Romanian Senate votes down PNRR integrity bill after PSD pushes retroactive amendment against Dominic Fritz

The failed vote

The Romanian Senate, acting as the decisive chamber, did not adopt the new public integrity law on 30 July. The bill, a PNRR milestone tied to 770 million euros in EU recovery funds, fell short of the required majority after the National Liberal Party (PNL) abstained. With 55 votes in favour, the organic law failed to pass. The vote followed a tense plenary session marked by exchanges over a last-minute amendment that would retroactively strip mandates from officials with past definitive findings of incompatibility or conflict of interest.

An amendment tailored for Dominic Fritz

The contested provision, introduced by PSD senator Cristinel Rujan in the juridical committee on the morning of 30 July, stated that any person definitively found in a situation of incompatibility or conflict of interest before the law enters force would lose their office within 30 days of its publication. The amendment was widely seen as targeting Dominic Fritz, the USR president and mayor of Timișoara, who was definitively confirmed in a conflict of interest by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in June 2026. ANI sources cited by Hotnews.ro estimated that over 100 of the approximately 400 persons currently under an interdiction are exercising a public mandate or function, meaning the retroactive clause would affect not only Fritz but a wide range of local officials. The amendment was adopted in committee with votes from PSD and AUR, as well as members of a faction led by PNL deputy Florin Thuma.

It is obvious that this amendment was introduced specifically for my situation. It is obvious that this amendment is unconstitutional, because the Constitution clearly states that any law can only produce effects for the future.

Fritz's case stems from a 2023 ANI finding that he approved a zoning plan (PUZ) referral prepared by a firm belonging to his then-adviser. The new law itself would de-criminalise such acts for the future, a point that made the retroactive penalty even more contested.

Constitutional and financial warnings

Opposition and civil-society voices flagged the amendment as a manifest breach of the principle of non-retroactivity. Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan, speaking from the Senate podium, said:

You have to have a lot of nerve to try to amend laws in a profoundly unconstitutional direction, knowing that the law only applies for the future, and then invoke the national interest, when you brought down a government without putting anything in its place.

The risk of losing the 770 million euro PNRR instalment hung over the debate. If the law is eventually struck down by the Constitutional Court and has to be modified, the funds could be forfeited. Former transport minister Cătălin Drulă also accused PSD of deliberately endangering the money to target one person, calling the amendment “toxic and clearly unconstitutional”.

Political exchanges in the plenary

Social Democrat senator Daniel Zamfir pressed Bolojan and the government to explain why they would “sacrifice 770 million euros to save Dominic Fritz” and questioned whether an “understanding” existed. AUR senator Petrișor Peiu voiced shock that the extraordinary session had degenerated into a promotion of “emergency ordinances disguised as parliamentary initiatives”. Meanwhile, the bill also contains a contested provision removing the obligation for dignitaries to declare cash amounts in their wealth statements, which critics say shields undeclared incomes. Separately, the law redefines the National Integrity Agency as an autonomous administrative authority and introduces an electronic register for financial interest declarations.

What happens next

The Senate’s rejection forces the government and bill sponsors to re-submit the draft for a new extraordinary session expected in the first week of August. Failure to pass a constitutionally compliant version by the end of the month would almost certainly cost Romania the PNRR tranche. USR and PNL have called for the retroactive amendment to be dropped, while PSD insists on linking the integrity law to the removal of officials with past conflicts of interest. If the contested clause remains, a referral to the Constitutional Court is certain, further delaying the milestone.