to public interests. For example, when the Mayor of Bucharest proposed partnerships with CSOs, he was accused of working “for his NGO friends and not for the people of Bucharest”. 49 48. HRDs working on reproductive rights, the rights of women and of LGBTI people told ODIHR that they consistently faced hostile commentary from faith-based groups, certain segments of the media, including mainstream news television channels, politicians and public figures. 50 For instance, in the context of the Parliament’s debates about sex education in public schools, NGOs and human rights activists were depicted by some media and political figures as trying to “steal children’s innocence” and “corrupt them towards homosexuality” or “promote the so-called ‘gender ideology’”. 51 46 Riseproject.ro (2021), 4 milioane plus 4 mii de euro. Ramona Mănescu obține daune morale de la RISE pentru prezentarea „defăimătoare” a unor fapte pe care nu le contestă [4 Million Plus 4 Thousand Euros. Ramona Mănescu Wins Moral Damages from RISE for the “Defamatory” Presentation of Facts that She Does Not Dispute], 2 April 2021; and G4media.ro (2021), Tribunalul București obligă RISE Project să șteargă articolele despre Streinu-Cercel. Decizia nu este definitivă [The Bucharest Court Forces RISE Project to Delete Articles about Streinu-Cercel. The Decision Is Not Final], 28 May 2021. 47 Libertarea.ro (2021), Recorder a câștigat apelul după ce fusese obligat de prima instanță să șteargă un articol de pe site [Recorder Won the Appeal after Being Forced in the First Instance to Delete an Article from the Site], 18 October 2021. 48 See: https://irdo.ro/SLAPP.php?idpagina=310. 49 Evenimentul Zilei (2021), Nicușor Dan lucrează pentru prietenii lui, nu pentru bucureșteni [Nicușor Dan Works for His Friends, Not for Bucharest], 31 March 2021. 50 See also: The Coalition "NGOs for the Citizen", The State of Democracy in 2022, 10 May 2023. 51 B1TV (2021) George Simion (AUR): Sunt ONG-uri care încearcă să le spună copiilor cât de normal e să îți alegi singur sexul. Se încearcă introducerea acestui gen de propagandă și pe cale oficială [George Simion (AUR): There are NGOs that try to tell children how normal it is to choose your own sex. They Are Trying to Introduce This Kind of Propaganda Through

14 49. Civil society interlocutors expressed concern that some media, including some of the most viewed television stations, indulged in hateful and discriminatory speech attacking human rights activists. Such concerns were also documented in a 2021 report by the Center for Independent Journalism (CIJ), which showed that hate speech and discriminatory discourse were on the rise in both national and local mass media. 52 50. At the same time, some media were targeted themselves for their reporting on anti-Semitic, homophobic, and sexist statements and views voiced by politicians. 53 A populist right-wing political party urged its voters to blacklist such media outlets and journalists, branding them as “the most toxic and false media”. 54 This rhetoric was condemned by NGOs and media as being capable of inciting physical violence against the targeted journalists. 55 51. While HRDs should not be immune to legitimate criticism, ODIHR is concerned about reports of disparaging and smearing rhetoric used against them, especially when used by political actors and public figures, as described by civil society sources and ODIHR interlocutors. Such rhetoric has the potential to create an atmosphere that provokes further verbal attacks and harassment, or even physical attacks, thereby putting the safety of HRDs at risk. Condemning and countering smear campaigns should be a priority for Romania in its efforts for the protection of HRDs. II. Other aspects of a safe and enabling environment conducive to human rights work 2.1. Freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of the media 52. The various accounts of attacks, threats and intimidation, as well as legal harassment, that ODIHR obtained during its assessment visit and which are documented in previous sections, also raised concerns about a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of opinion and expression by HRDs, including investigative journalists. While independent journalists and media freedom NGOs whom ODIHR had interviewed concurred that journalists otherwise largely enjoyed freedom of expression and were generally free to cover any topics, they noted that independent journalism also faced pressure from media owners linked to political interests, parties, the government and local authorities or businesspeople. 56 Reportedly, this also led to situations of self-censorship. 57 Official Channels as Well.], 28 July 2021. See also: Europa Liberă (2022), Vot cu scandal în Parlamentul României. Educația sexuală în școli, doar cu acordul părinților [Scandalous vote in the Romanian Parliament. Sex education in schools, only with parental consent], 21 June 2022. 52 Center for Independent Journalism (CJI) (2021), Discursul iliberal în România anului de excepție 2020 [Illiberal Discourse in Romania in 2020 the Year of Exception], March 2021. 53 Centre for Independent Journalism (CJI), Open letter, Five organizations condemn AUR's hate speech against the Romanian press, January 2022. 54 Libertatea.ro (2022), DERAPAJ. AUR face o listă neagră cu „cele mai toxice și false organe de presă” și începe cu G4 Media. Dan Tăpălagă, în replică: „E incitare la ură împotriva presei” [BACKSLIDING. AUR makes a blacklist of "the most toxic and false media outlets" and starts with G4 Media. Dan Tăpălagă, in response: "It's incitement to hatred against the press"], 26 January 2022. 55 G4media.ro (2022), Active Watch: Derapajul populist al AUR e similar strategiilor partidelor care au pus bazele dictaturilor din secolul trecut/ Invităm partidele și organizațiile să respingă ferm ”listele negre” [Active Watch: AUR's populist slide is similar to the strategies of the parties that laid the foundations of dictatorships in the last century / We invite parties and organizations to firmly reject "blacklists"], 26 January 2022. 56 For reports of legal harassment of critical journalists by authorities see, for example, Active Watch, Open Letter - DIICOT is repeating its harassment of journalists, January 2022. 57 See also: OECD Public Governance Reviews, Civic Space Review of Romania, 2023.

15 53. In the course of the assessment visit ODIHR noted that, in the absence of a self-regulatory body, Romanian media was regulated almost exclusively through legislation. Insult and calumny were decriminalized in Romania in 2014. Bills have been occasionally introduced in Parliament (without success), however, to re-criminalize defamation and calumny. In 2020, a group of parliamentarians initiated a bill to criminalize “insulting” national symbols. Despite strong criticism from human rights NGOs, 58 the bill was approved by the Senate in September 2020. As of May 2023, the legislative proposal remained on the agenda of the Chamber of Deputies. 59 Access to information of public interest 54. During the visit, ODIHR heard from HRDs who were able to access information of public interest through requests to official bodies, successfully and in a timely manner, including in the context of research and journalistic work. However, several HRDs also reported about shortcomings. Interlocutors noted that some public institutions used data protection regulations as a pretext for refusing to release information, especially, after the adoption of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. ODIHR was also informed of instances when information provided was incomplete or provided in a format that was not suitable for analysis. 55. While the law on free access to public information 60 afforded legal protection for access to information, 61 some civil society representatives interviewed pointed out that the law needed to be updated and improved. For example, the law did not contain a strong guarantee for requesting and obtaining information by electronic communication, but only “if the necessary technical conditions are met” (Art. 7). Moreover, the law did not include effective sanctions against information holders who failed to comply with it, even when they were ordered to release information by a court. In practice, the effectiveness of challenging non-compliance with the law in court was also undermined by the long time – sometimes even years – such proceedings could take. 56. A bill adopted by the Senate in 2020 sought to introduce amendments to the law, in particular, stronger guarantees requiring public institutions to ensure access to information of public interest in electronic, open and automatically processable format, if possible, and a requirement for public institutions to publish a registry of requests received, their responses or, if applicable, reasons for the rejection of requests. At the end of ODIHR’s reporting period, the bill was still with the Chamber of Deputies. 62 57. In June 2022, the Parliament adopted a law implementing the improved Open Data Directive of the EU, 63 opening the path to free or cheap access to high-value datasets (for example, data related to climate or companies and company ownership), which could potentially be useful to civil society, 58 Coalition NGOs for Citizens (2020), Solicităm respingerea proiectului de lege despre „ofensa adusă unor însemne naţionale” [We request the rejection of the draft law on "offense to national symbols"], 7 September 2020. 59 Romanian Parliament, Proiect de Lege pentru completarea Legii nr. 75/1994 privind arborarea drapelului României, intonarea imnului naţional şi folosirea sigiliilor cu stema României de către autorităţile şi instituţiile publice. 60 Law on free access to public information (Lege nr. 544 din 12 octombrie 2001 privind liberul acces la informațiile de interes public). 61 Access Info and Center for Law and Democracy (2020), Global Right to Information Rating, 2020. 62 Romanian Parliament, Legislative proposal for the transparency of information of public interest and facilitating citizens' access by amending and supplementing Law no. 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest (Proiect de Lege pentru transparentizarea informaţiilor de interes public şi uşurarea accesului cetăţenilor prin modificarea şi completarea Legii nr.544/2001 privind liberul acces la informaţii de interes public), 8 September 2020. 63 Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information. The Open Data Directive replaced the previous EU Public Sector Information Directive (PSI Directive) in 2019 and establishes a set of minimum rules to facilitate the publication and re-use of public government data from public sector bodies for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.

16 including HRDs. 64 Within 60 days of the law’s adoption, the government was supposed to adopt secondary legislation to make the law operational. As of the end of ODIHR’s assessment period, however, that secondary legislation had not been adopted. 58. Access to information of public interest is of vital importance for HRDs to be able to fulfil their functions in a democratic society. Therefore, the importance of public bodies responding to information requests in a timely manner, with complete information and in user-friendly format cannot be underestimated. The legal framework should be further strengthened to facilitate such access to information. Protection of whistle-blowers 59. Regarding whistle-blowers, ODIHR was concerned to learn that, according to various interviewees, reporting corruption was still viewed by many people as a suspicious or negative activity, tantamount to actions of informants during the Communist era. 60. In 2023, Romania completed the transposition, into national legislation, of the EU Directive 2019/1937 of 23 October 2019 “on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law” (the EU Whistleblowers Directive). 65 The previous whistle-blower legislation (introduced in 2004) remained underused. According to a 2021 study, most potential whistle-blowers between 2004 and 2021 did not request this status because they did not see any real benefits to it. 66 During its assessment visit, ODIHR was informed by its interlocutors about some good efforts to set up whistle-blower protection frameworks on the local level. But these still had to be tested once reports of whistle-blowers came in. 67 61. ODIHR is not in a position to provide an in-depth analysis of the situation of whistle-blowers in Romania, but the low number of people who reported cases of corruption might be an indicator of ongoing low trust in the institutional protection they could count on. Hence, it appears that more efforts will be needed in implementing the law and encouraging whistle-blowing in practice. 2.2. Freedom of peaceful assembly 62. In its assessment, ODIHR found that Romania benefitted significantly from an active and vibrant civil society, and exercising freedom of peaceful assembly further strengthened its visibility and effective participation in public affairs. Various interviewees, however, levelled considerable criticism at the legislation governing freedom of peaceful assembly since 1991 68 as offering inadequate protection of this right. Among other things, the law foresaw blanket limitations in terms of time, place and manner of holding assemblies, and did not foresee spontaneous assemblies as a way of peaceful protest. 64 Romania, Law on open data and reutilisation of public sector information (Lege nr. 179 din 9 iunie 2022 privind datele deschise și reutilizarea informațiilor din sectorul public), 9 June 2022. The previous EU PSI Directive was implemented in Romanian legislation by the Law on re-utilisation of public sector information (Lege nr. 109 din 25 aprilie 2007 privind reutilizarea informaţiilor din instituţiile publice), 25 April 2007. 65 Law 361/2022 on the Protection of Whistle-blowers in the Public Interest (Lege nr. 361 din 16 decembrie 2022 privind protecția avertizorilor în interes public), 16 December 2022. 66 Avertizori.ro (2021), Statutul avertizorului de integritate în România [Whistle-blower Status in Romania], October 2021. 67 See also: Coalition “NGOs for Citizens”, The State of Democracy 2022, May 2023; and European Commission, 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Romania, July 2022. 68 Romania, Law on the organization and conduct of public assemblies (Lege nr. 60 din 23 septembrie 1991 privind organizarea și desfășurarea adunărilor publice, republicata), 23 September 1991.

17 Following a campaign by a group of 15 human rights and watchdog NGOs, 69 a bill to amend the current law was passed by the Senate at the end of 2020. Among other elements, the bill included provisions for spontaneous assemblies, assemblies without an organizer, as well as simultaneous assemblies, and removed some of the most serious restrictions concerning the venue of holding peaceful assemblies. 70 At the end of ODIHR’s reporting period, the bill was with the Chamber of Deputies. 63. Freedom of peaceful assembly was severely limited during the COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions on protests and political gatherings remained continuously in place between 10 March 2020 and 8 March 2022, even though restrictions on other types of gatherings in public, such as cultural, sports and religious events, were gradually relaxed. The number of participants in rallies and political gatherings was limited to 50 people indoors and 100 people outdoors; participants were also required to wear facemasks and observe social distancing. 71 These restrictions on civic and political activities were criticized CSOs 72 and the political opposition. 73 64. In August 2021, the organizers of a Pride March in Bucharest were fined RON 7,000 (EUR 1,415) because the event was attended by several thousand participants. 74 In September 2021, the organizers of a Pride March in Cluj-Napoca were also fined RON 2,000 for exceeding the maximum number of participants allowed by the COVID-related restrictions. 75 According to information available to ODIHR, the organizers of the Bucharest Pride challenged the fine in court, and the case was still pending at the end of ODIHR’s reporting period. 65. Another example of fines imposed on assembly organizers that was brought to ODIHR’s attention during the assessment was that of a civic group consisting mostly of high-school female students who organized a protest in front of the Bucharest School Inspectorate, in June 2022, to draw attention to the issue of sexual harassment in schools. Although the organizers reportedly notified the authorities about the assembly in accordance with the law, illegally parked cars occupied the allotted space. As a result, the participants were forced to spill over onto the street, which reportedly triggered an aggressive response, including verbal and physical harassment of the protesters by the Gendarmerie. Later, the organizers received fines for not remaining in the allocated location and for blocking the street. 76 69 Coalition NGOs for Citizens (2020), Legea adunărilor publice armonizată cu Constituția – propunere legislativă promovată de 15 organizații neguvernamentale [Public Assembly Law Harmonized with the Constitution – Legislative Proposal Promoted by 15 Non-governmental Organizations], 11 June 2020. 70 See: https://www.senat.ro/legis/PDF/2020/20L565FG.PDF?nocache=true. 71 Europa Liberă (2021), Scandal între comunitatea LGBTI+ și Primăria Capitalei. După 15 ani, parada PRIDE nu este autorizată [Scandal between the LGBTI+ community and the City Hall. After 15 years, the PRIDE parade has not been authorized], 6 August 2021. 72 See also: Coalition NGOs for Citizens (2021), Măsurile de relaxare ignoră în continuare condițiile de organizare și desfășurare a adunărilor publice [Relaxation Measures Still Ignore the Conditions for Organizing and Holding Public Gatherings], 12 June 2021, and Știri.ong (2021), Guvernul menține restricții abuzive în organizarea marșurilor și protestelor pașnice [The Government Maintains Abusive Restrictions on the Organization of Peaceful Marches and Protests], 9 July 2021. 73 Hotnews.ro (2021), PSD atacă în instanță hotârârea de guvern privind măsurile anti-COVID valabile de la 1 august [PSD Challenges in Court the Government Decision on Anti-COVID Measures Valid from 1 August], 29 July 2021. 74 Hotnews.ro (2021), Organizatorul Bucharest Pride 2021, amendat cu 7.000 de lei. La manifestație au participat mii de oameni, deși legea permite 500 [The Organizer of Bucharest Pride 2021 Fined 7,000 Lei. Thousands of People Participated in the Demonstration, Although the Law Allows 500], 14 August 2021. 75 Cluj24.ro (2021), Amendă de 2000 de lei pentru Marșul PRIDE Cluj, al LGBT. ”La Nicula au fost 10.000 de persoane, cum face virusul diferența?” [Fine of 2,000 Lei for the LGBT Pride March in Cluj. "There Were 10,000 People in Nicula, How Does the Virus Make a Difference?], 30 September 2021. 76 The Coalition NGOs for Citizen (2022), Nu protejați hărțuirea sexuală în școli! Solidaritate cu Girl Up România [Don't Protect Sexual Harassment in Schools! Solidarity with Girl Up Romania], 16 June 2022.

18 66. While various HRDs interviewed reported to ODIHR that they were generally able to participate in and organize peaceful assemblies, the authorities should improve the legislation, recognizing spontaneous assemblies and respecting the presumption in favor of the freedom of peaceful assembly. They should broadly ensure that this freedom is enjoyed without undue regulation, where anything not expressly forbidden by law should be presumed to be permissible, and should facilitate peaceful assemblies at the organizer’s preferred venue, insofar as possible. 2.3. Freedom of association / access to funding and resources 67. According to interviews conducted during the visit, the legislation regulating associations and foundations, 77 adopted in 2000 and repeatedly amended, offered a robust legal framework for the functioning of NGOs. Administrative procedures for registering and operating an association or a foundation were simplified by amendments adopted in December 2020. 78 68. Civil society representatives interviewed generally considered the procedure for registration of an association to be affordable and fair. The fee to register an association or foundation was RON 100. For a foundation, the founders needed to make an initial deposit equivalent to 10 minimum wages (in 2023, RON 30,000, or approx. EUR 6,000), but the money was transferred to the foundation after the registration, or returned if the registration was rejected. Registration was conducted by a judge, and, according to statistics provided by the Ministry of Justice, in 2021 the average length of the procedure was 34 days. 69. Civil society interlocutors told ODIHR, however, that complying with various administrative requirements added to the running costs of an NGO, which could be very burdensome for smaller organizations. Additionally, regulations related to anti-money laundering, inflexible labour regulations, and various administrative tasks related to security and safety at work further contributed to the financial and administrative burden, according to the interviewees. 70. ODIHR also learned that accessing funding became increasingly difficult for human rights NGOs. EU funding distributed directly by the European Commission and grants from international private foundations were the main sources of funding for larger organizations, typically based in Bucharest and other larger cities (Timișoara, Iași, Cluj-Napoca, and Brașov). For smaller organizations, however, accessing international funding was more challenging, as it required particular expertise and the knowledge of potential partners. Funding opportunities from local philanthropists were limited, and those donors preferred social causes. 79 According to interlocutors ODIHR interviewed, companies avoided being associated with NGOs that were perceived as critical, for fear of heightened scrutiny from the authorities. At the same time, human rights NGOs were reluctant to seek funding from national public bodies, because they felt that this might compromise their credibility as public watchdogs. 77 Government Ordinance regarding association and foundations (Ordonanță nr. 26 din 30 ianuarie 2000 cu privire la asociații și fundații). 78 Law for the amendment and completion of the Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 on associations and foundations, (Lege nr. 276 din 27 noiembrie 2020 pentru modificarea și completarea Ordonanței Guvernului nr. 26/2000 cu privire la asociații și fundații). 79 See also: US State Department Romania, (2022) Human Rights Report, March 2023 and Front Line Defenders, Romania.

19 2.4. Right to participate in public affairs 71. In the course of its assessment, ODIHR interviewed various HRDs who were involved in decision- making processes, some of whom highlighted good co-operation with the authorities, for example in the initial response to the influx of people seeking temporary protection in Romania in the aftermath of the Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. 72. The law on transparency in decision-making 80 imposed extensive obligations on all public authorities to actively involve citizens and CSOs at all stages of the process when adopting new policies and legislation. This included obligations to subject draft normative acts to public consultation, and to allow people access to administrative decision-making and to the minutes of public meetings. 81 73. While various interlocutors confirmed to ODIHR that they were included in various forms of consultations, some complained that the law was at times implemented in a tokenistic manner and that, in practice, some local authorities ignored its requirements, without consequences. For example, in Bucharest in 2021, reportedly only 4 per cent of the decisions of the General Council of Bucharest were publicly debated before being adopted. 82 74. In March 2022, the Government adopted an emergency ordinance modifying the law on transparency in decision-making, which made it easier for public authorities to take decisions without public consultation. Following a request from CSOs, the People’s Advocate Institution challenged the emergency ordinance in the Constitutional Court. 83 As of May 2023, no ruling had been made. 2.5. Right to private life 75. When it came to various aspects of the right to private life, during the assessment visit, ODIHR’s civil society interviewees mainly expressed concern about the potential negative effect of then-draft legislation, as well as reports of illegal surveillance and disclosure of personal information in individual cases that seemed to have intimidating purpose or effect. 76. In particular, HRDs informed ODIHR of their concerns regarding a set of ten draft “national security” laws prepared by the Government that had been leaked to an independent media outlet in May 2022. 84 Civil society vehemently criticized the bills for giving extended powers to structures such as the intelligence services, while effectively putting them outside civilian control. 85 80 Law on transparency in decision-making (Legea nr. 52 din 21 ianuarie 2003 (republicată) privind transparența decizională în administrația publică). 81 Ibid. 82 Multe calcule, rezultate puține [Many Calculations, Few Results], CeRe, 14 December 2021. 83 Coalition NGOs for Citizens (2021), Legea transparenței decizionale modificată complet netransparent. Sub pretextul urgenței, orice decizie va putea fi luată fără informarea și consultarea publicului [The decision-making transparency law amended completely non-transparently. Under the pretext of emergency, any decision can be made without informing and consulting the public], 4 March 2021. 84 G4Media.ro (2022), Legile Securitatii [Security Laws], June 2022. The full drafts of the laws were published on 3 June at: https://www.g4media.ro/exclusiv-g4media-publica-integral-cele-10-proiecte-de-legi-ale-securitatii-nationale- documente.html. 85 The Coalition NGOs for Citizen (2022), Romanian Military Republic: impunity and increased powers for SRI, 31 May 2022.

20 77. The draft Cybersecurity Law, 86 in particular, was flagged to ODIHR. The bill envisaged an obligation of natural and legal persons that provide public services or services of public interest to report cybersecurity incidents withing 48 hours to a portal accessible to various agencies, including all intelligence agencies, or face considerable fines. The law was criticized for overbroad and unclear provisions that could make entities such as law firms or media outlets liable for security vulnerabilities of software or hardware they were using, and potentially require that their work-related information be exposed to actors such as intelligence services. 87 78. Additionally, the bill added to the National Security Law 88 a provision identifying propaganda and disinformation campaigns in cyberspace that are likely to affect the constitutional order as threats to national security, without defining what would constitute such propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Apart from having a chilling effect on freedom of expression, this provision could negatively affect the work of investigative journalists, for example, through possible exposure to surveillance measures to prevent and counter propaganda. 89 The Cybersecurity Law was adopted after a short consultation period, and came into force on 14 March 2023. 90 In light of concerns raised by HRDs, ODIHR suggests that the Law and its human rights implications continue to be carefully reviewed and assessed by the authorities. Furthermore, strong parliamentary oversight, through the work of committees supervising the work of intelligence services, should be in place to avoid undue interference with the right to private life. 79. In its assessment, ODIHR took note of individual cases of alleged violations of the right to privacy, including reports of possible unlawful surveillance and disclosure of private data, to intimidate and silence journalists and HRDs. In one case highlighted by HRDs, in 2020 an investigative journalist covering rule of law and corruption topics was reportedly subjected to unlawful surveillance, when a private social gathering with his colleague and magistrates was secretly recorded by several individuals, and then published in the media in a manner that reportedly attempted to portray the participants in the gathering as involved in wrongdoing. Although an investigation was launched by the Bucharest Military Prosecutor's Office, it failed to identify all perpetrators, and was subsequently abandoned, leaving the motives for the surveillance undisclosed. 91 80. In another case reported to ODIHR, investigative journalist Emilia Șercan received threats from unknown persons at the beginning of 2022, telling her that private photos taken from her phone would 86 Law on the cybersecurity and defense of Romania, as well as for the amendment and completion of certain normative acts (Lege nr. 58 din 14 martie 2023 privind securitatea și apărarea cibernetică a României, precum și pentru modificarea și completarea unor acte normative). 87 APADOR-CH, Parliament is introducing huge fines and prison sentences for anyone who makes verbal threats against the state’s cybersecurity [Moș Parlament vine cu amenzi uriașe și pușcărie pentru cine amenință cu vorba securitatea cibernetică a statului], December 2022; G4Media.ro The Spanish daily El País: Romania is drafting a bill to revive the denunciation practices from the communist period, June 2022 and ActiveWatch, FreeEx Digest - ediția nr. 2 Controlul și cenzura comunicațiilor digitale [Control and censorship of digital communications], March 2023. 88 Law No. 51 of July 29 1991 on the national security of Romania (as amended in March 2023). 89 Article 14 of the national security law allows interception and recording of electronic communications, and other forms of information gathering involving restrictions on human rights and freedoms, to prevent or counter risks or threats to national security, subject to court authorization. For related human rights concerns of this provision see Coalition “NGOs for Citizens”, The State of Democracy in 2022, 10 May 2023; and ActiveWatch, FreeEx Digest - ediția nr. 2 Controlul și cenzura comunicațiilor digitale [Control and censorship of digital communications], March 2023. 90 See more on criticism of the law: https://edri.org/our-work/new-romanian-cybersecurity-law-in-force-despite-heavy- criticism/ and: https://apti.ro/securitatea-cibernetica-pe%20masa-guvernului-cetatenii-si-persoanele-juridice-si-sub-papucul- serviciilor-si-cu-banii-luati. 91 BIRN (2023): Surveillance States: Monitoring of Journalists Goes Unchecked in Central, South-East Europe, 14 September 2023. The case was opened at the Military Prosecutor’s Office because there were suspicions that soldiers could have been involved, see RFE/RL: Dosar penal în cazul urmăririi unor jurnaliști și magistrați [Criminal case in case of prosecution of journalists and magistrates], 25 February 2020.

21 be published if she did not stop her investigation into high-profile cases of academic fraud and plagiarism. She filed a complaint with the police and submitted screenshots of the messages, which contained the photos. 92 Shortly afterwards, the exact same screenshots were published on a website hosted in the Republic of Moldova, and then quickly shared by many other Moldovan and Romanian websites. 93 The criminal investigation in this case was still ongoing in May 2023, at the end of the ODIHR reporting period. 94 81. HRDs, including journalists, should be able to carry out their important and legitimate work without having to fear data breaches or other violations of their right to private life, let alone fear that details of their private lives would be used for intimidation. Romania should ensure that the right to private life is fully protected and that instances of alleged violations are investigated promptly, effectively and transparently, and that those responsible for violations are brought to justice. III. Recommendations ODIHR offers recommendations to enhance the protection of HRDs and bring measures to promote an enabling environment for HRDs fully in line with OSCE commitments and other international obligations and standards, as elaborated in the ODIHR Guidelines on the Protection of HRDs. The Office stands ready to assist the authorities in implementing these recommendations, and to foster dialogue between the authorities and civil society on the recommendations and their implementation. 1. On the national legal, policy and institutional framework a) Develop a national strategy on human rights, including on the protection of HRDs, meaningfully engaging diverse HRDs and national institutions with mandates to promote and protect human rights in the drafting, implementation and review of the strategy and subsequent action plans (To the Government, in co-operation with civil society and national human rights bodies and institutions); b) Strengthen the role and independence of national institutions for the protection of human rights, in accordance with the Paris Principles on the status of NHRIs, ensure consistent and adequate funding and the efficiency and fairness of the selection procedures for the leadership of these institutions; support their mandates and systematically involve them in consultations and working groups related to human rights (To the Parliament, Government); c) Make maximum use of institutional human rights mandates for the protection of HRDs, and establish a permanent joint working group to improve the co-operation and dialogue among the People’s Advocate Institution, the CNCD, IRDO and the Monitoring Council for the Implementation of the CRPD (To the national human rights bodies and institutions); and d) Strengthen and broaden the scope of the Parliament’s human rights committees, ensuring they co-report on an increased number of human rights topics, including the legislation concerning civic space and the situation of HRDs (To the Parliament). 92 Pressone.ro (2022), Emilia Șercan: “State Authorities Have Orchestrated a Kompromat Operation Against Me. Now They’re Trying to Cover It Up.", 4 April 2022. 93 Committee to Protect Journalists (2022), Romanian Investigative Journalist Emilia Șercan Targeted by Smear Campaign, 8 April 2022 and Reporters Without Borders (2023), Romania: RSF and its partners ask the authorities to accelerate investigation into the threats against a prominent journalist, February 2023. 94 See also: Active Watch. Safety of journalists. Public lynching and kompromat, 20 March, 2023.

22 2. On the physical integrity, liberty and security, and dignity of human rights defenders a) Develop a comprehensive national strategy for the safety of HRDs and journalists that involves all stakeholders, including government authorities and independent institutions, civil society, media organizations and journalists’ unions, promoting a safe and conducive environment for human rights and journalistic work without undue influence or intimidation (To the Government, in co- operation with the civil society); b) Develop, in particular, effective protection policies, programmes and mechanisms to ensure the safety and security of journalists and other at-risk HRDs, including by considering, where appropriate and based on individual risk assessments, a system of temporary physical protection (To the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in consultation with CSOs, including media organizations); c) Ensure prompt, thorough, independent and transparent investigations into cases of threats and attacks targeting HRDs, including gender-specific abuse and attacks on the physical and digital property of CSOs, activists, media outlets and journalists (Principally addressed to law enforcement and prosecutor’s offices); d) Adopt comprehensive measures to prevent threats, attacks and other targeting of HRDs, including by raising awareness of the positive role of HRDs in society, strengthening the promotion of tolerance and non-discrimination, and implementing educational programmes to this end (To the Government); e) Build the capacity of law enforcement officials to more effectively tackle online attacks and threats targeting HRDs (To the Ministry of Internal Affairs); f) Adopt national guidelines for authorities on the protection of HRDs from reprisals on account of their human rights work (To the Government); g) Publicly condemn attacks against HRDs, such as physical violence, verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment (To the Government, high-level public officials); h) Take proactive measures to discourage officials and political actors from making public statements discrediting HRDs and their work, through adopting relevant codes of conduct and implementing awareness-raising and training programmes about the rights of HRDs and their important role in a democratic society; and increase public information and awareness-raising efforts for the promotion of human rights in general (To the Government, Parliament, local assemblies, in co- operation with national human rights bodies and institutions, as well as civil society); i) Address the pattern of physical violence against and intimidation of environmental HRDs and journalists, identifying the root causes of the incidents and tackling them through legislative, policy and institutional reforms, as well as capacity-building (To the Government, in co-operation with civil society); j) Increase the resources and the responsibilities of the Romanian Police, including its units tasked with preventing and combating hate crimes, by offering training, expertise and other support to counter the harassment and attacks against LGBTI activists (To the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in co-operation with civil society); k) Adopt and implement gender-sensitive measures to safeguard the dignity of women HRDs and LGBTI activists who are targeted with gender-specific smear attacks, including online; to this end, proactively counter attempts to marginalize and silence civically active women, and address prejudice and discrimination against LGBTI individuals (To the Government); and l) Adopt and implement measures, including educational programmes that foster tolerance in society, to change attitudes and behaviours that stigmatize and marginalize Roma, migrants and refugees, and persons with disabilities, as well as defenders working on the protection of or belonging to these groups (To the Government).

23 3. On other aspects of a safe and enabling environment conducive to human rights work a) Promote regular dialogue among Parliament, journalists, academia and civil society organizations to foster a mutual understanding of the importance of investigative journalism and free media in a democratic society, and to collaborate on developing effective protection for journalists (To the Parliament); b) Ensure that defamation laws are used against journalists and other media actors only as a last resort, ensuring that any possible interference is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (To the Ministry of Justice, courts); c) Improve legislation on access to information of public interest, as a minimum in accordance with previously considered draft amendments highlighted in this assessment (To the Parliament); d) Strengthen the capacity of state bodies to provide information promptly and efficiently, so that the requests are responded to within the legal deadlines, with sufficient precision and in a user-friendly format (To the Government); e) Raise public awareness about safeguards and mechanisms related to the protection of whistle- blowers (To the Government); f) Adopt improvements to the legislation on freedom of peaceful assembly in line with international human rights obligations and standards outlined in the ODIHR Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (To the Parliament); g) Ensure that administrative and other sanctions envisaged for misconduct by protesters during assemblies are applied in strict conformity with relevant laws, refraining from the imposition of excessive fines as punishment for organizing or participating in peaceful assemblies (To the Government); h) Consider establishing a national fund to support human rights organizations, administrated by an independent operator (To the Government); i) Consider establishing a special fiscal and operational framework for small organizations, with an annual budget under a certain amount, to reduce the administrative burden on their operation (To the Government); j) Consistently provide platforms for the inclusion of civil society in law- and policymaking processes and other initiatives of public interest, in a way that allows genuine and meaningful participation and provides feedback on recommendations and input received (To the Government and relevant decision-making organs); k) Strengthen and increase the transparency of the permanent committees supervising the activity of the intelligence services, and require public transparency reports from intelligence services and relevant governmental bodies regarding surveillance activities, particularly those that may affect HRDs, including journalists (To the Parliament, Government, intelligence services); l) Ensure that the right to freedom of expression and information, including digital communication, and media freedom are respected in law and practice, including through safeguarding against unlawful surveillance and providing adequate safeguards for journalists to protect their sources (To the Government); m) Ensure that the right to private life is fully protected and that instances of alleged violations, such as unlawful surveillance and data breaches, are investigated promptly, effectively and transparently, and that those responsible for violations are brought to justice (To law enforcement, prosecutors); n) Identify and address gaps in the existing legislation pertaining to the overall environment in which HRDs operate, including in relation to freedom of expression, assembly and association, the right to participate in public affairs, and the right to privacy (To the Parliament);

24 o) Consider seeking ODIHR’s legislative support for the review of draft and existing laws relevant to HRDs and their areas of work (To the Parliament); p) Provide oversight of the actions of state authorities pertaining to HRDs to ensure a safe and enabling environment conducive to human rights work (To the Parliament, national human rights bodies and institutions); and q) Follow the status of implementation of the present recommendations (To national human rights bodies and institutions, in co-operation with civil society).