Statul online a personal vision
100%
RO EN HU

Research · The bill's legislative journey

The journey of bill PL-x 300/2026

This page follows the journey of bill PL-x 300/2026 through the Romanian Parliament, up to the situation on 19 October 2026. It is based on the 24 official documents in the files of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies, the two chambers of the Romanian Parliament. Here you will find the stages, how the text changed, which problems remain and what the Chamber could discuss.

The title of the bill: „Lege privind standardizarea designului digital și asigurarea accesibilității serviciilor publice digitale” (“Law on standardising digital design and ensuring the accessibility of digital public services”). In the Senate its number is L167/2026. This is a public policy analysis, not legal advice.

Abbreviations: CL (Legislative Council, the advisory body that gives opinions on draft laws), CES (Economic and Social Council), CF (Fiscal Council), ANCOM (National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications, the communications regulator), MEDAT (Ministry of Economy, Digitalisation, Entrepreneurship and Tourism), MAI (Ministry of Internal Affairs), MJ (Ministry of Justice), AMR (Association of Municipalities of Romania), ADR (Romanian Authority for Digitalisation), CNTD (National Council for Digital Transformation), CCR (Constitutional Court of Romania), HG (Government Decision), OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), OJEU (Official Journal of the European Union), WCAG (the international web accessibility guidelines), ROeID (the national electronic identity system).

1. In brief

Item Situation
What it creates The Single Digital Design System (Sistemul Unic de Design Digital, SUDD): a national, mandatory design system for digital public services (reusable interface building blocks, templates, content guidelines, versions, compliance checks).
Initiators 21 members of Parliament (11 senators, 10 deputies).
Type Ordinary law: it is adopted by a majority of the members present (Constitution, Art. 76(2)).
Chambers The Senate was the first chamber. The Chamber of Deputies decides.
The Senate vote 1 April 2026: 96 for, 1 against, 0 abstentions.
Where it is now In the Chamber's reporting committees. The deadline for the report, 5 May 2026, has been missed by about five and a half months.
Opinions All the opinions issued are favourable. CF did not issue an opinion and asked for the financial impact statement, which was missing. The opinions of the Chamber's committees for the budget and for industries have not been published.
Versions V1, the initiators' text (4.02.2026); V2, the amendments of the Senate committees (31.03.2026); V3, the text adopted by the Senate (1.04.2026), now before the Chamber.

2. The journey through Parliament

2.1 Timeline

Date Where What happened
04.02.2026 Senate The bill is tabled (no. b31). The urgent procedure is requested.
09.02.2026 Senate The opinions of CL, CES, CF and ANCOM and the Government's point of view are requested.
18.02–06.03.2026 Opinions CES: favourable. CF: issues no opinion; it finds that the bill increases spending and asks for the documents required by Art. 15 of Law no. 69/2010 (the fiscal responsibility law). MEDAT: supports the initiative (a document quoted in the committees' report, missing from the file). CL: favourable, with 10 groups of comments. ANCOM: 5 substantive comments.
16.03.2026 Senate Registered as L167/2026 and sent to the committees.
23.03.2026 Senate 10 deputies are added as initiators.
31.03.2026 Senate Joint report, favourable with 8 amendments, adopted unanimously. The amendments take up comments from CL, ANCOM, MEDAT, MAI, MJ and AMR. The committees giving opinions: favourable.
01.04.2026 Senate Adopted in plenary: 96–1–0. Sent to the Chamber, the deciding chamber (Constitution, Art. 75).
07.04.2026 Chamber Registered as PL-x 300/2026. Report: the committees for public administration and for information technology. Deadline for the report: 05.05.2026.
22–28.04.2026 Chamber Favourable opinions: human rights, legal affairs, science and technology. The opinions of the committees for the budget and for industries have not been published.
05.05.2026 Chamber The deadline for the report passes with no report. On the same day, the Government is dismissed by a motion of no confidence.
May–October 2026 Executive The leadership of ADR changes. The government programmes put forward on 26.09 and 15.10 propose moving ADR under the Prime Minister; the one of 15.10 announces a „Lege a guvernanței digitale integrate” (“Law on integrated digital governance”) (§5.2).
19.10.2026 Chamber The bill is still in committee, at the report stage.

2.2 Duration

The Senate worked on it for 57 days (04.02 → 01.04): 41 for opinions and 16 for the formal procedure. In the Chamber of Deputies, more than 195 days have passed since 7 April, of which about 167 since the deadline for the report.

2.3 Procedural observations

  1. Urgency was requested but not applied. Even so, the Senate voted 16 days after registering the bill as L167/2026 (57 days after it was tabled).
  2. The Senate voted explicitly, well before the 45-day deadline after which the bill would have been considered tacitly adopted (Art. 75(2)).
  3. The deciding chamber has no constitutional deadline. Committee deadlines come from the rules of procedure and can be missed, so the bill can stay in committee indefinitely.
  4. There is no Government point of view in the file. The Senate requested it (Art. 111(1)) and voted after 51 days, so the procedural requirement appears to have been met. The report of the Senate committees quotes only MEDAT's point of view, which is favourable. Neither this, nor the documents from MAI and MJ, are in the file.
  5. CF's request went unanswered. There is no financial impact statement, although the Senate text puts the costs of compliance on each institution's budget (Art. 9(2)). See §4.2 (h).
  6. The opinions of the committees for the budget and for industries are missing. The budget committee's opinion would be the natural place for the fiscal issue.

3. The versions, compared

3.1 How the text changed

V1 had 10 articles. The Senate committees proposed 8 amendments (V2). The plenary adopted them all, and V3 has 11 articles. A fourth version would come from the Chamber of Deputies.

3.2 The changes, article by article

The last column shows which comment the amendment took up, according to the justification in the report of the Senate committees.

Article V1 → V3 Comment taken up
Who is bound (Art. 1–2) From central institutions (local ones gradually) to „organisme din sectorul public” (“public sector bodies”), defined according to Law no. 98/2016 (the public procurement law), Art. 4(2): bodies governed by public law as well, central and local MEDAT; AMR
Art. 1–2, drafting References and definitions corrected; „interfață cu utilizatorul” (“user interface”); the unused definition of „interfeței interne” (“internal interface”) removed CL; MEDAT
Art. 2(f) „în mod gratuit” (“free of charge”) becomes „cu titlu,” (“on a … basis,”): the word „gratuit” (“free”) is missing CL had proposed „cu titlu gratuit” (“free of charge”); a word was lost in the amendment
Art. 2(h) and Art. 3 „Modernizarea majoră” (“major modernisation”) has only a general definition, with the criteria left to the implementing rules; the principles remain undefined ANCOM asked for criteria and for the principles to be defined; not taken up
Art. 4(4) The deadline for existing services: from 24 months after entry into force to the fixed date of 1 January 2028 CL and ANCOM (a wrong cross-reference). ANCOM had asked for a deadline counted from the implementing rules
Art. 4(5)–(6) New: ADR can grant 12-month exemptions, which are published AMR
Art. 5(2)–(3) The reply within 30 days becomes a check „de îndată” (“immediately”) and a remedy „dacă consideră” instituția (“if the institution considers it necessary”) (Art. 5(2)). The route of appeal to the higher institution disappears ANCOM („de îndată”); MAI
Art. 6(2)(f)–(i) New: an annual compliance report by 15 March, with rates by county; SUDD as a „resursă open-source integrală” (“fully open-source resource”); support for local authorities; „programul național obligatoriu de formare și certificare” (“the mandatory national training and certification programme”) AMR
Art. 7 (CNTD) and Art. 8 (procurement) Unchanged —
Art. 9 A new article on funding: SUDD development from the state budget, as a priority investment; the costs of compliance from each institution's own budget CL; AMR; MAI
Art. 10 (fines) From 5,000–10,000 lei for heads of institutions, for Art. 4, 5 and 8, to 7,500–10,000 lei for institutions, only for Art. 4(3)–(4) CL; MJ
Art. 11 The implementing rules also cover the exceptions and the support for local authorities. New: an independent impact assessment within 36 months CL; MAI; AMR

3.3 What happened to each opinion

4. Substantive analysis

4.1 What the bill does well

  1. It sets the design system in a law. Only a few states (Slovakia, Hungary, Portugal) have an act with the force of law that explicitly requires the design system. A law gives continuity when governments change.
  2. It covers the whole life cycle: new services, modernisations, existing services, compliance from the design stage (Art. 4).
  3. It uses procurement as a lever (Art. 8). Most digital public services are built by contracted companies.
  4. It describes the content of a design system correctly (Art. 2(f)), like the British, Dutch and French models.
  5. It includes self-service kiosks and conversational assistants, as well as websites and apps.
  6. Transparency: an annual report with rates by county, published exemptions, open source, an assessment at 36 months.
  7. The principles (Art. 3) match those of the OECD and the European Interoperability Framework, including plain language.
  8. Broad support in the Senate: 96 votes for, one against.

4.2 Problems in the text adopted by the Senate (V3)

Problem Why it matters Importance
a Art. 2(f): „cu titlu,” (“on a … basis,”), without „gratuit” (“free”). A drafting error that removes the guarantee that it is free and contradicts the wording „resursă open-source integrală” (“fully open-source resource”, Art. 6(2)(g)). To be corrected
b Art. 5(2): the remedy depends on what the institution „consideră” (“considers”); no obligation to reply, no appeal and no fine. The user's right has no enforceable guarantee. The Web Accessibility Directive (transposed by OUG no. 112/2018, a Government Emergency Ordinance) requires, in addition to the feedback mechanism, an enforcement procedure. High
c Fixed deadline: 1.01.2028 (Art. 4(4)), with sanctions. Between publication, entry into force (60 days) and the implementing rules (another 60 days), institutions could have less than 12 months, possibly without implementing rules. The deadline is hard to reconcile with the phased timetable for local authorities. High
d Fines paid from one public institution to another (Art. 10). Little deterrent effect. Procurement and user reports carry no sanction. I checked: OUG no. 112/2018 (Art. 11(1)(d)) already fines a lack of accessibility, with about 20,000–43,000 lei, after a notice period of up to 6 months. The same interface could be fined twice. Medium
e “Major modernisation” has only a general definition (Art. 2(h)), with the criteria left to the implementing rules; the principles are not defined. It triggers obligations, but everything is left to the implementing rules. Medium
f Art. 7: CNTD gives its opinion on ADR's documents and acts concerning SUDD. I checked: HG no. 89/2020, Art. 17, defines it as an advisory body of ADR, with decisions „nefiind obligatorii pentru ADR” (“not being binding on ADR”), and it includes the private sector. A mandatory opinion would create legal inconsistency and a possible deadlock, and would give members from the private sector a role in approving the standard. Medium
g Art. 6(2)(h)–(i): financial support and „programul național obligatoriu de formare și certificare” (“the mandatory national training and certification programme”). The programme does not exist in any law, and ADR does not distribute money to local authorities. Drafting
h No financial impact statement, although Art. 9(2) puts costs on every budget. The Constitution (Art. 138(5)) requires a source of funding. The CCR has also declared laws unconstitutional when they lacked an assessment of their financial impact. Medium (legal risk)
i Accessibility has little content. There is no mention of the EN 301 549 standard, WCAG or Law no. 232/2022, which transposes the European Accessibility Act. Testing with people with disabilities is not required. Medium
j Links with the rest of the digital state are missing. Interoperability (Law no. 242/2022), ROeID and the European Digital Identity Wallet, the Single Digital Gateway, the Artificial Intelligence Act (Art. 50), minority languages. See the research on European rules. Opportunity
k Almost everything depends on an HG within 60 days. The deadline is hard to meet; without the HG, the law cannot be applied. Medium
l ADR's status could change (the government programmes propose moving ADR under the Prime Minister). Art. 6 and 10 name ADR directly; the text needs to be checked against any reorganisation act. To be monitored
m Interfaces used by civil servants remain outside the scope. The law does not say whether this is a deliberate choice. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Norway include them. To be clarified

For the full analysis of the text, see the Analysis of the bill.

4.3 Comparison with other European countries

Legal act Sanctions Does the system already exist?
Romania (SUDD, V3) Law Fines for institutions No
Portugal (Ágora) Decree-Law 49/2024 Approval of IT investments; contracts without approval are void Yes
Slovakia (ID-SK) Law + ministerial decree Approval and fines Yes
Moldova (MUD) Government Decision 677/2025 — Yes
France (DSFR) Prime Minister's circular (2023) — Yes
Germany (OZSV + KERN) Federal ordinance (2025) + DIN SPEC 66336 Presumption of conformity Yes

Romania would have one of the strictest regimes in Europe, but it is the only one adopting the law before the design system exists. The other countries built it first. This puts pressure on ADR's capacity and on the 2028 deadline. Details in EU member states' laws and in the Design systems in Europe.

5. Context and outlook

5.1 Where the bill has stalled

The bill reached the Chamber on 7 April 2026. The deadline for the report was 5 May 2026. On that same day, 5 May, the Government was dismissed by a motion of no confidence, and by 19 October no new Government had been sworn in. The leadership of ADR, the institution that would run SUDD, changed in May. On 19 October 2026 there was no committee report and no plenary vote.

5.2 The law announced in the government programme

The government programme put forward on 15.10.2026 announces a „Lege a guvernanței digitale integrate” (“Law on integrated digital governance”), with:

On 19 October, the law had only been announced, not tabled. If both texts go ahead, they would need to be aligned, so that there are not two overlapping standards. One option: the law in the government programme would cover wider governance and refer to SUDD for interfaces.

5.3 The procedural options

As the deciding chamber, the Chamber of Deputies can:

Option What it means
A. Not finalise the report With no constitutional deadline, the bill stays in committee.
B. Adopt it with amendments The committees correct the problems in §4.2; a plenary vote follows, by simple majority.
C. Adopt it as passed by the Senate The problems in §4.2 (a)–(c) enter the law as they are.
D. Reject it Rejection is final; the content would have to be taken up again in a new bill.

5.4 After a vote in the Chamber

The committees' report → the plenary vote → 5 days with the Secretary General (when the law can be referred to the CCR) → promulgation by the President within 20 days (or sending it back to Parliament once, or referring it to the CCR) → publication in the Official Gazette (Monitorul Oficial) → entry into force after 60 days → the implementing rules within another 60 days → the SUDD obligations apply.

6. Changes that could be discussed in the Chamber of Deputies

The options below start from the practice of design systems and from European law.

  1. Restoring the wording „cu titlu gratuit” (“free of charge”) (Art. 2(f)) and specifying the open licence EUPL-1.2, used by many European administrations.
  2. A relative deadline, for example 24 months from the HG approving the implementing rules or from the publication of the first SUDD version, or a later date (1.01.2029), with the most used services first.
  3. An enforceable right to report problems: without „dacă consideră” (“if it considers it necessary”), with reply deadlines (for example 5 working days for acknowledgement and 30 days for a remedy or a reasoned reply), with an appeal to ADR and a single mechanism, shared with the accessibility statement.
  4. The accessibility standard named in the law: “EN 301 549, the version in force cited in the OJEU” (today WCAG 2.1 AA), plus conformance documentation for each component and testing with people with disabilities.
  5. Objective criteria for “major modernisation”: a new procurement, a change to the main user journey or a budget above a threshold.
  6. Other enforcement tools: conditional funding, the ADR opinion within the existing project approval process and sanctions for breaches of Art. 8 (procurement).
  7. Art. 7: a reference to the legal basis of CNTD, or replacing the CNTD opinion with public consultation and approval by ADR, with an advisory group that includes organisations of people with disabilities and AMR.
  8. A financial impact statement that sizes the ADR team (estimate: usually 8–15 people) and the cost of aligning existing services.
  9. Links with the rest of the digital state, through Art. 11(3): the Single Digital Gateway, interoperability, ROeID and the European wallet, informing users when they are talking to an assistant based on artificial intelligence, the plain language standard ISO 24495-1, minority languages.
  10. Art. 6(2)(h)–(i), made enforceable: who funds the training and from which programme local authorities receive money.
  11. Internal interfaces in a second stage, through the implementing rules.
  12. Alignment with the integrated digital governance law, so that SUDD is the pillar for interfaces.

7. Sources and limitations

The official files of the bill (with the opinions, the reports, the versions of the text and the vote) are listed below, under “Sources”. The limitations of this page:

Sources

← All research documents