Resources · The bill and this vision~3 minutes
The same goal, a different route
Bill PL-x 300/2026, a draft law now before the Romanian Parliament, and the vision on this site share a single starting point: the state’s digital services have no common rules today. The difference is in the route. The bill starts from obligation. I propose that we start from the product.
The bill is used here only as a reference. Quotations from it are in quotation marks, with the article given. The rest of the text is my own. The comparison refers to the version adopted by the Senate (the upper chamber of the Romanian Parliament) on 1 April 2026, which is now before the Chamber of Deputies (the lower chamber). If the text changes, I will update the page.
Where we agree
The bill provides for several things that I also propose:
- a common system for the interfaces of digital public services (art. 2(f));
- accessibility among the principles (art. 3(b));
- open source code, on a central platform (art. 6(2)(g));
- a public annual report (art. 6(2)(f)) and published exemptions (art. 4(6));
- requirements in public procurement (art. 8);
- an independent evaluation after 36 months (art. 11(4)).
Where I see things differently
| Topic | The bill | This vision | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| The order | The obligations and fines come before the system exists; there is no deadline for building it (art. 4, art. 10, art. 11) | First the product, then the obligation, once it has proved itself in practice | All EU states that imposed a design system built it first |
| The timetable | A fixed date, 1 January 2028, for existing services (art. 4(4)) | 36 months, five stages, with a review at the end of each one and the possibility of stopping | A fixed date does not take into account whether the system is ready |
| How an institution is persuaded | Fines of 7,500–10,000 lei (Romanian currency), paid by a public institution (art. 10(1)) | Conditions for funding and for approving IT projects, plus a system so useful that it is easier to use it than not to | In other countries, financial levers worked; fines between institutions hardly at all |
| Town halls | Each institution pays for the adaptation itself, from its own budget (art. 9(2)) | A separate fund, from European money, paid after an independent verification | Many town halls have no budget for IT. Italy did it this way, with measurable results |
| Who decides the standard | The National Council for Digital Transformation (CNTD) would give its opinion on the acts of the Romanian Authority for Digitalisation (ADR) (art. 7). This council also includes private organisations (Government Decision (HG) no. 89/2020, art. 17) | A public team makes the technical decisions; companies contribute, but do not vote | Companies should not set the requirements they will be paid to meet |
| The user’s right | The institution fixes a reported problem „dacă consideră că acestea se aliniază principiilor” (“if it considers that they are in line with the principles”) (art. 5(2)) | The right to report a problem and to receive a reply within a clear deadline | Especially for people with disabilities, this is the main way to remove a barrier |
| Languages | Not mentioned in the text | A multilingual architecture from day one: Romanian, Hungarian, English, then other languages in stages | Law no. 242/2022, Romania’s interoperability law, already requires multilingualism in digital services |
| Collaboration | ADR runs the system and allows „contribuții controlate” (“controlled contributions”) (art. 6(2)(g)) | A model with four roles: the state, a permanent team, universities, companies | A single actor is a risk. That is how other systems died |
| Funding | No financial impact statement; the Fiscal Council could not give its opinion (legislative file) | An estimated budget, by stage, with the assumptions written down | You cannot assess savings without a starting point |
How the two could be reconciled
I believe the bill and this vision do not exclude each other. I see two options:
- The bill is amended in the Chamber of Deputies and becomes a framework law: it provides the mandate, the funding and the responsibility, and the obligations apply only after the first version of the system is published.
- A law comes later, after the system has worked, to give it a legal basis.
There is one more piece of context: in its programme of October 2026, the Government announced a law on „guvernanței digitale integrate” (“integrated digital governance”), with „standarde unice de interfață” (“single interface standards”). It would be important for there to be, in the end, a single standard, not two.
For specialists
The main problems identified in the critical analysis of the Senate version:
- the legal nature of the requirements is not defined, and the fine refers to technical documents that can change (Government Ordinance (OG) no. 2/2001, the general law on minor offences, requires the offence to be clearly set out in a legal act);
- „modernizarea majoră” (“major modernisation”), the main trigger for the obligations, is not defined;
- possible double sanctioning with Government Emergency Ordinance (OUG) no. 112/2018, art. 11 (accessibility, 5–10 fine points, with a prior warning of up to 6 months);
- the CNTD opinion: HG no. 89/2020, art. 17, defines the CNTD as an advisory body of ADR, whose decisions „nu sunt obligatorii” (“are not binding”);
- the word „gratuit” (“free of charge”) was lost from the definition of the SUDD resources (SUDD: the Single Digital Design System, the system provided for in the bill), in the committee amendment („puse la dispoziție cu titlu,”, “made available on a … basis,”, where the full Romanian phrase would be „cu titlu gratuit”, “free of charge”);
- the implementing Government Decision brings together nine essential elements, with a 60-day deadline and no consequences if it is not adopted.
The full list of proposed amendments: Analysis of the bill, §12. The solutions from other states: EU member states' laws, §6.
What I base this on
The links lead to the public versions of my research documents; the section number (§) takes you straight to the paragraph cited.
| Statement | Document | Where |
|---|---|---|
| The text adopted by the Senate | The version adopted by the Senate | in full |
| The merits of the bill | Analysis of the bill | §11 |
| The order, the timetable, the exemptions | Analysis of the bill | §4 |
| The user’s right („dacă consideră”, “if it considers”) | Analysis of the bill | §5 |
| CNTD | Analysis of the bill | §6.3 |
| The fines, OUG 112/2018 | Analysis of the bill | §7 |
| Funding, the Fiscal Council | Analysis of the bill | §8 |
| „cu titlu,” | Analysis of the bill | §9 |
| What no other country has done; the levers that work | EU member states' laws | §1, §5–§7 |
| The two options for reconciliation; the law on integrated digital governance | The full proposal | §13.3 |
| Multilingualism in Law 242/2022 | What already exists in Romania | §11 |