The European Commission report in February pointed at some Romanian cynicism in reforming Justice, The Economist comments. The newspaper claims that sanctions against Romania and Bulgaria should not be expected in this summer's report, namely safeguarding clauses will not be activated. European officials consider that no one would win from having the EU states refusing to admit Romanian Justice decisions.

In brief:

The Economist peeks in its last issue the European Union enlargement process, Romania being analyzed from several point of view:

* The reports issued about the Romanian Justice were rough and signaled Romania's cynicism in reforming the Justice system;

* The pace of reforms slowed down after the accession to the EU, a fact valid for all new member states, including Romania;

* Imposing the safeguarding clauses would not help any side, since the reform is easier from the inside;

* EU emphasized on the Justice reform and the anti-graft campaign, not for lustration. Still, the boundary between corruption and the former secret services is difficult to draw.

The article published byThe Economist:

In the European Union, rhetoric often precedes reality. From earliest days, its founders followed the principle that where fine words led, with a bit of luck facts would follow. Sometimes, though, the gap between what the EU declares and what its citizens sense in their guts grows dangerously wide—and that is when the union gets into some of its worst jams. Take the rule of law in the enlarged EU of 27. Officially, all members of the club are assumed to be equally committed to upholding Europe’s legal rules (as defined by the 80,000 pages of Euro-law that new members must adopt), as well as the woollier virtues of “European values”. But does anyone believe Bulgarian judges, as a group, are as det