NATIONAL ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTION OF 4 OCTOBER 1958 TWELFTH LEGISLATURE Registered at the Presidency of the National Assembly on April 11, 2006 INFORMATION REPORT FILED BY THE DELEGATION OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION (1), on monitor

(1) The composition of this Delegation is shown on the reverse of this page.

The National Assembly Delegation for the European Union is composed of: Mr. Pierre Lequiller, President  ; Mr. Jean-Pierre Abelin, Mr. René André, Ms. Elisabeth Guigou, Mr. Christian Philip, Vice-Presidents  ; Mr. François Guillaume, Mr. Jean-Claude Lefort, Secretaries  ; Mr. Alfred Almont, Mr. François Calvet, Ms. Anne-Marie Comparini, Mr. Bernard Deflesselles, Mr. Michel Delebarre, Mr. Bernard Derosier, Mr. Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, Mr. Jacques Floch, Mr. Pierre Forgues, Ms. Arlette Franco, Mr. Daniel Garrigue, Mr. Michel Herbillon, Mr. Marc Laffineur, Mr. Jérôme Lambert, Mr. Edouard Landrain, Mr. Robert Lecou, ​​Mr. Pierre Lellouche, Mr. Guy Lengagne, Mr. Louis-Joseph Manscour, Mr. Thierry Mariani, Mr. Philippe-Armand Martin, Mr. Jacques Myard, Mr. Christian Paul, Mr. Didier Quentin, Mr. André Schneider, Mr. Jean-Marie Sermier, Ms. Irène Tharin, Mr. René-Paul Victoria, Mr. Gérard Voisin.

SUMMARY

_____

Pages

INTRODUCTION 5

I. POLITICALLY SENSITIVE ISSUES HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF REMARKABLE PROGRESS 7

A. Undeniable progress in press freedom and child protection 8

1) A press independent of political power 8

2) Strict adherence to the moratorium on international adoptions 9

B. Very positive developments in the justice and police sectors 10

1) The establishment of an independent judiciary 10

2) Clear signs of the fight against corruption 11

3) Increased effectiveness of border police 13

4) The delicate question of Roma integration 15

II. THE PERSISTENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS SHALL NOT PREVENT ADHERENCE ON JANUARY 1, 2007 17

A. The problems pointed out by the Commission are technical in nature and therefore secondary. 17

1) Public procurement 18

2) Intellectual property 19

3) Industrial pollution 19

4) Veterinary and phytosanitary controls 19

B. Insufficient administrative capacity particularly penalizes Romania 20

1) Low utilization of pre-membership credits 20

2) A risk of being a net contributor to the European Union budget? 21

C. The absurdity of the general safeguard clause 22

1) Postponing accession until 2008 would make no sense . 22

2) The application of sector-specific clauses would not be stigmatizing 24

III. AN EFFORT TO CONTINUE AFTER JOINING 27

A. A vulnerable rural sector 28

B. Risks associated with currency appreciation 30

CONCLUSION 33

WORK OF DELEGATION 35

ANNEXES 39

Appendix 1: Map of Romania 41

Annex 2: List of persons heard by the rapporteur 43

INTRODUCTION

"  Foch, salute! We're family ."

General Henri Mathias Berthelot,

Head of the Allied military mission in Romania, between 1916 and 1918

( during the passage of a Romanian detachment
during the military parade of November 11, 1919 )

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Romania is on the verge of completing its long process of joining the European Union.

Its application was officially submitted in 1995 and negotiations began in 2000. They were concluded in December 2004, and the accession treaty of Bulgaria and Romania was signed by the 25 Heads of State and Government of the Union in April 2005. This treaty should enter into force on 1 January  2007, provided that all Member States have completed their internal ratification procedures before that date and subject to the general safeguard clause, provided for in Article 39 of the Act relating to the conditions of accession, not being adopted by the Council, which would lead to a one-year postponement of Romania's entry into the European Union.

The coming months are therefore crucial. First, because the bill authorizing the ratification of the accession treaty for Bulgaria and Romania is expected to be submitted to the French Parliament. Second, because the European Commission is expected to publish a new follow-up report on the preparedness of these two countries on May 16, 2006. The Commission could then recommend to the Council that the accession of one or the other country be postponed until January 1, 2008.  Finally, regardless of whether a postponement decision has been made, the Commission is expected to present a final assessment in the autumn of 2006, which will determine whether the Commission, as guardian of the treaties, should apply any necessary corrective measures (sectoral safeguard clauses, infringement procedures, or even the freezing of EU funds).

In this context, the Delegation's rapporteur deemed it appropriate to undertake a mission to Romania, which took place from March 5 to 8, 2006. This visit occurred a few weeks after that of Mr. Edouard Balladur, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It also followed a visit by a delegation of four members of parliament led by Mr. Hervé de Charrette.

A previous mission to assess the accession process took place from 1 to 3 December 2003. The debate that followed the presentation of the report ( 1 ) to the Delegation was quite lively, as several members of parliament expressed reservations about the exercise of fundamental freedoms in Romania. Ultimately, the Delegation unanimously voted in favor of accession in 2007, "  while recalling that Romania had a particular need to make an effort in the areas of human rights, freedom of the press, and the fight against corruption  ."

Two years later, it is clear that Romania has been able to respond to the concerns long expressed by member states and community institutions.

Significant progress has been made in the area of ​​fundamental freedoms and the mere persistence of administrative problems cannot prevent accession from 1 January  2007, while knowing that this date is only a step and that Romania will have to face a considerable economic shock.

I. POLITICALLY SENSITIVE ISSUES HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF REMARKABLE PROGRESS

In June 1993, the Copenhagen European Council defined the political criteria that candidate countries for accession to the European Union must meet: they must have achieved institutional stability guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities.

For several years, the European Commission's monitoring reports have concluded that Romania meets the political criteria for accession . This overall assessment, however, was accompanied by serious reservations until the latest report, published at the end of October 2005. This recent document states that "  overall, Romania has achieved a satisfactory level of compliance with the requirements of the European Union  " and adds that "  it has taken significant steps to address certain problems related to the political criteria presented in the 2004 report as requiring improvement, such as judicial reform and independence, greater freedom for the media, new legislation on property restitution, a general improvement in the situation of minorities, and child protection  ."

Indeed, we can first observe that the legislative and presidential elections of November-December 2004 led to a genuine political alternation, with the arrival in power of a coalition led by the liberals (PNL) and the democrats (PD).

It is particularly important to emphasize that undeniable progress has been unanimously recognized in the areas of press freedom and child protection. Similarly, very positive developments have been recorded regarding judicial reform and the fight against corruption, the effectiveness of border police, and the integration of Roma people .

These advances are attributable to the Romanian authorities' desire to join the European Union as quickly and smoothly as possible. They can also be credited to the work of the European Commission, which certainly displayed some zeal in monitoring Romania's (and Bulgaria's) accession process, but which, in doing so, also helped the Romanian administration identify problem areas and improve its discipline.

A. Undeniable progress in press freedom and child protection

During the examination of the Delegation's previous report on Romania in March 2004, the criticisms leveled against the country focused heavily on these two themes. Indeed, physical violence and harassment of journalists were still being denounced by the European Commission and non-governmental organizations. Regarding the issue of the adoption of Romanian children, Baroness Emma Nicholson of Winterbourne, who was then responsible for monitoring Romania's accession within the European Parliament, had just denounced the failure to respect the moratorium on international adoptions.

Today, in both of these areas, Romania has been able to implement the appropriate measures.

1) A press independent of political power

The European Commission's latest monitoring report notes that "  the general pressure on the media has eased and newspapers are becoming less politicized  ." The head of the Commission delegation in Bucharest, Jonathan Scheele, confirmed to the rapporteur that physical violence had ceased and that newspapers' editorial lines were influenced far more by the businesspeople who financed them than by political authorities. A meeting with a satirical journalist and several representatives of non-governmental organizations further supported this assessment.

2) Strict adherence to the moratorium on international adoptions

New legislation on children's rights and adoption came into force in January 2005. From now on, international adoption is strictly reserved for members of the child's family, in order to avoid the commercial abuses seen in the past.

Romania's firm stance makes it much more difficult for some twenty French families to finalize their adoption applications. Six of them have already had their files rejected by the Romanian adoption office in November 2005. One application was successful, but the adoptive mother, a Franco-Romanian national, completed the adoption as a resident of Romania. Generally speaking, domestic adoption is encouraged, and more than 1,000 children have been adopted by Romanian families in recent months.

Another particularly encouraging development deserves to be noted. In this country, where the number of children abandoned at birth had a worrying tendency to approach 4,500 to 5,000 per year, only 1,141 abandonments were recorded in 2005.

While the European Commission notes that "  living conditions have improved significantly and are generally acceptable  " in institutions for children, the situation in institutions for adults with disabilities and psychiatric clinics remains difficult. Mr. Vlad Iliescu, State Secretary for European Integration at the Ministry of Health, informed the rapporteur that the Romanian government was fully aware of this problem, which requires the mobilization of substantial financial resources, given the dilapidated state of the infrastructure. He nevertheless assured him that this issue would be his ministry's top priority after accession.

B. Very positive developments in the justice and police sectors

If there is one area in which the European Union expected a commitment to genuine reform, it is undoubtedly that of justice and its corollary, the fight against corruption. It can be said that Romania has met this expectation by laying the foundations for an independent judiciary. Furthermore, it has strengthened the effectiveness of its border police and demonstrated goodwill in its cooperation in the fight against crime.

1) The establishment of an independent judiciary

New legislation adopted in the summer of 2005 guarantees the personal and institutional independence of magistrates, whose numbers, between 6,000 and 7,000 judges, are of the same order as those found in France, for a population three times smaller than that of our country.

Independence has been extended to public prosecutors, given that they alone are in charge of prosecutions in a judicial system that does not include investigating judges.

To ensure these laws do not remain a dead letter, the Minister of Justice, Ms. Monica Macovei, is pursuing a very proactive policy. New judges and prosecutors have been recruited through competitive examinations, while an age limit of sixty has been established to remove the most senior magistrates, whose training and integrity sometimes leave much to be desired. To reduce the risk of corruption, a computerized system for randomly assigning cases to judges has also been introduced.

These efforts are expected to continue over the long term, as the 2006 justice budget represents a 12% increase compared to the revised 2005 budget. Furthermore, Romania has reached an agreement with the World Bank to secure a loan of €110 million for the renovation and equipping of court buildings.

The system is certainly not perfect—in France either, for that matter—and it is particularly important to reduce the length of trial hearings, which can stretch over an entire year, since the court uses this time to review the entire case file. Nevertheless, it is clear that the reforms are beginning to have an effect, as illustrated by the new directions in the fight against high-level corruption.

2) Clear signs of the fight against corruption

During the rapporteur's stay in Bucharest, Romanian political life was dominated by the debate in the Chamber of Deputies concerning authorization to search the home of the Speaker of the Chamber —Mr. Adrian Nastase, former Prime Minister—whom the courts accused of having had the building constructed at an undervalued price and, in exchange, of having appointed the site manager to a senior position within the Ministry of Public Works. The vote that followed this debate resulted in the rejection of the search request, but only after a public and transparent debate that received extensive coverage in the Romanian press. Furthermore, as soon as the results of the vote were known, the Romanian judiciary announced that the investigation would continue. A few days later, on March 16, 2006, Mr. Adrian Nastase was forced to resign from his positions as Speaker of the Chamber and Executive Chairman of the Social Democratic Party (PSD).

This case is indicative of the profound change that has taken place in Romania , which no longer hesitates to call into question the highest political officials .

Mr. Nastase's case is not an isolated one. Former Minister of Industry, Mr. Dan Ioan Popescu, was recently summoned by the Public Prosecutor's Office. Investigations also concern members of the ruling coalition: Mr. George Copos, Deputy Prime Minister in charge of SMEs and the business community, and even the current Prime Minister, Mr. Calin Popescu-Tariceanu, are among those targeted.

In its October 2005 report, the European Commission welcomed the recent adoption of new laws concerning both the lifting of immunity for former ministers and the asset declarations of elected officials, but it stressed the priority to be given to the "  rigorous  " implementation of the legislation. This message has clearly been heeded by the Romanian authorities. Civil society also knows how to use the new tools established by law, as illustrated by the press campaign that followed the mandatory online publication of elected officials' asset declarations. One of the most sensational aspects of this campaign concerned the "inheritance" of one million euros bequeathed to Mr. Adrian Nastase by his elderly aunt Tamara, who, according to journalists' investigations, received only a very modest pension during her lifetime.

The main institution responsible for prosecuting corruption cases is the National Anti-Corruption Department (DNA), which now reports to the Public Prosecutor's Office and, in accordance with the wishes expressed by the European Commission, has demonstrated "  its full capacity to effectively handle politically sensitive corruption cases at the highest level  ." Apart from cases involving politicians, the DNA, which only deals with the most serious offenses (those involving sums exceeding €10,000), brought 64 people to trial in the months following the publication of the last monitoring report (between September 30, 2005, and February 7, 2006). Among those charged were three judges from the Bucharest court.

Unfortunately, corruption exists at all levels of Romanian society. According to the NGO Transparency International , whose rapporteur met with the representative in Romania, this country would rank 85th in the world with a corruption perception index of 3 in 2005 ( 2 ) , that is to say a ratio which would place it in last position in the European Union, behind Bulgaria (another candidate country, whose index is assessed at 4), but ultimately very close to Poland, credited with an index of 3.4.

Even though this type of ranking established by an NGO must be handled with great care, it reflects a difficulty recognized by everyone in Romania and which is largely explained by the low wages received, particularly by public sector employees.

However, efforts are being made to combat this scourge, particularly against customs and border police personnel, who are subject to integrity tests and unannounced checks (in 2005, for example, 41 border police officers were brought to justice for corruption).

3) Increased effectiveness of border police

After its accession, Romania will have to monitor an external border of the European Union which - with regard to the land border - concerns Ukraine, Moldova, as well as Serbia and Montenegro.

In 2003, the rapporteur had highlighted the shortcomings of Romanian preparation in this area, in particular the lack of personnel and material resources.

Two years later, information transmitted by the Romanian authorities, the representative of the Commission in Bucharest, as well as by French police and gendarmerie officials participating in bilateral or multilateral cooperation actions ( 3 ) , converge to note clear improvements.

Vacancies within the border police are now limited (87.6% of the staff are filled at the future external border of the European Union) and the recruitments planned for 2006 should fill most of the vacancies.

Regarding material resources, the Commission expressed concern in its last report about the lack of a decision in the renegotiation of the agreement signed in August 2004 with EADS. Finally, a solution was reached in November 2005, which should allow for the installation of a communication system covering all border departments. According to the information gathered, border control with Moldova appears satisfactory, and Romania has already passed provisions imposing a visa requirement for Moldovan nationals as of January 1, 2007  , which represents a significant effort, given the close ties between the populations living on both sides of the border.

However, difficulties have been reported at border crossings with Hungary, where the pressure of migration flows towards Europe is intense, and where the increased number of checks reduces their effectiveness. While it's true that Hungary is not a member of the Schengen system, Austria's control of the Schengen border also appears to raise some concerns.

In general, these observations reinforce the rapporteur's criticism of the Schengen system , which confuses freedom of movement with the absence of internal controls and whose centralisation complicates the task of the police services.

Romania, however, is considering joining the Schengen system by 2009-2010. This prospect, and even before that, the country's accession to the European Union, should lead us to consider the potential impact of these events on Romanian crime in France . In this regard, it is worth recalling that the number of arrests of Romanian nationals on French territory doubled after the abolition of visas on January 1, 2002 .

The views expressed by the rapporteur's interlocutors on the consequences of accession are nevertheless diverse. Those who believe that crime is likely to increase point in particular to the easing of exit controls from Romania and the greater difficulty in carrying out deportations of EU citizens.

It therefore seems necessary to further develop our police cooperation with the Romanian authorities, who are already proving to be  extremely cooperative  . The Romanian Embassy in France, for example, is very willing, which partly explains why Romanians were the nationality most frequently deported from our country in 2005 (3,511 deportations of Romanians, representing a 38.5% increase compared to 2004). Some of these offenders arrested on our territory are Roma of Romanian nationality.

4) The delicate issue of Roma integration

Officially numbering 535,000 according to the last census in 2002, the Roma of Romania could in fact represent 3,000,000 people, according to Ms. Mariea Ionescu, President of the National Agency for the Integration of Roma.

This population has never truly been able to integrate. Subjected to a status of slavery until 1864, their situation remained largely unchanged after that date until the Second World War, when the pro-Nazi government of Ion Antonescu carried out a mass deportation of Roma to Transnistria, resulting in the deaths of 35,000 of them. Subsequently, the communist regime pursued a policy of forced assimilation, aimed in particular at settling them in permanent communities.

Even today, Roma people stand out from the rest of the Romanian population, less by the use of a specific language or by religion (they usually speak Romanian and are predominantly Orthodox) than by their standard of living: 75% of Roma live below the poverty line and 52% are even in extreme poverty (for the Romanian population as a whole, these rates are 24% and 9% respectively). They also differ in their marriage practices, since 35% of women marry before the age of 16 and, sometimes, before even reaching the age of 10 ( 4 ) .

As part of the accession negotiations, the European Union placed great emphasis on the protection and integration of the Roma minority. A strategy to improve the situation of the Roma was therefore adopted in 2001, and the National Agency for Roma Integration is responsible for the planning, coordination, and monitoring of the measures related to this ten-year strategy.

Despite its relatively recent adoption, this strategy is beginning to have an impact. The European Commission notes that "  positive progress has been made in improving Roma access to education and healthcare  ." Similarly, the advisory opinion adopted on November 24, 2005, by the Council of Europe observes that these measures "  are beginning to gradually produce effects in various sectors—housing, employment, health, and vocational training  ."

It should be added that the Roma minority benefits from representation in Parliament (five deputies) and that, in recent weeks, five Roma police officers have been recruited by the Ministry of the Interior, in an attempt to establish better communication with this community.

However, the President of the Agency for Roma Integration told the rapporteur that she was not optimistic, regretting that the strategy was primarily funded by community programs, which she saw as insufficient commitment from the Romanian authorities. While a tiny minority of Roma have managed to integrate and another minority live comfortably thanks to profits from crime in what are locally referred to as "parking meter villages" (a reference to the source of the funds), it must be acknowledged that the majority remain marginalized and victims of social exclusion. Hit hard by unemployment, sometimes living in veritable slums, and with limited access to healthcare, they are often subjected to discrimination and racism.

The Roma problem, however, is not specific to Romania. It is in fact a problem common to all the states of the European Union, and France knows from experience that it is not easy to solve.

II. THE PERSISTENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS SHALL NOT PREVENT ADMISSION ON JANUARY 1, 2007

The European Commission's monitoring report highlighted the progress made in respecting political criteria. This positive development was also noted by the European Parliament, which adopted a resolution on 15 December 2005, based on the report by Mr. Pierre Moscovici, welcoming "  the significant progress, particularly in the areas of freedom of expression, justice, the integration of minorities, child protection, the restitution of property and competition policy  ".

It is clear that the main remaining difficulties are essentially administrative in nature, likely to penalize Romania in the first place and not its future partners in the Union, and therefore cannot be used to delay the country's accession.

A. The problems pointed out by the Commission are technical in nature and therefore secondary.

The box below, taken from the Commission's latest report, lists the issues that the   Commission has described as " very concerning ".

"  This includes the area of ​​public procurement under the free movement of goods, as well as the protection of intellectual and industrial property rights in company law . A significant number of aspects remain to be addressed in the agricultural sector , particularly regarding Romania's preparations to establish its paying agencies and implement the integrated administration and control system. Furthermore, in the veterinary field, measures concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and animal by-products (in particular the carcass collection system, the absence of rendering plants, and the ban on certain animal feeds) are relevant, as well as the veterinary control system for the internal market (animal identification and registration, establishment of border inspection posts), measures to control animal diseases, and veterinary public health." Other areas of serious concern include administrative capacity in the field of taxation , particularly the slow pace at which interoperability of IT systems is being implemented ; the urgent need to strengthen institutional structures and financial management and control mechanisms with a view to regional policy and the coordination of structural instruments , as well as industrial pollution and general administrative capacity in the environmental field . Finally, urgent action is required in the areas of justice and home affairs , particularly with regard to preparations for the application of the Schengen acquis and the management of the future external border of the European Union, as well as the fight against fraud and corruption, so that Romania is ready for accession on the envisaged date  .

With the exception of the last point concerning border police and corruption, for which we have already mentioned the favorable developments that have occurred in recent months, it must be admitted that the most serious criticisms appearing in previous reports have disappeared and that only minor issues remain which the Romanian authorities are working to resolve.

One might, moreover, wonder with a certain mischievousness what a Commission report assessing the situation of EU member states over several decades would yield...

1) Public procurement

The community institutions consider that "  administrative procedures and systems for monitoring and controlling public procurement procedures must be thoroughly modernized  ".

Romania has developed an action plan in this area and established a national authority for the regulation and monitoring of public procurement, reporting directly to the Prime Minister. It is expected to soon transpose the two 2004 directives (2004/17 and 2004/18) on public procurement through an emergency ordinance.

2) Intellectual property

In this area, the administrative structures are in place, but overall implementation capacities remain weak. The Commission therefore urgently calls for a strengthening of the fight against piracy and counterfeiting.

An action plan on intellectual and industrial property rights has been in effect since October 2005, and a dedicated service within the Public Prosecutor's Office was established at the High Court of Cassation and Justice in January 2006, comprising ten prosecutors. Similarly, a specialized prosecutor has been appointed in each of the 41 regional public prosecutor's offices.

3) Industrial pollution

The Commission notes that the capacity to grant permits for all industrial installations subject to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive represents a major challenge, since in September 2005, 13 integrated permits had been issued out of the 716 required at the date of accession.

Following this observation, the Romanian government adopted new regulations in November 2005 and recruited staff.

4) Veterinary and phytosanitary controls

On this point, criticism should not be excessive. First, because Romania banned vaccination against African swine fever, in accordance with European requirements, on January 1, 2006.  Second, because this country had the political courage to close 161 animal meat processing plants since September 2005 and 94 milk processing units, representing 23% and 18% respectively of the total number of affected facilities. Finally, Romania, which to date is the European country most affected by the avian influenza outbreak, has demonstrated exemplary efficiency in managing this crisis, as highlighted by all its partners.

Ultimately, the difficulties reported in the four aforementioned sectors all stem from the same factor, identified for many years: the inadequacy of Romanian administrative capacities.

B. Insufficient administrative capacity particularly penalizes Romania

Membership in the European Union requires an efficient administration. Firstly, because the approximately 90,000 pages of EU law (plus the 15,000 pages of landmark rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Communities) must be translated and transposed into national law. Secondly—and most importantly—because it is essential to be able to manage EU resources effectively, initially through pre-accession aid and subsequently through structural funds.

For the time being, the assessment made by the European Commission is hardly flattering: "  the civil service still has a long way to go before it can be described as apolitical and professional  ."

This overall assessment certainly warrants some qualification. The head of the Commission delegation in Bucharest, for example, expressed to the rapporteur his positive view of the local administration. Significant differences also exist between ministries at the central level. Furthermore, accession may raise concerns about the potential departure of some of the best civil servants to positions reserved for them within the EU institutions.

The main risk, however, remains the impossibility of using all of the community funds.

1) Low consumption of pre-membership credits

In this pre-accession phase, Romania already receives resources from three instruments: the Phare program (institutional aid), the Sapard program (agricultural and rural development) and the ISPA program (infrastructure in the fields of environment and transport).

For 2006, the total amount of the EU budget for Romania is €1.155 billion . However, it is certain that not all of this money can be used.

In 2005, the utilization rate of Phare loans reached 80%, but this ratio was only 20% for Sapard and just 14% for ISPA . Regarding Sapard , the shortcomings are not solely attributable to the administrative sector: a portion of the loans can only be granted if the beneficiary farmer contributes at least 50% of the project financing, which is hampered by difficulties in accessing bank loans (only 3% of loans granted by private banks are allocated to agriculture).

2) A risk of being a net contributor to the European Union budget?

As a member state of the European Union, Romania is expected to receive approximately €31 billion in EU funds for the period 2007-2013, or more than €4 billion per year . Furthermore, in its first year of accession, it is expected to contribute nearly €1 billion to the EU budget.

In principle, the financial outcome of accession should therefore be largely positive for Romania. However, difficulties in absorbing pre-accession funds raise concerns about a much less favorable outcome, and there is even talk of Romania becoming a net contributor to the Union's budget in 2007.

This risk should not be exaggerated, even if it is true that the Romanian administration, preoccupied with completing the accession procedure, does not seem to be preparing enough projects for the use of structural funds.

Progress has nevertheless been noticeable in recent months. For example, the administrative capacity of the Payments and Intervention Agency, responsible for managing EU funds allocated to agriculture, has increased significantly: from 16 employees in January 2005, it rose to 1,047 in February 2006, and a staff of 3,900 is expected by the end of the year. Under these circumstances, Mr. Dacian Ciolos, advisor to the Minister of Agriculture, was able to assure the rapporteur that Romania would be as ready upon its accession as Poland or Hungary were in 2004. Most importantly, it should be noted that the head of the European Commission delegation in Bucharest, Mr. Jonathan Scheele, indicated that his opinion on Romania's capacity to utilize structural funds was much more positive today than in the October 2005 follow-up report, even though some challenges remain.

C. The absurdity of the general safeguard clause

The accession treaty—specifically Articles 36 to 42 of the Act relating to the conditions of accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union—provides for a series of safeguard measures. The most stringent, authorizing the Commission to propose to the Council a postponement of accession until 1 January  2008, appears unnecessary in practice. However, the application of sectoral safeguard measures cannot be ruled out a priori .

1) Postponing accession until 2008 would make no sense

If it becomes clear that the state of preparations for the adoption and implementation of the acquis is such that there is a serious risk that Romania (or Bulgaria) is manifestly not ready to meet the requirements of accession in the areas of competition policy and justice and home affairs, the Council may decide to postpone accession for one year.

At least that is what the accession treaty stipulates.

However, several reasons make the implementation of this provision unlikely.

First, it is important to remember that the Heads of State and Government have already expressed their support for accession by signing the accession treaty, and that several states have already ratified it. The political decision has therefore been made. It is unclear why the Commission, which is ultimately just a secretariat, would propose delaying accession for mere technical reasons. Moreover, it risks having its recommendation ignored by the states and thereby losing credibility.

Secondly, it would be difficult to justify a postponement, which in any case cannot exceed one year, by citing shortcomings in administrative capacity. This type of problem can only be resolved over several years, as the founding states of the European Community know, having granted themselves many years to complete their adaptation to the new Community context.

Finally, Romania's entry into the Union responds to a historical dynamic, which cannot be subordinated to technical difficulties.

The Commission's representative in Bucharest also acknowledged that the Commission had never seriously considered using this instrument, which was primarily designed as a means of maintaining pressure on the Romanian authorities.

This is probably also how the provision in the accession treaty that makes the application of the general safeguard clause easier against Romania than against Bulgaria should be interpreted today. It must be remembered that this far-reaching measure could only be applied to Bulgaria if the Council were unanimous, whereas a qualified majority would suffice to delay Romania's accession by one year. This difference in treatment between the two candidate countries could be justified in the past by Romanian delays. However, given that Romania is now considered a better performer than Bulgaria, this specific voting rule appears inappropriate.

2) The application of sector-specific clauses would not be stigmatizing

Apart from the clause relating to the postponement of accession, the treaty signed in April 2005 contains three sectoral safeguard clauses, allowing the Commission to take measures protecting other Member States against the negative effects of an incomplete implementation of the acquis communautaire during the three years following accession:

-  a general economic safeguard clause , to address serious and persistent difficulties in one or another economic sector in the old or new Member States. It would not be justified;

- a safeguard clause for the internal market , to prevent or remedy any disruption by Bulgaria or Romania to the functioning of the internal market. Such disruptions concern the four freedoms, but also competition, energy, transport, the environment, telecommunications, agriculture, and consumer and health protection (for example, food safety), provided they have cross-border effects. Safeguard measures may lead to the temporary exclusion of a new Member State or its citizens and businesses from the benefits of Union membership in certain specific areas, in order to preserve the integrity of the internal market and prevent any harm to other Member States. Such a safeguard cannot be general; at most, it could be justified in certain sectors.

-  a safeguard clause relating to justice and home affairs , to address serious shortcomings in the area of ​​cooperation in criminal and civil matters, in particular to temporarily suspend the related rights and obligations provided for by the acquis communautaire. It would not be justified.

If the Commission deemed it necessary to activate the safeguard clause for part of the internal market, there would be no cause for concern, as this would be a normal application of EU rules. It is also worth recalling that similar rules exist for Member States and that, for example, France decided to suspend imports of British beef during the "mad cow" crisis.

Romania will undoubtedly be better able to reform and progress as a member of the European Union than as an outsider . Peer pressure and the possibility of infringement proceedings that could lead to judgments before the Court of Justice of the European Communities will provide strong incentives to evolve and address shortcomings.

As an example, the risk that the Commission, as the budget execution body, might refuse to release funds from the Community budget if Romania does not provide the necessary guarantees regarding its ability to spend them correctly, in accordance with the requirements of the common agricultural policy or structural funds, should be an excellent argument for improving administrative capacities in these sectors.

As Mr. Vlad Iliescu, State Secretary for European Integration at the Ministry of Health, pointed out to the rapporteur, the accession procedure can be compared with high-level sport; training is not enough, to give the best of oneself one must participate in the competition.

III. AN EFFORT TO CONTINUE AFTER JOINING

January 1 , 2007 will not be an end, but a simple step in the process of Romania's integration into the European Community.

Since 2004, the Commission has recognized Romania as meeting the criteria for a viable market economy. Positive macroeconomic results have been recorded: GDP growth reached 8.3% in 2004, before falling back to 4% in 2005, partly due to the severe flooding the country experienced. The official unemployment rate is around 6%; inflation has fallen to 8.5% after having exceeded 40% until 2000. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the car manufacturer Dacia , part of the Renault Group , achieved its first profitable year in 2005 after five years of losses, thanks to the commercial success of the "Logan" model launched in September 2004.

However, in 2004, GDP per capita was only 31.3% of the EU-25 average in purchasing power parity. The average monthly salary was reported at €290, but the minimum wage in the textile industry was set at €90. A senior opposition figure confided to the rapporteur that 60% of his and his wife's income went towards their gas bill. It should be noted, however, that the underground economy is estimated at 50% of the official GDP, that demand is supported by remittances from the numerous expatriates in Spain, Italy, and Israel (€3.7 billion in 2005 for the portion passing through the banking system), and that 97% of the population owns their home.

In 2007, Romania will therefore have to show that it is capable of resisting competitive pressures within the European Union.

The 1,100 companies that have so far been unable to be privatized will face significant difficulties. The shock will be particularly severe for the especially vulnerable rural sector. Furthermore, the appreciation of the national currency poses a serious threat to Romania's economic prospects.

A. A vulnerable rural sector

Agriculture employs 37% of the Romanian population. Following the end of collectivization and the restitution of land in the 1990s, there was even an increase in the agricultural population linked to the closure of numerous factories.

Besides its importance in demographic terms, this sector is characterized by the coexistence, on the one hand, of numerous farms (approximately 4.5 million) with an average area of ​​two hectares and which participate in a subsistence economy sometimes ignoring monetary exchanges and, on the other hand, of 23,000 farms covering half of the usable agricultural area, with sizes varying from 400 to 10,000 hectares, or even 50,000 hectares for one of them.

This dual economy will bear the full brunt of the consequences of accession since the customs duties existing today - which can reach rates of 40% - or quotas will be eliminated.

The shock will not only affect micro-farms. Large properties, often managed like the old state farms by "farm managers," mostly suffer from low productivity.

Romania, which is undoubtedly the Central and Eastern European country that has experienced the most agrarian reforms since the end of Ottoman rule ( 5 ) , is trying to face these challenges by constantly seeking to bring about a rural middle class.

To achieve this objective, two main tools are being used. First, a lifetime annuity of €100 per year per hectare is planned for farmers over 60 years of age who own less than 10 hectares and agree to sell their farms to another farmer (the annuity would be half that amount if they rented). Second, €200 million is proposed to be distributed as long-term loans by banks, in order to overcome difficulties in accessing credit and to facilitate the purchase of equipment and livestock (these funds, which are guaranteed by the State, cannot, however, be used to purchase land, except for the purpose of consolidating land belonging to the same family).

Romanian agriculture should also benefit from subsidies linked to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, the actual impact of these subsidies is questionable given the structure of farms in the country. Allocated solely based on land area, they will primarily go to owners of very large farms, with a high probability that they will not be reinvested in agriculture.

Even though the agricultural population is generally older - half are over fifty and a quarter are over sixty-five - it can be assumed that some will be tempted to abandon the land for a better life.

This situation could lead to emigration. Migration is already being observed, particularly to Spain and Italy, generally for temporary stays. It should be noted, in this regard, that during the first two years following accession, Member States will implement national measures, or bilateral agreements, aimed at regulating Romanian workers' access to their labor markets. These provisions may be extended for a maximum period of seven years.

Another alternative would be to employ these rural residents in local businesses. However, Romania's economic attractiveness seems to be hampered by the current appreciation of the leo , the Romanian currency.

B. Risks associated with currency appreciation

Since November 2004, the National Bank of Romania has abandoned its policy of administered depreciation of the leo 's exchange rate in favor of an inflation-targeting policy. This has resulted in a rapid appreciation of the currency, whose exchange rate fell from 4.10 lei ( 6 ) to 1 euro at the end of 2004 to 3.48 lei to 1 euro on March 1, 2006 .

This currency fluctuation, combined with rising energy prices, has led to a loss of external competitiveness for the Romanian economy. Several indicators illustrate this fact:

- the slowdown in industrial production (+ only 2% in 2005) in particular in the textile sector (-16% in this sector alone) where the increase in Chinese and Turkish imports demonstrates the reduction of Romania's comparative advantages;

- the widening of the current account deficit, which amounted to 9.4% of GDP in 2005;

- the observation of the first relocations to Ukraine of certain companies in the IT sector.

Romania nevertheless retains some advantages. The tax reform adopted in January 2005, which aimed to establish a "single rate" of 16% for income tax and corporate tax, contributes to its attractiveness, since this tax rate is significantly lower than the average observed in the European Union for corporate taxation (31.4% in the EU-15 and 27.4% in the EU-25).

While the appreciation of the leo has not yet deterred foreign investors, it is nevertheless important for the Romanian authorities to closely monitor this factor of competitiveness and, moreover, to accelerate infrastructure investment spending. It is certain, for example, that a transversal highway linking Constanta, on the Black Sea, to Oradea or Arad, on the border with Hungary, would greatly promote the country's development.

In general, to deal with the consequences of accession, Romania will have to – in the words of Mr. Vasile Puscas, vice-president of the parliamentary committee for European integration and former chief negotiator – “  overcome a frontier of political mentality, by transforming technical achievements into a general political attitude  ”.

CONCLUSION

"  In major crises, where we know better

the feelings of peoples as well as men, the heart of Romanians

always fought for France, the France whose every reason he had adopted

"The institutions, all the laws ."

Nicolas Iorga

This second mission of the rapporteur to Romania has revealed a very positive development in this country, which is no longer content with action plans or strategies and can point to concrete results, both in the field of political rights and in matters of competition or transposition of the acquis.

Accession on January 1 , 2007 will seal the reunion with a nation which, through culture and geostrategy, unquestionably belongs to Europe .

When Romania submitted its application, France was its most ardent supporter, given its long-standing close ties with the country. The upcoming Francophonie Summit, to be held in Bucharest in September 2006, illustrates the importance of our cultural relations. While French is now second only to French in Romanian education, it is still spoken by a quarter of the population. This underscores the absurdity of the EU requirement that imposed English as the sole language for communication between the Romanian administration and the Commission .

The rapporteur also lodged a strong protest with the Commission Representative in Bucharest. He is requesting that the French government do the same in Brussels.

The close Franco-Romanian relationship also makes it regrettable that France has not yet ratified the accession treaty, while to date fourteen Member States have already completed this procedure ( 7 ) . The rapporteur's interlocutors all deplored what they perceived as a delay.

Our country has nevertheless initiated the ratification process, which is still in its administrative phase, preceding the transmission of the bill to Parliament. We have made the questionable choice of waiting for the publication of the Commission's next report, scheduled for May 16, even though we know that its content will likely be positive, as the President of the Republic reiterated at the last European Council meeting, and that in any case, our political decision is not linked to the conclusions of an administrative document.

It is therefore necessary to urge the French government to bring the bill authorising the ratification of the treaty relating to Romania's accession to be debated in Parliament in May or June 2006. This timetable is technically feasible and politically necessary .

{conclusion text...}

WORK OF THE DELEGATION

The Delegation met on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, under the chairmanship of Mr. Pierre Lequiller, President, to examine this information report.

A debate followed the rapporteur's presentation.

Mr. François Guillaume considered that the case was closed, but made two observations.

The Romanian agricultural sector is very different from the Bulgarian agricultural sector: Romania's agricultural potential places it just behind France and Poland, and its accession therefore risks creating serious disruptions in the common agricultural policy (CAP).

Under Nicolae Ceaușescu's regime, an expansionist policy forcibly encouraged women to have children at a very young age, even making their access to employment contingent upon the birth of their first child. Families had the option of placing their children in orphanages. These children lived there in deplorable conditions, to the point that, upon reaching adulthood, only between a third and half of them were able to lead normal lives outside these institutions. The Romanian authorities had great difficulty abolishing the law that allowed families to separate from their children, and even though the situation has changed somewhat since its abolition, the previous practice seems to persist. Mr. François Guillaume invited the Delegation to refer to the testimony of Mr. François de Combret, president of the SERA association (Solidarity with Abandoned Romanian Children). He expressed his hope that the Delegation's position would address this problem and call for its resolution.

Regarding agriculture, the rapporteur indicated that, for the time being and for several years to come, Romania will not be a serious competitor for France. While Romania was historically the "breadbasket" of Europe, this is no longer the case. The current policy of consolidating farms will take considerable time to reach productivity levels equivalent to those of France. A transitional period is, in fact, provided for in the accession treaty concerning agriculture.

Regarding the issue of children, the situation described by Mr. François Guillaume was true for a very long time, but the progress made is phenomenal, as the number of abandoned children has fallen from 4,000 to 5,000 per year a few years ago to 1,141 in 2005. The work of Baroness Emma Nicholson, former rapporteur for the European Parliament, is commendable. Furthermore, Romania's demographic situation is far from favorable: Romania is experiencing a population decline, as is Germany. It is therefore reasonable to hope that the problem of abandoned children will disappear on its own.

Ms. Anne-Marie Comparini welcomed the progress made by Romania and Bulgaria and stated that a one-year postponement of their accession would undermine their motivation and achieve nothing. However, it is crucial to emphasize that the ratification of the accession treaties in no way implies that the two countries can subsequently relax their efforts. One example, illustrated by the difficulties Estonia has encountered in establishing a border police force, is the need for an effective border police presence, which goes hand in hand with the fight against corruption. Even if the prospect of these countries joining the Schengen Area remains distant, they must recognize that any progress in terms of justice and border policing will benefit everyone.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Dufau, President of the France-Romania Friendship Group in the National Assembly, described the two reports presented as good syntheses of emotion and reason. It is important to emphasize that the ratification of the accession treaties poses no problem for anyone: yet this is the only question being put to French parliamentarians.

Mr. Jean-Pierre Dufau has personally witnessed, since 2002, the rapid progress made in Romania in economic terms and in terms of reforms, and above all, the continuity of the Romanian state in this approach, a unified commitment that transcends political changes during this period. Courageous economic reforms have thus been undertaken for several years. Romanian leaders, across all political persuasions, are unanimously in favor of Romania's accession to the European Union within the established timeframe.

Regarding agriculture, the application of CAP mechanisms will indeed pose problems for these two countries initially. They will have to adapt to European criteria. But it would be beneficial if, at the same time, Europe itself adapted to the realities of agriculture in these two countries and applied its criteria to them gradually. This issue requires further consideration.

Regarding the situation of children, considerable progress has been made, but further advances still need to be made in the social field.

Finally, Mr. Jean-Pierre Dufau stressed that democratization in Romania has led to the emergence, too slow, of civil society, and in particular non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

In response, the rapporteur stated that the training of administrative staff would not end with the signing of the treaty and that Romania, like France, faced certain administrative difficulties that may still persist. He then mentioned the significant progress made over the past two years in Franco-Romanian police and judicial cooperation and welcomed the concrete results achieved. Regarding the effectiveness of border police, he discussed the difficulties inherent in the geographical reality of a 27-member Union. He highlighted the shortcomings of the Schengen system and deplored the rigidities of centralized cooperation. Turning to agriculture, the rapporteur pointed to the social difficulties that could result from rural exodus if the affected populations could not find employment in cities. Romania's accession to the European Union will not be a smooth process.

In concluding the debate, President Pierre Lequiller thanked the rapporteur for the quality of his work. He reiterated that Bulgaria and Romania are friendly countries with which France has long maintained very strong ties. On the political front, he expressed his hope that a clear favorable opinion would be issued regarding their accession to the European Union, while emphasizing the need for significant progress to be made on the issues raised by the rapporteur, particularly in light of the upcoming publication of the European Commission's report. He also requested that the French government submit to Parliament, before the summer, the draft law authorizing the ratification of the accession treaty for these two countries.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1:
Map of Romania

Appendix-1

Appendix 2:
List of persons heard by the rapporteur

Monday ,  March 6, 2006

- Mr. Leonard Orban, Secretary of State at the Ministry of European Integration, Chief Negotiator;

- Ms. Mihaela Blajan, Director for General Affairs of the European Union, and Mr. Cristian Badescu of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

- French foreign trade advisors and several French entrepreneurs;

- Mr. Istvan Jakab, State Secretary for European Integration at the Ministry of Finance;

- Mr. Cyril Dewaleyne, young expert with the delegation of the European Commission;

- Mr. Philippe Boin, commercial advisor and Mr. Georges Duhaupas, customs attaché;

- Ms. Renate Weber, Vice-President of the Foundation for an Open Society;

- Mr. Victor Alistar, president of the Romanian branch of Transparency International  ;

- Ms. Sofia Oprescu, member of the social dialogue group;

- Mr. Sorin Ionita, Executive Director of the Romanian Academic Society;

- Mr. Mircea Toma, editor-in-chief of the satirical weekly Academia Catavencu .

Tuesday ,  March 7, 2006

- Mr. Mircea Geoana, senator, president of the Social Democratic Party and former Minister of Foreign Affairs;

- Mr. Vasile Puscas, Vice-President of the Parliamentary Committee for European Integration;

- Mr. Hugues de Chavagnac, advisor to the President of the Republic of Romania for European affairs;

- Mr. Vlad Iliescu, Secretary of State for European Integration at the Ministry of Health;

- Mr. Dacian Ciolos, advisor to the Minister of Agriculture;

- Mr. Demolins, internal security attaché, Mr. Picard, deputy internal security attaché, Mr. Despres, gendarmerie pre-membership advisor.

Wednesday ,  March 8, 2006

- Mr. Manson, agricultural attaché, Mr. Coroner, technical assistant, Mr. Hamel, agricultural pre-accession advisor;

- Mr. Nicolae Berechet, Secretary General at the Ministry of Administration and the Interior;

- Ms. Mariea Ionescu, president of the national agency for the integration of Roma;

- Mr. Jonathan Scheele, head of the European Commission delegation in Bucharest;

- Ms. Marie Leclair, magistrate, technical assistant at the Ministry of Justice;

- Ms. Monica Macovei, Minister of Justice.

*

* *

The rapporteur thanks Mr. Hervé Bolot, French Ambassador to Bucharest, and all members of the French Embassy for their active assistance in organizing and ensuring the smooth running of his trip to Romania. Annex 1

The rapporteur thanks Mr. Yves Saint-Geours, French Ambassador to Sofia, and all members of the French Embassy, ​​for their active assistance in the organization and smooth running of his trip to Bulgaria.

1 () Information report no. 1480, registered on March 3, 2004.

2 () This index refers to the perceived level of corruption as seen by businesspeople and analysts in the country. It ranges from a score of 10 (high integrity) to a score of 0 (very corrupt).

3 () France has participated in three of the nine PHARE twinning arrangements that have benefited the border police since 2000.

4 () Mariea Ionescu and Sorin Cace: “  Public policies for Roma. Evolution and perspectives  ”, Edition Expert, 2006.

5 () Christian Giordano: “  Agrarian reforms and ethnic tensions in Central and Eastern Europe  ”, Rural Studies No. 159-160, 2001.

6 () Plural of leo . This figure is given taking into account the monetary reform that took place on July 1, 2005 .

7 () Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Slovakia, Latvia, United Kingdom, Portugal and Lithuania.