top of page
Emőd Veress

The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM): Is it over?

In the history of European Union (EU) enlargement, Romania and Bulgaria held a unique position. Their accession to the EU in 2007 came with a distinctive provision: the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM). This mechanism, carefully tailored to the circumstances of these two countries, was designed to address challenges related to the rule of law, corruption, and organized crime. As new members, Romania and Bulgaria were eager to seize the opportunities of EU membership, but their accession came with a carefully crafted framework designed to monitor and guide their reforms. The CVM was an unprecedented feature of EU accession agreements, reflecting both the potential and the challenges that lay ahead for these nations.

 

The CVM was introduced with two primary purposes. Firstly, it served as a safeguard to maintain the momentum of reforms initiated during the negotiation process that preceded their EU accession. It aimed to act as a supportive framework, guiding Romania and Bulgaria toward fulfilling their commitments to uphold the rule of law and foster institutional integrity. Secondly, the mechanism underscored a deeper undercurrent of skepticism within the EU regarding their readiness to fully integrate into the Union’s shared governance principles. Unlike the nations admitted during the EU’s 2004 expansion, Romania and Bulgaria were subject to a higher level of scrutiny. This dual nature of the CVM reflected both the EU’s support for its new members and its concerns about their ability to meet the high standards expected of member states.

 

Following their accession, Romania and Bulgaria embarked on distinct paths under the CVM, facing benchmarks tailored to their individual needs and challenges. In Romania, the mechanism focused on advancing judicial reform and institutional transparency. Among the key benchmarks was the requirement to strengthen the capacity and accountability of the Superior Council of Magistracy, which plays an essential role in upholding judicial independence. Romania was also tasked with implementing new civil and penal codes, reforms that necessitated careful monitoring and evaluation. To combat corruption, Romania established a dedicated integrity agency charged with scrutinizing the assets and activities of public officials. This agency held the authority to issue binding decisions and impose penalties, serving as a critical tool in the country’s anti-corruption efforts. Additionally, Romania was expected to sustain its drive in investigating high-level corruption cases and addressing local government corruption as well, emphasizing impartiality and effectiveness.

 

Bulgaria’s journey under the CVM mirrored Romania’s in its overarching goals but followed a distinct trajectory shaped by its specific context. Bulgaria’s reforms centered on consolidating judicial independence and efficiency. Constitutional amendments were introduced to reinforce the judiciary’s autonomy and accountability, complemented by legislative measures aimed at streamlining legal procedures, particularly during the pre-trial phase. Anti-corruption initiatives featured prominently in Bulgaria’s benchmarks, with a focus on investigating and prosecuting high-level malfeasance. Transparency was enhanced through the publication of officials’ asset declarations, while internal inspections within public institutions were intensified. Bulgaria also undertook significant measures to combat organized crime, including the confiscation of assets linked to criminal activity and the development of strategies to address serious offenses such as money laundering. Reports on investigations, indictments, and convictions were submitted regularly, providing a comprehensive overview of the country’s progress.

 

The CVM’s structure allowed for flexibility and adaptation, enabling the European Commission to refine its benchmarks and recommendations as circumstances evolved. This adaptability ensured the mechanism’s relevance over time, but it also prolonged its duration, leaving Romania and Bulgaria under its oversight for more than a decade and a half. The mechanism’s indefinite timeline highlighted both its strengths and its challenges, as its open-ended nature often fueled debates about its efficacy and fairness.

 

From its implementation in 2007 to its conclusion in 2023, the CVM wielded considerable influence over Romania and Bulgaria’s reform trajectories. It was lauded for fostering critical advancements in governance and the rule of law but was not without its critics. Some viewed the CVM as a valuable framework offering constructive guidance, while others perceived it as an overreach that infringed upon national sovereignty. The mechanism’s selective focus was another point of contention. Notably, it did not address the influence of secret services within the judiciary in Romania, a significant issue with far-reaching implications for judicial independence and integrity. This omission exposed a broader limitation of the CVM: its inability to comprehensively address systemic governance challenges even within its predefined scope.

 

When the CVM formally ended in 2023, EU leaders acknowledged the progress made by Romania and Bulgaria. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Vice-President for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová praised both countries for their commitment and achievements. However, the closure of the CVM marked not only a milestone in Romania and Bulgaria’s EU journey but also a transformation in the EU’s approach to governance oversight. The CVM’s objectives were absorbed into the broader Rule of Law Mechanism introduced in 2020, which applies to all EU member states. This shift reflected an evolving understanding of governance challenges across the Union and the need for a more inclusive framework.

 

The Rule of Law Mechanism represents a significant departure from the CVM’s targeted oversight. By encompassing all member states, it aims to address governance issues more uniformly and equitably. For Romania and Bulgaria, the end of the CVM does not signify the end of scrutiny but rather a transition to a framework that reflects the changing dynamics of EU governance. This new approach underscores the importance of coherence and consistency in monitoring adherence to the Union’s fundamental principles. From the perspective of Romania and Bulgaria, the new system is seen as more equitable, as it no longer singles out these two states for exclusive scrutiny.

 

As Romania and Bulgaria traverse this new phase, the legacy of the CVM remains. Its impact on their institutional frameworks and governance practices is undeniable, even as debates about its fairness and effectiveness persist. The transition from the CVM to the Rule of Law Mechanism highlights the EU’s commitment to adapting its oversight mechanisms to better address the complexities of governance within an ever-evolving union. In this new era of EU oversight, Romania and Bulgaria continue their pursuit of transparency, accountability, and adherence to the principles that define the European project.

Comments


bottom of page