Romania’s Constitutional Court is set to discuss the USR’s report on the Law on the Protection of Whistleblowers in the Public Interest on Wednesday. Originally, the debate was scheduled for September 21.

The USR notified the CCR about this law on the grounds that “the form imposed by the PSD-PNL-UDMR coalition significantly weakens the protection of people who want to reveal violations in public institutions and creates significant obstacles to receiving funds from the PNRR,” writes Agerpres .

In the appeal, four arguments of unconstitutionality are given, including the violation of the obligations taken upon joining the European Union, as well as the lack of clarity and predictability of some provisions.

The EDR believes that the regulatory act contradicts the EU Directive, which it was supposed to transpose – Directive 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and the Council of October 23, 2019 on the protection of persons who report violations of EU legislation. The Directive prohibits, through its transposition into national law, a reduction in the level of protection already afforded to whistleblowers. According to USR, PSD-PNL-UDMR “does just that” — it reduces the protections offered to people who want to report violations.

According to the USR, the Legislative Council also formulated comments and recommendations regarding the vagueness, clarity and predictability of the law, which were “ignored” by the parties in power. The law specifically, directly, clearly and predictably does not provide for Art. 1 paragraph (4) which disclosures of rule violations are not covered by the whistleblower law, the USR states.

“Regarding the provisions of Article 346 of the TFEU, to which the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (4) refer in general, it follows that violations of the rules of public procurement in the spheres of defense and national security cannot be the subject of warnings in the public interest, which the state considers important for national security and, in particular, those related to weapons, ammunition and military materials. The unconstitutionality of the text stems from the fact that in this way it is impossible for the informant to know what interests the state currently considers important for national security or military equipment. Such an example is the purchase of scrap metal as military equipment. With the voted text of the law in front of you, it is impossible to determine whether or not it falls under the definition of a matter important to national security that will not be disclosed by a whistleblower at some point,” the UDR said in a statement submitted to the Central Committee.

The UDR also refers to the violation of the provisions of Art. 15 of the Constitution on the “earned right” theory, arguing that the protection afforded to whistleblowers is reduced to a level lower than the current level provided by Law no. 571/2004 on the protection of personnel from state authorities, state institutions and other units that report violations of the law.

Last but not least, the complaint alleges a violation of the principle of bicameralism, given that the Chamber of Deputies adopted “numerous” amendments that “significantly distorted” the consent expressed by the Senate, for example, the abolition of anonymous reports, the reduction to three sizes of relevant civil fines for reprisals against whistleblowers and establishing a minimum period between the moment of notification and public disclosure.

The Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act targets people who report violations of the law. The project, initiated by the Government, establishes a general framework for the protection of persons who report violations of the law that have taken place or may take place in authorities, state institutions, other legal entities under public law, as well as within the limits of individuals. private law