In January 2019, Romania was, like Spain now, at the head of the Presidency of the European Union and the political debate in the country focused, as now also in Spain, on the processing of a law that sought to amnesty political leaders.
On January 11, during a long-awaited visit to Bucharest, the then President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, gave a press conference in which he expressed his resounding rejection by the EU of the process that was underway. “If amnesty is granted, as some in this country expect, it would be a step backwards in the rule of law,” he said.
Yes, Europe is built on compromise, but there can be no concessions on what is essential. […] What is essential would be negatively affected if there was an amnesty,” he added to a question that sought to clarify whether he was reaffirming previous EU statements questioning the path taken by the country.
Previously, the then vice-president of the Commission, Frans Timmermans, had been clear: «If the Commission must be brutal in its evaluation [on the rule of law], it will be. And if we must use other instruments at our disposal, we will do so,” he said, threatening to add Romania to the list of countries investigated for not respecting the rule of law.
The politicians who benefited from the reform that was being processed were many, but mainly one: the leader of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) Liviu Dragnea. With his party then in Government, the considered strong man of the country was not himself at the head of the Executive due to a previous conviction that had disqualified him from doing so.
In addition to the opposition from the EU, a large part of Romanian society opposed the new laws and had already taken to the streets two years earlier against the first steps to exonerate politicians convicted of corruption. Finally, in May 2019, symbolically coinciding with the elections to the European Parliament, a referendum was held with a record participation that overwhelmingly supported (80%) a constitutional reform that blocked the reforms in question.
The day after the vote, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Dragnea and confirmed his sentence of three and a half years in prison for corruption. Specifically, for abuse of power and falsehood related to fictitious hiring when he was president of a regional body. The political leader entered prison hours after the decision of the Supreme Court.
The brake on reforms made it easier for the European Union last year to end 15 years of special surveillance on the situation of the rule of law in Romania.
In the case of Spain, the European authorities have not ruled on the eventual approval of an amnesty law. He did show his concern months ago when, with the same political intention with which the door to amnesty is now being opened, sedition was eliminated and the crime of embezzlement was softened, the two that were imposed in the sentences of the process.
On a visit to Spain in February, the head of the delegation of the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control committee, Monika Hohlmeier, asked that the reform not exempt anyone from convictions for corruption. «There can be no exception for any assumption that commits corruption. […] we have asked to be guaranteed that the Penal Code against fraud and corruption does not have any preferential treatment with anyone,” she said.
In the process, the main crime of sedition was accompanied in some cases by embezzlement, a criminal offense that is included in the list of corruption crimes. In the European order against former president Carles Puigdemont, the Supreme Court marked the “corruption” box in the form of crimes for which it is claimed. The reason was the misappropriation of public funds in the illegal referendum. In fact, the German authorities even accepted the surrender of the former president to Spain for embezzlement. The Supreme Court did not accept this half-compliance with the European order and preferred to insist on surrender also for sedition. Today this crime no longer exists, while the other, embezzlement, is pending in the negotiations for the investiture.
