An Unacceptable Practice of Secrecy and a Legacy from the Communist Era: Government Decision (HG) 0610/2017, A Barrier to Transparency and the Right to Information
The issuance of Government Decision no. 0610/2017, classified as “state secret” at the “secret” level, represents a flagrant manifestation of a secrecy practice with deep roots in the communist dictatorship era. This decision directly regulates the establishment of military and professional grades, the coefficients, and the salary scales for active military personnel, police officers, special-status public employees in the penitentiary administration system, and military chaplains in institutions of defense, public order, and national security. It is completely unacceptable in a democratic society for the direct beneficiaries—those affected—to be denied access to the content of a normative act that directly influences their working conditions and remuneration. In fact, it is estimated that less than 5% of the intended beneficiaries (police officers and military personnel) have access to the information classified at the “secret” level, severely impacting their right to information and salary predictability.
I. The Legacy of Secrecy from the Communist Era
During the communist regime, the secrecy of normative acts was common practice, regulated by Law no. 23/1971 on the Defense of State Secrets in the Socialist Republic of Romania. Article 1 stated that “the defense of state secrets is a patriotic duty, an honor-bound obligation for all citizens—workers, peasants, intellectuals, and all other categories of laborers—by which they contribute to defending the revolutionary achievements of the Romanian people, as well as the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of our state.” Article 2 defined state secrets as the information, data, and documents that evidently possess secret characteristics, while Article 4 stipulated that information that does not constitute state secrets but is not intended for public disclosure was to be classified as “service secrets.” Essentially, decisions regarding the classification of information were made subjectively, at the discretion of those in power, without clear criteria or the later-mandated proportionality test.
II. The Post-Communist Evolution and the Current Legal Framework
After the fall of the Communist regime, it became necessary to revise secrecy practices. Law no. 182/2002 introduced the condition of an existing concrete prejudice for classifying information, but it did not establish precise criteria or explicitly refer to the proportionality test provided by Article 53 of the Constitution, which requires that any restriction on rights must be necessary, proportional, and non-discriminatory. In this context, the Framework Law no. 153/2017 on the Salaries of Public Funded Personnel, under Article 6(g), establishes “the principle of transparency in the mechanism for determining salary rights, ensuring salary predictability for personnel in the public sector.” However, the secrecy imposed on HG 0610/2017 directly contradicts this fundamental principle, as the affected personnel cannot consult or understand the rules that govern their salaries.
Government Decision 0610/2017 was issued as a high-level normative act under Article 5(3) and Article 27 of Annex VI to Framework Law no. 153/2017, regulating the determination of military and professional grades, the coefficients, and the salary scales. This decision replaced earlier normative acts—such as HG 0292/2011, HG 0154/2010, HG 0663/1999, and HG 070/2004—and continues a tradition of secrecy that, dating back to the communist era, has been used to protect certain internal regulations, despite their direct impact on the salary rights of the personnel.
In addition, MAI Order no. S/7/31.01.2018, issued to approve the methodological norms regarding the application of legal provisions on the salaries of military personnel, police officers, and civil personnel within the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was also issued as a classified document. This order was elaborated in application of the high-level normative acts—namely, Framework Law no. 153/2017 and HG 0610/2017—and continues the secrecy practice that limits access to essential information for the intended beneficiaries.
III. An isolated practice? Not Even in Democratic European Countries Are Such Exceptions Found
There is no example in democratic European states where the beneficiaries—those directly subject to the norms regulating their salary conditions—are denied access to the content of the normative acts that affect their professional lives. The secrecy of Government Decision 0610/2017 cannot be justified by invoking a “higher public” interest because true public interest fundamentally requires transparency and accessibility, values that are essential in a democratic society. By keeping this act secret, a dangerous precedent is set, one that undermines the core principles of the rule of law and severely affects the morale and efficiency of personnel in defense and public order.
IV. Violation of Transparency and Accessibility Principles
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stipulates that, in order to be considered “law” in a material sense, a norm must be accessible and predictable for its addressees. In the case of Sunday Times v. United Kingdom, the ECHR emphasized that a citizen must be able, with adequate legal advice, to foresee the consequences of a normative act. The secrecy imposed on HG 0610/2017 flagrantly violates this principle, as the vast majority of the beneficiaries cannot access the content of the norm, thereby compromising their right to information and the predictability of their salaries.
Moreover, less than 5% of police officers and military personnel have access to the classified information at the “secret” level, highlighting a stark discrepancy between the public interest—which demands clear and accessible norms—and the current secrecy practice. This inaccessibility also undermines the principle of transparency in the mechanism for establishing salary rights, as mandated by Article 6(g) of Framework Law no. 153/2017.
V. Conclusion
The secrecy surrounding Government Decision 0610/2017 and its related normative acts represents an unacceptable and outdated practice with deep roots in the communist era. This approach not only undermines the right to information and the democratic principles of transparency and accountability but also directly affects the predictability of salaries for those whose livelihoods are governed by these norms. In a modern democratic society, there can be no justification—no higher public interest—that permits the beneficiaries, who are directly affected by the regulations, to be denied access to the normative content that governs their professional lives.
It is imperative that authorities reexamine, with the utmost seriousness, the criteria for classifying these normative acts and ensure full access to information. Only through transparency can trust be restored in defense and public order institutions and the fundamental rights of the personnel be guaranteed.
This critical position article calls for a profound reevaluation of the secrecy policy and emphasizes the absolute necessity of accessibility and predictability of norms regulating essential working conditions, in line with modern democratic principles and the rule of law.
VITALIE JOSANU
President, Romanian Police Union “Diamantul”
