Romania has one of the most extensive legal frameworks for whistleblower protection in Easterm Europe. Law 361/2022 on the protection of whistleblowers in the public interest, adopted following the transposition of the EU Whistleblower Directive, requires public institutions to set up internal reporting channels, appoint responsible staff and protect whistleblowers from retaliation.
On paper, the system is in place and fairly well regulated. In practice, however, a new national report by the Romanian Center for European Policies (CRPE) shows that these mechanisms are still used very little across both central and local public administration.
What does the system look like?
The research looks at how whistleblowing mechanisms actually work in Romania’s public administration and at the gap between formal compliance and real use. The report draws on public data and institutional reports, official responses from ministries, municipalities, county councils and universities, as well as an analysis of existing internal procedures and reporting channels.
The main finding is straightforward: in most institutions, the mechanisms exist, but they are rarely used.
For the external reporting channel managed by the National Integrity Agency (ANI), 47 reports were recorded in 2023 and 99 in 2024.¹ The increase is noticeable, but the overall number remains low compared with the size of Romania’s public administration. Ministries tend to receive more reports, while reporting at local level is close to nonexistent in many cases. The differences between institutions are significant.
Some ministries are starting to make more active use of whistleblowing mechanisms.
- The Ministry of Investments and European Projects recorded 5 reports in 2023, 5 in 2024 and 1 in 2025. Most concerned public procurement, conflicts of interest, human resources and disciplinary issues. Around half of the reports were found to be substantiated.
- The Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests saw a much sharper increase: 1 report in 2023, 5 in 2024, 34 in 2025 and 4 in 2026. The reports covered issues including environmental protection, waste management, EU funds and human resources.
- At the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the number of reports rose from 4 cases in 2023 to 6 in 2024 and 25 in 2025. Most concerned abusive management practices, failures in carrying out official duties and internal disciplinary issues.
At local level, the picture is very different
Many of the county councils, municipalities and universities included in the research had not received a single report in recent years, even though they have procedures published on their websites and designated staff in place.
One of the few exceptions is Timișoara, where 45 reports were recorded over two years. Even there, however, a significant share of the submissions functioned more like general administrative complaints than whistleblowing reports as defined by law.
The report suggests that Romania’s main problem is no longer the lack of regulation but implementation, trust and institutional culture.
In many institutions, whistleblowing responsibilities are simply added to existing administrative duties. Staff training is limited, there is little hands-on experience in handling cases, and the mechanisms are still seen more as compliance requirements than as practical tools for preventing and addressing integrity problems.
At the same time, the absence of reports does not necessarily mean the absence of problems. It may also reflect a lack of trust in the system, fear of retaliation, limited awareness of the procedures or an organisational culture that does not encourage people to speak up.
A system that exists, but is still rarely used
The report’s main conclusion is that Romania now has all the basic elements of a functioning whistleblower protection system: modern legislation, institutional procedures, internal and external reporting channels, and legal safeguards against retaliation.
But CRPE’s analysis shows that the system is still at an early stage in terms of actual use. In many institutions, the mechanisms exist mainly as formal structures, while the low number of reports points to limited trust in and familiarity with the system.
The report identifies several reasons why the mechanisms are still used so little: fear of professional retaliation or internal marginalisation, low confidence that reports will lead to meaningful action, the absence of an institutional culture that encourages reporting, confusion between whistleblowing and ordinary administrative complaints, limited training for responsible staff, little practical experience in handling cases, and the lack of visible public examples showing that the system can work.
In many institutions, whistleblowing mechanisms are still treated as bureaucratic compliance requirements rather than as real tools for protecting integrity and preventing abuse.
The challenge for the coming years is to turn the existing framework into a system that people actually use and trust, and that becomes part of the everyday institutional culture of public administration. This will require stronger administrative capacity, better training for the staff responsible for handling reports, more trust in the mechanisms already in place, and an organisational culture in which reporting wrongdoing is seen as a legitimate part of good governance and the protection of the public interest.
This article was produced as part of the WAKE-UP – Whistleblower Advocacy for Knowledge, Empowerment, Unity and Protection project, co-funded by the European Union through the CERV programme.
The project looks at how whistleblower protection mechanisms work in practice following the transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and brings together organisations and experts from Romania, Italy, Poland, Latvia and Estonia. Similar country reports and analyses have been produced in all partner countries, focusing on the gap between the legal framework and the way whistleblowing mechanisms are actually applied in public administration and other relevant institutions.
The views expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the granting authority. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
Image by Iqro Rinaldi on Unsplash
