mariuscomper.uk Română

DOSSIER · LEGAL COMPARISON CHECKED 2 OCTOBER · DRAFT STATUS CHECKED 27 OCTOBER 2026

Registering a political party: Romania's rule today, the 2026 AEP draft and 13 other countries

A draft law from Romania's Permanent Electoral Authority (AEP), published on 21 August 2026, would raise the minimum number of founders of a party from 3 to 100 and move the examination of applications from the Bucharest Tribunal, the first-instance court in Romania's capital, to AEP, with an appeal to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. In his 29 October message, the AEP president said reform of party and campaign-finance legislation had been set in motion in parallel with electoral reform, and described a separate law for AEP's own organisation. The message does not identify version v04.08 or say whether the party-law draft was revised or filed. This page follows the procedure and the grounds for dissolution article by article and sets them beside 13 other countries and European standards.

Today · Law 14/2003

3

founding members

Who may found
citizens with voting rights (Art. 19); EU citizens domiciled in Romania may associate on the same terms (Art. 54)
Who decides
Bucharest Tribunal
Challenge
Bucharest Court of Appeal

AEP draft · version v04.08

100

founding members

Who may found
citizens with voting rights, Romanian or from other EU states with domicile or residence in Romania
Who decides
AEP, through a panel of five employees
Challenge
Bucharest Court of Appeal

AEP draft · checked on 30 October 2026

  • In his 29 October message, the AEP president said he had set in motion reform of the laws on political parties and their funding and campaign finance “in parallel” with electoral reform. He described a separate bill on AEP's own organisation and functioning. The message does not identify the party-law draft as version v04.08 or say whether it was revised or filed. P11
  • The 23 September AEP release describes a new stage of public consultation with the parties in Parliament, part of a process begun in May to modernise party law and reform electoral legislation. Discussions at both meetings focused on draft bills open for comments, especially the bill on AEP's organisation and functioning. AEP said it would continue consultations to finalise the drafts and send them to legislative initiators. The release does not say whether the party-law draft had already been filed or revised. P9
  • On 3 September, AEP had said the draft would follow Parliament's legislative process, not the route of an emergency ordinance. AEP's announced deadline for comments on the draft was 20 September. P10 P7
  • I could not confirm whether AEP's broad v04.08 draft was revised or officially transmitted after consultation. The president's 29 October message does not identify v04.08 or say that it was filed. The Senate registered B589/2026 on 26 October, a separate targeted proposal on party-list councillor exclusions and Art. 204 of the Administrative Code; it does not establish AEP's draft status. AEP's transparency page showed an anti-bot check on 30 October. P11 B1 D3
  • In the 2 October check of AEP's page, I found no published text on a lower threshold for exclusively local parties. The press reported only that AEP was “analysing” such a reduction. P4 D3

What is still unknown →

What has happened since 21 August

  1. 21 AugAEP publishes the draft and its explanatory memorandum on roaep.ro and e-consultare.gov.ro. AEP's release says comments could be sent by e-mail until 20 September. D2 P7
  2. 25 AugCristian Pîrvulescu, of SNSPA (Bucharest's school of political and administrative studies), criticises the draft in an analysis for Ziare.com, a Romanian news site. P2
  3. 31 AugZiare.com reproduces a text by political scientist Cristian Preda against the draft. P3
  4. 2 SepAEP meets the non-parliamentary parties. P6
  5. 3 SepAEP says the draft will follow Parliament's legislative process, not the route of an emergency ordinance. P10
  6. 7 SepExpert Forum (EFOR, a Bucharest policy think tank) warns, according to Ziare.com, that the mechanism weakens constitutional guarantees. P1
  7. 16 SepPrivesc.eu publishes an automatic summary of a press conference by AEP's president; the date of the conference is not given. P4
  8. 23 SepAEP describes a new stage of public consultation with the parties in Parliament, part of a process begun in May to modernise party law and reform electoral legislation. Discussions at both meetings focused on draft bills open for comments, especially the bill on AEP's organisation and functioning. AEP said it would continue consultations to finalise the drafts and send them to legislative initiators. P9
  9. 2 OctOn roaep.ro: the same text, no new version, no summary of comments. D3
  10. 10 OctAEP's decision-transparency page could not be rechecked because it displayed an anti-bot check. No update after 2 October is confirmed. D3
  11. 26 OctThe Senate registers B589/2026 for debate: a separate proposal that would add Art. 16¹ on court challenges to the exclusion of some councillors elected on party lists and amend Art. 204 of the Administrative Code. The case sheet says the initiator requested urgent procedure. This does not confirm that AEP's broader v04.08 draft was filed or revised. B1
  12. 29 OctIn the AEP president's anniversary message, he says reform of party and campaign-finance legislation has been set in motion in parallel with electoral reform. He describes a separate bill for AEP's own organisation and functioning; the message does not identify v04.08 or say whether the party-law text was revised or filed. P11

How a party is registered: today and in the draft

Walk an application through step by step. Every time limit comes from the article named beside it.

What happens to the first decision?
  1. 0
    Founders

    Application to the Bucharest Tribunal

    The head of the party's executive and at least two founders sign the application; at least three sign the constitutive act. The statute, programme, a statement on premises and assets, and proof of a bank account are added. Art. 18(1) and Art. 19(3). R1

  2. 15
    Tribunal

    Public posting

    The application is posted for 15 days at the court, and a notice is published in a national newspaper within three days. Interested persons may intervene in the case. Art. 18(2)–(3) and Art. 20. R1

  3. 15
    Tribunal

    The tribunal's decision

    The case is heard in public with a representative of the Public Ministry (the prosecution service). The tribunal rules within 15 days of the end of the posting. Arts 20 and 21(1). R1

  4. 5
    Who may appeal

    Time to appeal

    An appeal goes to the Bucharest Court of Appeal within five days of notification, from those who signed the application, the Public Ministry or interveners. Art. 21(2). R1

  5. 15
    Bucharest Court of Appeal

    The appeal

    The court hears the appeal in public within 15 days of its registration. Its decision is final. Art. 21(3)–(4). R1

  6. ✓
    Register

    Legal personality

    The party acquires legal personality when the judgment admitting the application becomes final. Art. 22. R1

  1. 0
    Founders

    Application to AEP

    The constitutive act, statute, programme, proof of premises, assets and a bank account, and a list of at least 100 founders. The application and documents are posted at once on AEP's website; of the founders' list only names are published. Art. 46(4), (7) and (9). D1

  2. ·
    AEP

    A panel of five AEP employees

    The file goes by random allocation to a panel of five AEP employees, designated by an AEP decision; members are independent and bound to impartiality and to stand aside in a conflict of interest. The panel checks the documents, the name and the founders' identities against the electoral register, and may ask for additions. Art. 47 and Art. 48(4)–(5). D1

  3. −5
    Any interested person

    Requests to intervene

    Any interested natural or legal person may ask to intervene, at the latest five days before the public hearing. The text does not fix the hearing date. Art. 48(1)–(2). D1

  4. 30
    AEP

    AEP's decision

    After the public hearing the panel writes a report with a reasoned proposal, and AEP rules by decision within 30 days of filing. The decision is published at once. The text does not say what happens if the deadline passes without a decision. Art. 49. D1

  5. 10
    Who may challenge

    Time to file a complaint

    A complaint may be filed within 10 days of publication of the decision by those who filed, those who intervened, the Public Ministry and any interested natural or legal person. Art. 50(1). D1

  6. 2 wd
    AEP

    The file goes to the court

    The complaint is filed with AEP, which forwards it with the whole file to the Bucharest Court of Appeal within two working days. Art. 50(2). D1

  7. 10+5
    Bucharest Court of Appeal

    The complaint is heard

    The court hears the complaint in public within 10 days of registering the case. The judgment is final and is delivered within five days of the close of argument. Art. 51(1). D1

  8. 24 h
    AEP

    Entry in the register

    Within 24 hours of AEP's decision becoming final unchallenged, or of the final court judgment being communicated, AEP enters the party, issues the certificate and publishes the decision in the Official Gazette. Legal personality starts on entry. Art. 52. D1

Sum of the maximum time limits
40 days until AEP's decision becomes final, plus 24 hours for entry

Own calculation from the articles above: the maximum durations are added, although they start from different events (posting, notification, publication, registration of the case). It is not a forecast of real duration.

What the comparison shows

  • Moving the examination to AEP does not shorten the maximum time limits: the sums are close (35 or 50 days today, 40 or 55 days plus two working days in the draft; excluding notification times). What changes is who decides first and who may challenge. R1 D1
  • Today a court decides, in public, with the prosecutor present. In the draft an administrative body decides, and a court acts only if someone challenges. R1 D1
  • The draft does not say what happens if AEP fails to decide within 30 days. Croatia, Spain and the Czech Republic treat administrative silence as registration. D1 C1 C7 C10
  • The circle of people who can challenge a registration is wide in the draft: any interested person, not only participants in the procedure (Art. 50(1)). D1

How many founders does the law require, and what is counted?

Between 1989 and 2015 Romania had four thresholds and reached three founders after a Constitutional Court decision. The draft proposes 100.

  1. 1989 · 251Decree-Law 8/1989 required 251 founders (mentioned by the Constitutional Court at § 27). R4
  2. 1996 · 10,000Law 27/1996: 10,000 founders from at least 15 counties, at least 300 in each. R2
  3. 2003 · 25,000Law 14/2003: 25,000 founders from at least 18 counties and Bucharest, at least 700 in each. R4
  4. 2015 · CourtDecision 75 of 26 February: the 25,000 threshold “is not necessary in a democratic society” and “is excessive, disproportionate in the current socio-political context” (our translation). The Court asks the legislator to reduce the number and to reconfigure the territorial-spread condition, without naming a number (§§ 28, 39). R4
  5. 2015 · 3Law 114/2015 (20 May 2015) sets three founding members. R3
  6. 2026 · 100AEP draft: at least 100, both sexes, Romanian citizens or citizens of other EU states living in Romania (Art. 46(7)). D1

On the threshold the memorandum says only that it is “reduced and proportional”, that it ensures “a real political initiative” and that it does not excessively restrict freedom of association (p. 6; our translation). It gives no calculation and cites no comparison. D2

Founders from other EU states: the draft admits them if they live in Romania (Art. 46(7)). Today's law speaks of “citizens with the right to vote” (Art. 19(1)), and Art. 54 gives EU citizens domiciled in Romania the right to form and join parties “on the same terms as Romanian citizens” (our translation); the draft says so explicitly for founders. Lithuania and Spain admit EU citizens as founders. D1 R1 C5 C7

What each country counts

The same phrase, “registration threshold”, counts different things: founders, signatories who are not necessarily members, recorded members, or nothing. The axis is logarithmic.

1101001,00010,000Romania 2003–201525,000Portugal7,500Bulgaria, member list2,500Lithuania2,000Czech Republic1,000Poland1,000Bulgaria500Cyprus300Ireland300Greece200Croatia100Romania, AEP draft100Romania, today3no number: Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, Netherlands

How can a party be dissolved?

This is where the draft differs most from today's law, and critics stop here more often than at the number of founders.

How can a party be dissolved?
Today (Arts 45–46, Law 14/2003)AEP draft (Arts 62–67)
Who starts itThe Public Ministry asks the tribunal to find that the party has ceased to exist or to order its dissolution (Art. 45(1)–(2) and Art. 46(2)). R1AEP acts on its own initiative or on the petition of any interested person, then decides; the procedure of Arts 47–52 applies, so a complaint lies to the Court of Appeal (Art. 64). D1
Other grounds (unlawful aims or means, an aim other than the statute's)The Public Ministry asks the tribunal for dissolution (Art. 45(1)(b)–(d) and (2)). R1AEP decides, on the petition of any interested person or on its own initiative, with a complaint to the Court of Appeal (Art. 62(b)–(e), Art. 64); the Constitutional Court decides the cases in Art. 62(a). D1
Not standing in electionsInactivity may be found if, in two successive campaigns (presidential excluded), the party did not field candidates in at least 75 constituencies at local elections, or did not field at least one full list or candidates in at least three constituencies at parliamentary elections (Art. 46(1)(b)). R1“No candidates, alone or in an alliance, at two successive elections held on time” (Art. 65(g); our translation). The text does not say which elections count and sets no minimum number of candidates. D1
General assemblyNo assembly for five years. R1No assembly for four years (Art. 65(a)). D1
Other “inactivity” groundsNo corresponding inactivity ground; a separate ground covers a party acting on a statute change that was not notified or was refused (Art. 45(1)(f) and Art. 26). R1No statutory governing bodies, or none elected or renewed under the statute, for a year; no head office or outdated details for a year; leadership details not updated for a year; annual accounts not filed two years running; financing control impossible two years running; failing to align the statute with the new law within six months of its entry into force (Arts 65 and 74). D1
EffectThe party ceases to exist and is struck off the register. The chapter read says nothing about assets. R1Dissolution, then liquidation; the net assets left pass into State ownership (Art. 67(6)). D1

Organisations of national-minority citizens that take part in elections are exempt from the registration rules and from dissolution for inactivity, as under today's law (Art. 53) and in the draft (memorandum, p. 7). R1 D2

What the standards say about such a ground

The guidelines of the Venice Commission (the Council of Europe's constitutional-law advisory body) and OSCE/ODIHR accept that failure to present candidates over a set period may cost a party its registered status, but only if that is not tantamount to dissolution. In the draft, inactivity found by AEP, including no candidates at two elections, is a case of dissolution (Art. 62(f)). G1 D1

In the texts read, a ground based on not standing in elections appears in Germany (six years), Portugal (six years, decided by the Constitutional Court at the prosecutor's request) and Bulgaria (over five years, decided by a court at the prosecutor's request); in the Netherlands only the ballot name is struck off. For Greece the other articles were not searched. Spain uses unfiled accounts, not elections. C2 C8 C4 C13 C7

How do 13 other countries register parties?

The table sets 13 countries beside Romania, each from an official text. The “what is required” column keeps the unit; the numbers are not comparable without it.

Show by who decides:

Registering or founding parties: what is required, at which stage, who decides, how fast, and when status is lost. State of the texts: 2 October 2026.
CountryWhat is requiredStageWho decidesTime limit and silenceLoss of status for not standing in elections
Romania, today3 · founders
At least 3 founding members, citizens with voting rights (EU citizens domiciled in Romania may associate on the same terms, Art. 54) R1		RegistrationBucharest Tribunal; appeal to the Bucharest Court of Appeal15 days posting + 15 days for the decision; no silence ruleTwo successive campaigns without candidates (presidential excluded; a minimum number of candidacies), on the prosecutor's request (Art. 46)
Romania, AEP draft100 · founders
At least 100 founding members, both sexes; Romanian citizens or citizens of other EU states living in Romania, with voting rights D1		RegistrationAEP (panel of 5 employees); complaint to the Bucharest Court of Appeal30 days; the text does not treat silence as approvalNo candidates at two successive scheduled elections, found by AEP (Art. 62(f) and Art. 65(g))
Croatia100 · founders
At least 100 adult Croatian citizens with full legal capacity C1		Founding and entryMinistry of Justice, Administration and Digital Transformation (party register)30 days; if the ministry is silent, the party is registered, unless it asked for defects to be remedied (Arts 14–15)Not for elections; ceasing if no assembly is held within twice the statutory interval (Art. 23)
Germanyno number
No minimum number; the executive committee has at least three people C2		Free founding; statute notified to the Federal Returning OfficerNo one approves the foundingnot stated in the text readLoses party status after six years without own candidates in federal or Land elections (or without a financial report), § 2(2)
Greece200 · signatories (supporters)
The statute or proclamation is signed by at least 200 citizens with voting rights C3		Founding declaration, before activityThe Areios Pagos prosecutor receives the declaration; Art. 29 does not say he approves itnot stated in the text readOther articles not searched
Bulgaria500 · founders
500 founding members and a list of at least 2,500 members; initiative of at least 50 citizens C4		RegistrationSofia City Court, with a prosecutor; appeal to the Supreme Court of CassationThe court hears the application within a month, then decides within 14 days; appeal within 7 days, decided within 14 days (Arts 16 and 18); no silence ruleThe court may dissolve, on the prosecutor's claim, a party that has not taken part in national, European or municipal elections for over five years since its last court registration (Art. 40)
Lithuania2,000 · founders
At least 2,000 founders, Lithuanian citizens or EU citizens resident there C5		Founding, entry in the Register of Legal EntitiesThe Ministry of Justice checks; a refusal can be taken to court30 daysNot for elections; member lists are filed yearly, and failing to file for a year leads to liquidation; also liquidation if membership falls below the founding minimum and is not remedied
Cyprus300 · signatories (supporters)
A document signed by 300 Cypriot citizens with voting rights, plus a €2,000 fee C6		RegistrationThe Commissioner (director general of the Interior Ministry); the act can be challenged in courtnot stated in the text readNone found in the text read
Spainno number
The law sets no number of founders; the founding deed is made before a notary C7		Registration (gives legal personality)The Interior Ministry; courts decide dissolution20 days; if the ministry is silent the party is deemed registered (the clock is suspended for defects or criminal-law doubts, Arts 4–5)Not for elections; a court may declare extinction for accounts not filed for 3 consecutive years, after a 6-month warning (Art. 12 bis)
Portugal7,500 · signatories (supporters)
The application is signed by at least 7,500 citizens who are voters C8		Registration (gives legal personality)The Constitutional Courtnot stated in the text readThe Court decrees extinction, on the Public Prosecutor's request, after six consecutive years without candidacies (Art. 18)
Poland1,000 · signatories (supporters)
A list of at least 1,000 Polish citizens supporting the notification; three persons file it C9		Entry in the registerThe Regional Court in WarsawThe court registers the party “without delay”, with no number of days (Art. 12)Not for elections; struck off if changes of statute, seat or governing bodies are not notified, after a summons with a term of at least three months; the National Electoral Commission may ask for strike-off for an unfiled annual financial report (Arts 20, 38c)
Czech Republic1,000 · signatories (supporters)
A preparatory committee of at least three people and a petition of at least 1,000 citizens C10		Registration (the party arises by registration)The Interior Ministry; a refusal is appealed to the Supreme Court15 days to decide; if no refusal is communicated within 30 days, the party arises the next day (§ 8)Not for elections; if the organs are not set up within six months the ministry can start a suspension procedure decided by a court
United Kingdomno number
No membership or signature threshold; a leader, a nominating officer and a treasurer are named; £150 fee C11		Registration (needed to use the party name on the ballot)The Electoral Commissionnot stated in the text readNot for elections; removed from the register if the annual confirmation is not sent
Ireland300 · recorded members
300 recorded members, adults (100 for local or regional parties), at least half on the electoral register; or a sitting member of the Dáil or an MEP certifying membership C12		Registration (name on the ballot)The Registrar, who is the chief executive of the Electoral Commission; appeal to the Commission's boardnot stated in the text readNot for elections; the party must answer each year that it wants to stay on the register
Netherlandsno number
There is no party register. Only the ballot name is registered: an association with full legal capacity, €450 deposit (refunded after a valid list is filed); for the ballot, 30 supporter declarations per constituency, except for parties that won a seat at the last election C13		Registering the name; ballot access is separateThe Kiesraad, acting as central electoral officenot stated in the text readThe name is struck off if no valid list was submitted at the last election (Art. G 1)

Of the 13 countries, registration is decided by a court in 3 countries and by a ministry in 5; an electoral body decides in 3 (in the Netherlands, only the registration of the ballot name); in Greece the declaration is filed with a prosecutor, and in Germany no one decides. In the texts read, only Croatia, Spain and the Czech Republic treat silence as approval. C1 C7 C10

Cyprus: Privesc.eu's automatic summary attributes to AEP's president a comparison with Cyprus that appears to suggest the same number as the draft, that is 100; the video was not checked. Cypriot law requires the signatures of 300 citizens with voting rights and a €2,000 fee. P4 C6

Estonia, Slovakia, Austria, France and Hungary are absent: their official pages could not be read. Elections were not checked: ballot access, candidate signatures and deposits have separate rules in each country.

What do European standards and courts say?

No source read sets a number of founders; the only numerical benchmark is note 59 (1,000 members are reasonable in a country of eight million), and para. 95 prefers, at local and regional level, a percentage of voters to an absolute number. The standards ask that a threshold be reasonable, proportionate and justified, and that dissolution remain a last resort.

The founder threshold

Draft100 founders, “reduced and proportional” according to the memorandum (Art. 46(7)). D1 D2

In the same judgment the Court found no violation and upheld the refusal of registration; it observed that the main hurdle appeared to be the 5,000 founders, since halved to 2,500 (§§ 94–95). In Republican Party of Russia, a threshold of 50,000 members, “quite the highest in Europe” in the Court's words and raised five-fold, was found disproportionate together with annual checks and dissolution (§§ 110, 115–116, 119). In Tsonev v. Bulgaria, the refusal to register a party founded by 50 people was held unjustified by the reasons given, and the Court did not rule on the 50-founder threshold itself (§§ 28, 64). Romania's Constitutional Court found the 25,000 threshold disproportionate (§ 28). A 2012 paper notes that European party-law thresholds ran from 50, 100 or 200 (Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia) to 10,000 (Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine), p. 20; the Bulgarian figure is out of date, the table above shows 500. E2 E3 R4 A2

“thresholds should be outlined clearly in the law and must be proportionate”Guidelines, para. 95 G1
“in a country of eight million inhabitants, a minimum requirement of 1,000 party members is reasonable, whereas 5,000 party members would be a disproportionate requirement”Guidelines, note 59 to para. 95 (Venice Commission opinion on Azerbaijan) G1
“Nor is it unreasonable, in itself, to require a political party to enclose with its request for official registration an up‑to‑date list of its founding members”ECtHR, UMO Ilinden – PIRIN (no. 2), § 93 E4

Who decides registration

DraftA panel of five AEP employees; complaint to the Bucharest Court of Appeal (Arts 47, 50–51). D1

The guidelines say that, generally, registration is completed by “a competent state ministry or a judicial body” (para. 267). In Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Lithuania and Spain a ministry decides; in Ireland and the United Kingdom, an electoral body. EFOR questions the independence of AEP's leadership, and Pîrvulescu says AEP is criticised in the European Commission's rule-of-law report (his claim, not checked here); AEP replies that the procedure is an administrative first step with judicial review. G1 P1 P2 D2

“at the very least, political parties should have the right to appeal adverse decisions before a judicial body”Guidelines, para. 88 G1
“Whichever body is tasked with registration, it should be non-partisan in nature and meet requirements of independence and impartiality”Guidelines, para. 267 G1

Time limit and administrative silence

Draft30 days from filing (Art. 49(3)). No rule for a missed deadline in Arts 46–52. D1

The 30-day limit matches the one the guidelines give as an example. The silence-as-approval rule that the guidelines recommend is absent from Arts 46–52.

“30 days appears to be a reasonable maximum deadline for decisions by state authorities on party establishment and registration”Guidelines, para. 271 G1
“if the competent state authority does not decide within the deadline provided, applications for establishment and registration should be seen as approved”Guidelines, para. 88 G1

Dissolution for inactivity

DraftInactivity found by AEP, including two successive elections without candidates, is a case of dissolution, followed by liquidation (Arts 62(f), 65(g), 67). D1

In Republican Party of Russia the Court held that dissolution on a formal ground, applied to a long-established, law-abiding party, was not “necessary in a democratic society” (§ 120). The case concerns a membership threshold, not a lack of candidates. E2

“Failure to maintain a required level of membership, breaches of administrative requirements, or failure to present any candidates over a specified period may be grounds for denial of registered party status, but only in cases in which denial of party registration is not tantamount to dissolution”Guidelines, para. 113 G1
“de-registration should not result in the dissolution of the party”Guidelines, para. 98 G1
“Drastic measures, such as the dissolution of an entire political party … may be taken only in the most serious cases”ECtHR, Refah Partisi [Grand Chamber], § 100 E1

Who dissolves

DraftAEP may decide on its own initiative or on the petition of an interested person; complaint to the Bucharest Court of Appeal (Art. 64). The Constitutional Court decides the cases in Art. 62(a). D1

The guidelines recommend judicial review at least in the final instance and state, separately, that dissolution must always be decided by a court. These are recommendations, not a court ruling on this draft. The draft provides judicial review by complaint; AEP is the body that dissolves at first instance. EFOR asks that registration and dissolution remain with a court and argues, as reported by Ziare.com, that a compulsory AEP procedure raises a constitutional question (Art. 21(4): special administrative jurisdictions are optional). G1 D1 P1

“any restriction on political party freedoms must be capable of being submitted to review by an independent and impartial court, at least in the final instance”Guidelines, para. 53 G1
“prohibition/dissolution of a political party is of such a radical nature that it must always be decided by a court”Guidelines, para. 285 G1

The European Court has also judged a Romanian refusal to register: in Partidul Comunistilor (Nepeceristi), the 1996 refusal, upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, taken before the party had started any activity and based on its constitution and programme, not its size, was held disproportionate (§§ 51, 60). E5

The scholar Radu Carp wrote in 2015, with data up to 20 February 2015, that there was “some evidence” that Romanian legislation was the most restrictive in Europe, and that about one in four registered parties had filed no list at the 2012 parliamentary elections. The study predates the 2015 reform. A1

What do critics say, and what does AEP reply?

Each argument is attributed. This page does not verify the press figures.

Critics

OpinionExpert Forum (EFOR), as reported by Ziare.com

Opposes moving registration and dissolution from the courts to AEP; describes AEP's leadership as appointed “through an eminently political mechanism”; says the threshold rises from 3 to 100 “without any justification in the rationale”; says the new inactivity grounds would suit graduated administrative sanctions better than dissolution. Warns that the unspecified “two successive elections” ground could, if presidential elections counted, disband about 90% of parties. Ziare.com does not say who calculated the figure or how. P1

OpinionCristian Pîrvulescu, SNSPA, in Ziare.com

Says the “real stake” is not the number of founders. Cites a European standard: registration should be a simple formality, with no discretionary authorisation, done by an independent body and subject to judicial review. Says the law favours PSD, PNL and UDMR (Romania's established parties) and that USR (2016) and AUR (2020) would have had very great difficulties under the proposed rule. He calls the “big problem” the legal status of parties, public-law or private-law, and the control of financing. P2

OpinionCristian Preda, political scientist, as reported by Ziare.com

Such a threshold is “arbitrary”; if you believe in freedom of association you set it very low. Proposes a €1,000 fee to enter elections and dropping signature lists. Argues that AEP has never been independent and counts its presidents by party of origin (the count is his). P3

AEP's reply

AEPAEP's president, as reported by Ziare.com on 25 August

The threshold was set taking into account both the number of voters in Romania and the situation found in practice (our translation). P2

AEPExplanatory memorandum (AEP document)

Examining registration applications is “mainly” record-keeping, verification and legal publicity, so AEP can take it over; the solution “does not remove judicial review”; the threshold is “reduced and proportional”. D2

AEPPrivesc.eu's automatic summary of 16 September of a press conference

The AEP procedure is an administrative first step and any decision can be challenged in court; AEP is analysing a lower threshold for exclusively local parties. The summary also attributes “30 days at AEP and 15 days in court” and a comparison with Cyprus. P4

The automatic summary of the press conference, compared with the texts

The automatic summary reports “30 days at AEP and 15 days in court”. The draft gives AEP 30 days (Art. 49) and the court 10 days from registration of the case plus five days from the close of argument for judgment (Art. 51), not counting 10 days to file the complaint (Art. 50): the figures roughly match. The same summary attributes to AEP's president a comparison with Cyprus that appears to suggest the same threshold of 100; the video was not checked. The Cypriot law read requires 300 supporting signatures and a €2,000 fee, not 100 founders. P4 D1 C6

Three numbers about parties, three different things

  • 406 · entries in the Register of political parties, every party ever entered, up to 14 July 2026. It is not the number of active parties. R6
  • 395 and 298 · ProTV, citing News.ro, speaks of 395 parties registered from the Revolution to date, about 298 of them active; it is a cumulative count, lower than the register's 406, and the gap is not explained. Pîrvulescu, in the same article, says “the real parties are 8”. P8
  • over 270 · EFOR (via Ziare.com): over 270 parties “controlled by AEP” in 2026 (in the context of financing control), many inactive or hard to contact. It does not say all are inactive. P1

What is still unknown?

AEP draft status was rechecked on 30 October; other points reflect sources read on 2 October 2026:

  1. Whether AEP revised or officially transmitted its August v04.08 draft after consultation: the president's 29 October message describes party-law reform moving forward but does not identify that version or say it was revised or filed. AEP's transparency page showed an anti-bot check on 30 October. B589/2026 is a separate, targeted proposal and does not settle the question. P11 D3 B1
  2. What the exception for local parties would say: there is only the report that it is “under analysis”. P4
  3. Which elections count under “two successive elections”: Art. 65(g) does not list them. D1
  4. Whether existing parties would have to prove 100 founders again: Art. 75 lets them operate on their valid registration until the statute is aligned (Art. 74), and says nothing about the founders' list. D1
  5. What the Legislative Council and the Ministry of Justice say: the memorandum requires the Legislative Council's opinion, and the line “Avizăm favorabil: Ministrul justiției” (“We approve: the Minister of Justice”) carries no name or signature. D2
  6. Whether today's law was amended after May 2015: the legislative portal showed no amendments in the last copy consulted (November 2025) and could not be re-checked. R1

Sources

The legal comparison and texts were checked on 2 October 2026; the AEP draft status and Senate B589/2026 record were checked on 30 October. AEP releases reproduced by AGERPRES are identified as such. English words in quotation marks that render Romanian text are our translation.

The draft and its status

Romanian law in force

European standards and case law

Scholarship

Other countries: official texts

Press (attributed only)