Why is Romania succeeding and Bulgaria isn’t?

The answer is hidden precisely in the comparison of the two reports. About Bulgaria it is said that there is a problem with appointments, while the Romania report shows why this is a problem: “Clearly the leadership of those institutions has played an important part in this [battle against corruption], sometimes in the face of strong personal criticism. Hence the emphasis placed on transparent and merit-based selection procedures as a way to provide robust leadership, avoid political interference in senior appointments and support judicial independence”. While the Bulgaria report says: “However, other appointment decisions of the SJC continued to raise concerns about lack of transparency and possible undue influence”. It is noted that clear criteria for appraising appointments are lacking, which is “opening the door to doubts about the objectivity of appointment procedures”.

In addition, the Romanian report says something else, which answers the question why it is working in Romania, and not in Bulgaria: “The 2015 report saw the nomination of a new Chief Prosecutor for the Directorate for Investigation of Organised Crime and Terrorism as an important test case. The procedure was eventually finalised with little controversy: it was characterised by increased transparency and predictability (publication of post, criteria publicly defined, names of candidates published), and benefited from clear cooperation between the Minister of Justice (responsible for choosing the candidate) and the Superior Council of the Magistracy. It therefore provided a good example of how clear and robust procedures, with the full involvement of the key authorities, can be the most important factor in a credible appointment process (although procedures must also be strong enough to cope with a situation where the key institutions are in disagreement)”.