Why does the Government want to merge ANES with ANITP? What are the real stakes?
Tomorrow in Brussels, Mr. Bolojan will have to explain to the European Commissioners and strategic partners why Romania is violating its obligations regarding gender equality, human trafficking, and protecting victims of domestic violence and other crimes – by dismantling the agencies required by the European Union.
I. Civic Appeal and Public Position
Necuvinte Association, an independent organization with over 10 years of experience in preventing and combating discrimination, abuse, and domestic and gender-based violence, reminds the authorities that efficiency means consolidation and responsibility, not the dismantling of institutions that protect fundamental rights, nor the avoidance of accountability.
Efficiency means empowerment, investment in maintaining the autonomy of both agencies, and clear programs for improving their work and results – never destruction.
Necuvinte Association draws attention that the draft Emergency Ordinance transferring the National Agency Against Trafficking in Persons (ANITP) and the National Agency for Equal Opportunities (ANES) to the Ministry of Labor is a wrong, unconstitutional, and dangerous measure for Romania.
Why?
-
The transfer of four major areas – gender equality, violence against women, trafficking in persons, and victims of crime – to the Ministry of Labor reduces them to a mere “social problem,” ignoring the fact that they fall under justice, criminal law, and national security. This would effectively bury gender equality as a state priority.
-
The direct consequence: victims would no longer have real access to justice, protection, and compensation.
-
Practical consequences could be extremely serious: breakdowns in cooperation between police and the new structures, weakening of victim protection, loss of international credibility, possible infringement procedures, and even blocking Romania’s accession to the OECD.
- The Justice System has the obligation to protect victims of crime; it cannot arbitrarily choose which responsibilities to assume. The Justice system is not a private entity, but a fundamental institution in a democratic state.
-
Domestic violence and trafficking in persons are not the same thing. Although both are severe forms of abuse and violations of fundamental rights, they have different causes, dynamics, and solutions:
– Domestic violence occurs within families or intimate relationships. Victims are abused by partners, spouses, or family members.
-Human trafficking is an organized, transnational crime in which victims (women, men, children) are exploited through coercion, recruitment, transport, and sale. Combating trafficking requires police forces, criminal justice, and international cooperation.
-
Merging the two phenomena under the same policies or institutions weakens the response. Trafficking victims need strong penal measures and cross-border protection. Romania must treat these problems separately, with dedicated policies and autonomous specialized institutions, in line with its international and European obligations.
-
Licensing of social services should not fall under ANES. Other institutions are already tasked with this responsibility. At the same time, there is no other specialized central public authority mandated with drafting and coordinating strategies on gender equality and domestic violence.
-
Budgetary argument is false: instead of savings, staff would receive an additional 700 lei/month net, while the new structure would generate significantly higher costs.
-
Lack of transparency: the documents were published on Friday, September 19, at 14:18 – proof this is a not genuine efficiency process, but an attempt to weaken four strategic domains.
-
The poor quality of the documents shows transparency was merely a box-ticking exercise, under civil society pressure, in a process clouded by questions about anti-rights agendas and political or even private interests behind it.
-
Romania’s Constitution clearly states that Emergency Ordinances can only be adopted in extraordinary situations. Lack of social services or access to EU funds is not an unforeseeable emergency but a structural issue requiring legislation in Parliament. This draft OUG does not meet constitutional standards and risks being declared unconstitutional.
-
The Explanatory Memorandum invokes EU obligations but also states the project “does not refer to this subject.” There is no impact assessment, no real public consultation, and no guarantees for protecting sensitive victim data.
Mr. Minister Manole, we remind you that your ministry is legally obliged to develop, approve, and monitor minimum quality standards for all social services.
The law contains no asterisk allowing the Ministry to shift responsibility by dismantling fundamental state agencies with clearly defined roles, strategic both domestically and in Romania’s positioning before international partners. Before burying rights with such zeal, perhaps it is time to take your legal responsibilities seriously and fulfill the obligations of your ministry, not dismantle institutions under other authorities.
Necuvinte Association calls on the Government to withdraw the draft OUG, strengthen ANES within the Prime Minister’s Chancellery, and reinforce ANITP under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Only by truly empowering and strengthening these two separate agencies can Romania respect its legal and international obligations and effectively protect victims of violence and human trafficking.
II. Legal and Constitutional Argumentation
1.We challenge the very foundation of this initiative – moving victims of crime and trafficking from the sphere of justice and the Ministry of Internal Affairs into the subordination of the Ministry of Labor.
We contest the legal and institutional foundation of the Emergency Ordinance, since the transfer of responsibilities regarding the victims of crimes and human trafficking from the justice and Ministry of Internal Affairs field under the subordination of the Ministry of Labour represents an arbitrary measure, lacking urgency and contrary to national legislation and European obligations. This transfer breaks the logic of the criminal process, contravenes Directive 2011/36/EU and Directive 2012/29/EU, as well as the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, placing Romania at risk of non-compliance and weakening the effective protection of victims.
Through this political decision, Romania creates an artificial separation between criminal and social mechanisms, in contradiction with national legislation and European obligations. The Emergency Ordinance does not demonstrate urgency, but only an administrative and political option, which contravenes Article 115 paragraph (4) of the Constitution.
Arguments from internal law
- Law 678/2001 on preventing and combating human trafficking clearly establishes the central role of law enforcement bodies (MAI, Prosecutor’s Office, DIICOT). Removing ANITP from the MAI undermines the logic of this law, creating a risk of legislative inconsistency.
- The Code of Criminal Procedure: the protection of victims of crimes is integrated into the criminal process. If the agency is no longer under an authority with competences in the field (MAI/Justice), a rupture appears between investigation and protection.
Arguments from EU and international law
- Directive 2011/36/EU (trafficking in human beings): requires Member States to have efficient mechanisms of coordination between criminal investigation and victim protection. The transfer to MMFTSS creates fragmentation and may reduce the capacity to identify and support victims in criminal proceedings.
- Directive 2012/29/EU (victims’ rights): victims must be supported through mechanisms coordinated with judicial and police authorities. An agency under the Ministry of Labour no longer has direct access to judicial and operative data, representing a risk of non-compliance.
- Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS no.197): imposes an efficient National Rapporteur connected to criminal investigations. The transfer to MMFTSS breaks the direct link with criminal authorities and contravenes the spirit of the convention.
Practical risks and incoherences
- Risk of blockage: police and DIICOT will investigate, but the agency under MMFTSS will be responsible for victim protection. Without direct subordination, data exchange may be delayed or blocked (contrary to the requirements of operability in EU directives).
- Weakening victim protection: victims may no longer benefit from integrated support (legal + social), because institutions will function on parallel lines.
- Loss of international credibility: EU bodies and GRETA require Romania to maintain a solid mechanism under the field of justice. The transfer to MMFTSS could attract critical observations or even infringement procedures.
2.We contest the reasoning behind which this merger is pursued
The need for services is easily solvable by understanding the role that MMFTSS already has under the law. The argument that the destruction of essential agencies for rights is needed in order to create services is senseless and in contradiction with legal provisions.
Law of social assistance no. 292/2011:
- Art. 5 letter r) defines the minimum quality standards as mandatory instruments for the accreditation and monitoring of social services.
- Arts. 118–119 establish that the Ministry of Labour, Family, Youth and Social Solidarity (MMFTSS) has the competence to elaborate, approve and monitor the minimum quality standards for all social services.
Law 197/2012 on ensuring quality in the field of social services explicitly provides:
-
minimum quality standards are approved by order of the Minister of Labour;
-
their implementation is mandatory for all public and private providers.
Placing the responsibility for the lack of services on other government structures creates an extremely dangerous precedent, especially coming from the central authority uniquely responsible for elaborating, approving and monitoring minimum quality standards for all social services.
ANES and ANITP are not social service providers.
Instead, they are:
A.N.E.S. is rapporteur/national contact point towards:
- European Commission – through the High Level Group on Gender Mainstreaming.
- EIGE (European Institute for Gender Equality) – for statistical data and European gender policies.
- UN – CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women) – periodic reports on the implementation of the CEDAW Convention.
- UN – CSW (Commission on the Status of Women) – participation in annual reporting on gender equality.
- Council of Europe – through the Istanbul Convention (prevention and combating domestic violence and violence against women), where ANES has the role of national rapporteur.
A.N.I.T.P. has a security role and reports to:
- European Commission – within the Annual Report of the EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator.
- OSCE – Office of the Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings – where ANITP is the national contact point.
- GRETA (Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings) – body of the Council of Europe monitoring the implementation of the Warsaw Convention (2005)
- SELEC (Southeast European Law Enforcement Center) – data exchange on criminal networks in the region.
- UN – UNODC (Office on Drugs and Crime) – contributions to global reports on trafficking in persons.
- US Department of State – through contributions to the TIP Report (annual report on trafficking in persons).
3.We contest the general legislative technique of the project
Incoherence and flaws of the Explanatory Note
The Explanatory Note is internally contradictory: it invokes European and international obligations as justification for the measure, but states in the sections on compliance with EU legislation and public consultations that the project “does not refer to this subject”. This represents a serious procedural flaw and a violation of Law 24/2000 and of the principles of decision-making transparency.
Law on legislative drafting technique (Law no. 24/2000):
- Obligation of clear and complete motivation for emergency ordinances: what extraordinary situation exists, why it cannot wait, what serious short-term consequences if the OUG is not adopted.
- Decision-making transparency: draft OUGs must be put into public consultation, the responsible ministry must explain all reasons, provide an impact analysis.
Constitutional Court jurisprudence:
- CCR has established in multiple decisions (e.g. no. 68/2017, 421/2007, 255/2005 etc.) that mere time pressure, political opportunity or the need to access funds do not equal an extraordinary situation.
- CCR has also rejected emergency ordinances when the urgency justification is vague, general, not demonstrating a real, imminent and concrete danger.
- CCR has consistently ruled that mere opportunity or “the need to accelerate reforms” do not constitute extraordinary situations (e.g. CCR Decision no. 255/2005, Decision 842/2009, Decision 761/2014).
- The text also invokes the lack of licensed services and the opportunity to access European funds. These are real problems, but structural, foreseeable and long-term, not “extraordinary” situations in the constitutional sense (which presuppose unforeseeable, serious circumstances with absolute urgency – e.g. calamities, health crises, war).
International and European obligations
- Istanbul Convention – obligation to prevent gender-based violence and to protect victims; any institutional reorganization that weakens the state’s capacity to meet these obligations may be incompatible with the treaty.
- Directive 2011/36/EU on trafficking in human beings and victims’ rights – obligation to have effectively functioning institutional services.
- Directive on victims’ rights (2012/29/EU) – victims must have rapid access to protection, support and specialized services; weakening the institutional framework may breach these standards.
- Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU – right to equality, protection of dignity, etc.
In the Preamble the government invokes the “escalation of domestic violence” (36 women killed in 8 months of 2025) and the need for “unitary regulation” to access European funds and claims that these constitute “the premises of an urgent and extraordinary situation” justifying an OUG.
How are these claims proven?
- Temporal analysis of the problems (statistics from recent years vs. “escalation” to show whether the phenomenon was foreseeable and could have been addressed legislatively through law). The document does not clarify these aspects.
- European funding lines communicate known deadlines in advance, which shows that urgency is not justified.
Legal and coherence problems:
- Risk of breaching EU obligations regarding police cooperation and the effectiveness of anti-trafficking mechanisms (principle of “effective investigation and prosecution” under conventions/directives – reorganization must not reduce investigative capacity).
- Lack of consultations: the Explanatory Note claims that opinions from local associations were requested, but in the section dedicated to consultations it says “The project does not refer to this subject” – which in practice means either consultations were not held, or the NF was formally filled in. There is no socio-economic impact analysis or legal risk analysis (e.g. GDPR, EU contracts).
Compliance/contradictions with EU and international obligations:
- Istanbul Convention and Council of Europe Convention on trafficking in human beings (CETS no.197) are invoked as justification – but the OUG does not demonstrate that reorganization preserves/strengthens the required mechanisms (identification, protection, cross-sector cooperation). The Explanatory Note admits these gaps.
- EU Directives (e.g. Directive 2011/36/EU on combating trafficking; Directive 2012/29/EU on victims’ rights): impose on Member States to ensure effective mechanisms of identification/support/adherence to minimum standards. Moving operational competences to an administrative agency, separate from criminal enforcement structures, may reduce investigative and protective capacity — non-compliance with the spirit (and in some situations the letter) of these acts. (The NF invokes these directives, but provides no conformity analysis).
4.Text of the Emergency Ordinance
Text: “ANES is reorganized through merger by absorption with ANITP… The new institution (ANESPVITP) moves from the subordination of the Government … to the subordination of MMFTSS; ANESPVITP takes over the competences of ANITP…”
Legal and operational problems:
- Modification of institutional structure in sensitive areas through OUG – ANITP currently operates under MAI (structure with specific competences in identifying and protecting victims in criminal proceedings). Moving anti-trafficking competences from MAI to an entity under MMFTSS may create operational fragmentation between investigation (MAI) and coordination/reporting (MMFTSS), reducing prosecution and protection capacity (coherence issues with EU Directives requiring effective investigation and cooperation).
- Penal competences and victim protection: Art. I para.(4) specifies that “Victim protection … shall be exercised by MAI structures” but the OUG takes over administrative and licensing competences – this text is ambiguous and creates a risk of competential contradiction. Who provides actual protection procedurally/penally? The ambiguity creates immediate legal uncertainty.
Where are the studies/endorsements from MAI/ANITP showing the operational impact of this transfer?
Incoherence:
Art. I (5): “The operationalization of ANESPVITP and continuity of activity in the field may also be ensured through secondment, under Law no.360/2002 on the Status of Policemen, of some of the police officers who carried out activities within ANITP.”
Art. VI (2): “Police officers from ANITP, abolished by this OUG, shall be placed at the disposal of MAI under Law no.360/2002, for appointment to a corresponding position.”
There is an incoherence between these provisions: by removing ANITP from under MAI and moving trafficking in human beings from justice and national security to the social field, the presence of police officers is not justified.
In addition, the personnel deficit in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Romanian Police has been estimated at over 25,000 police officers in the last ten years, with some unions (e.g. Europol) estimating a historic deficit of 30% of the total need.
Necuvinte Association has been requesting for over 10 years the establishment of specialized structures within the Romanian Police dedicated to victims of domestic violence, and the lack of personnel has always been a major problem in this proposal. It is neither justified, necessary, nor legal to take people from a system with an enormous deficit and move them from justice into social.
Art. II – Organization regulation and the 45-day deadline
Text: “The regulation of organization and functioning and the staffing structure shall be established by the Government, at the proposal of MMFTSS, within 45 days.”
Problems:
- Short, discretionary deadline: 45 days for a complex regulation (including service licensing, regional centers, cooperation procedures with MAI, GDPR etc.) is unrealistic and violates the requirement for predictability and stakeholder involvement.
- Excessive delegation: The OUG leaves many essential aspects (number of posts, licensing criteria) to be set by Government Decision at the ministry’s proposal, risking a legal gap where essential fields remain non-functional.
- Lack of procedural safeguards in the exercise of executive power: as an emergency ordinance, there is no real possibility for NGOs and beneficiaries to participate, contradicting the principles of Law 52/2003 on decision-making transparency in public administration.
Art. IV – Functions of ANESPVITP (state authority, regulation, national rapporteur, licensing)
The OUG grants it multiple roles: state authority, regulation, strategy, harmonization, representation, administration, monitoring, national rapporteur on trafficking, National Referral Mechanism focal point, etc.
Problems:
- Conflict of interest in functions: having at the same time regulatory and administrative/contracting/licensing roles (setting standards and then licensing) risks institutional capture and lack of impartiality. Normally, regulation and administration/contracting should be separated, as a matter of good practice.
- National rapporteur on trafficking + secretariat of interministerial committee: these require cross-sector cooperation, but the text does not clarify coordination mechanisms with MAI, Justice, Ministry of Health, DIICOT. The vague legislative text creates risk of blockages.
- The current rapporteur roles and national focal point held by ANES are entirely missing.
- No safeguards to prevent abuse/politicization of decisions (delegation norms must provide separation of functions).
- This concentration contravenes EU and OECD principles of good administration.
Art. V–VI – Handover, subrogation, SIMEV database and assets/personnel
Texts: handover protocol of budget execution; ANESPVITP subrogates into rights and obligations of ANITP/ANES; SIMEV (victims’ database) is transferred and may be hosted in MAI’s HUB until 30.06.2026.
Specific problems and legal risks:
- SIMEV – confidentiality and GDPR basis: SIMEV contains sensitive data (victims’ personal details, offence information, medical data). Transfer and temporary hosting in MAI’s HUB with broad access may violate GDPR (Art. 9 – special categories of data) without a clear legal basis, adequate technical/organizational safeguards, and proper data processing agreements. Law 678/2001 also imposes strict confidentiality. Transfer without a DPIA (Data Protection Impact Assessment) and without clear protocols between data controllers is illegal. Where is the DPIA and data access protocol?
- Subrogation of EU funding contracts: The OUG states that ANESPVITP subrogates into conventions and contracts of ANITP/ANES, but provides no explicit guarantees of confidentiality, EU eligibility clauses or reporting obligations. Transfer of EU-funded projects must be notified and accepted by the donor/European Commission. Risk of losing funding if procedures are not followed.
- Liabilities and litigation: OUG says ANESPVITP takes over litigation, except for those concerning police officers’ rights. This could hinder representation in court and generate procedural issues (who pays, who is responsible for past obligations?).
- For EU contracts – where are the documents proving donors have been informed and have agreed to the subrogations? Without these, there is a real risk of funding loss.
Lack of serious impact analysis and unrealistic deadlines for transfers violate legal certainty and predictability. Citizens and operators must know who is responsible.
GDPR (Regulation EU 2016/679): processing victims’ data involves special categories. Any transfer/hosting/multiple access must have a clear legal basis, DPIA, and security protocols. The OUG provides no such safeguards. This risks both non-compliance with EU victims’ directives (2011/36 and 2012/29) and illegal data processing.
Words matter – Both the OUG and Explanatory Note omit the gender equality dimension, in flagrant contradiction with Romania’s obligations under:
- Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), Art. 8 – “In all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities and to promote equality between men and women.” Romania, as an EU Member State, must integrate gender equality into all policies and legislation (“gender mainstreaming”).
- Council of Europe Istanbul Convention – Art. 1 and 6 require states to promote gender equality and combat stereotypes. Romania must implement preventive policies and report periodically to GREVIO.
- Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS 197): requires gender-sensitive policies, including in victim protection.
- UN Agenda 2030 – SDG 5: achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls. Romania must report periodically to the UN.
- CEDAW (1979), ratified by Romania in 1982: obliges adoption of all necessary legislative and administrative measures to ensure gender equality in public and private life.
- EU Directives: 2006/54/EC (equal opportunities in employment), 2010/41/EU (self-employed), 2012/29/EU (victims’ rights – gender-sensitive approach), 2022/2381 (gender balance in boards). Non-compliance may trigger infringement proceedings.
- OECD commitments: Gender equality recommendations (2015, 2019), essential for Romania’s accession. Weakening gender equality institutions jeopardizes accession.i
5. Lack of uniformity regarding the new institution’s name
In the OUG:
- Name: “National Agency for Gender Equality and Protection of Victims of Crime and Trafficking in Human Beings”
- Abbreviation: ANESPVITP
In the Explanatory Note:
- “National Agency for Gender Equality between Women and Men and Victims of Crime (ANESPVITP)”
- In another place: “National Authority…” (not “Agency”).
Terminological inconsistency between the two documents (“Agency” vs. “Authority”; “Gender Equality and Protection of Victims of Crime and Trafficking” vs. “Gender Equality between Women and Men and Victims of Crime”) undermines the legal identity of the institutional creation.
III. Conclusions
1. The OUG is unconstitutional (art. 115 para. 4 and art. 61 para. 1).
2. The OUG contradicts Romania’s European and international obligations.
3. The OUG creates serious practical risks: weakens victim protection, eliminates the gender equality domain, exposes Romania to infringement and international sanctions, blocks OECD accession by breaching commitments, and jeopardizes confidentiality of sensitive victim data.
no replies