In brief

  • Anyone who wants to run a national research institute sits a competition under new rules, starting 22 September 2026. The application file is submitted electronically only, on a platform provided by the public institution that oversees the institute, and the platform stays open for 25 working days. The 2016 methodology is repealed the same day.
  • The assessment committee drops from five members to three, and the pass mark stays at 8.00 out of 10. The interview lasts no more than 60 minutes, is held in Romanian and is audio recorded, and the recording is kept for between one year and 5 years from the posting of the final results.
  • Candidates get less time to appeal, and the winner gets the appointment order faster. An appeal has to be filed within 2 working days of the result being posted, against 3 working days under the 2016 rules, while the appointment order now comes within 15 working days of the final report being approved, against 45 working days before.
Act: Government Decision no. 743/2026 approving the Competition Methodology for filling the post of director general at national research and development institutes
Published: Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 804 of 22 September 2026
In force from: 22 September 2026, the date of publication, because the act itself sets no later date

Government Decision no. 743/2026, published on 22 September 2026, completes a commitment made a month earlier. Through Law no. 174/2026, the heads of national research institutes moved to public competition and to annual disclosure of their income, and Article III of that law required the competition methodology to be updated within 30 days of its entry into force. The law entered into force on 17 August 2026, so the deadline fell on 16 September 2026. The decision was adopted on 18 September 2026 and reached the Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) on 22 September 2026.

The act itself has two articles and one annex. Article 1 approves the methodology, and Article 2 repeals Government Decision no. 576/2016, which served as the competition rulebook for ten years. The legal basis invoked is Article 108 of the Constitution of Romania, republished, together with Article 22(1) of Government Ordinance no. 57/2002 on scientific research and technological development. Being a Government decision, it enters into force on the very date of publication, under Article 12(3) of Law no. 24/2000 on legislative drafting rules, republished, because no later date appears anywhere in its text.

The annex, which is the part that produces the effects, has 39 articles and ten annexes of its own. It implements the six new articles inserted into Law no. 183/2024 on the status of research, development and innovation staff by Law no. 174/2026 itself. The changes come as a package: the competition moves entirely onto an IT platform, the assessment gets a grid of 16 indicators with weightings written into the act, and the organising role passes to the public institution that oversees each institute, called in the text the coordinating body, instead of a single national authority.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is felt by the candidate, and it begins with a calendar. The competition notice is published on the websites of the institute and of the coordinating body and on the EURAXESS portal, at www.euraxess.gov.ro. The IT platform opens within 3 working days of the notice and stays available for 25 working days. Documents are uploaded in PDF or JPG, can be changed up to the deadline, and once the upload is complete the candidate automatically receives a registration number, used afterwards when results are posted. The application form in Annex no. 1 also contains an express request that personal data be anonymised when results are displayed.

The eligibility conditions are not written into the methodology; they refer to Article 172(1) of Law no. 183/2024. In short: the professional rank of senior researcher grade II or, by equivalence, the post of associate professor, in the institute’s field of activity; either a minimum of 3 years in management posts within a research organisation, or at least two competitively won projects completed as project director, with a combined budget of at least 400,000 euro; command of Romanian or English; clean criminal and tax records; no research ethics sanction; and no shareholding in a company with the same profile or in commercial relations with the institute, including holdings by a spouse, relatives and relatives by marriage up to the third degree.

The second effect is the way the mark is awarded. The competition has two stages. Stage I checks only the eligibility conditions, the committee has a maximum of 5 working days for the check, and the stage closes within 15 working days of the platform closing. Stage II has two phases and lasts no more than 20 working days. Phase I reviews the file and awards marks for criterion C1, managerial activity, weighted at 40%, and for criterion C2, scientific activity, weighted at 60%. Phase II is the interview, which brings in criterion C3, the quality of the management proposal, weighted at 60%, and criterion C4, scientific standing and international collaborations, weighted at 40%. Each criterion is scored from 0 to 10, with two decimals, and is broken down into indicators with their own maximum scores, between 2 and 5 points, which add up to exactly 10 points per criterion.

The mark for each phase is the sum of the weighted scores, the phase mark is the arithmetic mean of the marks given by the three members, and the Stage II mark is the arithmetic mean of the two phases. The threshold is 8.00. Below it the candidate is rejected, however well they came out of the comparison with the others. Where two candidates tie, the one with the higher mark in the second phase, that is at the interview, comes first.

The third effect concerns the interview, which becomes a test with strict rules. It lasts no more than 60 minutes per candidate, is held in Romanian, in the presence of all committee members, follows a plan signed by the committee, by the observers and by the candidate, and uses questions common to all candidates for the same post. It is audio recorded, the recording is kept for between one year and 5 years from the posting of the final results, and it goes to the appeals committee if anyone challenges Stage II.

The fourth effect starts once the competition is over. The coordinating body issues the appointment order within 15 working days of the final report being approved. The director general then signs, within 15 working days of the order, a management contract for the 5-year term of office, and within 30 days of the order presents the management proposal to the institute’s staff. If the post remains vacant, the coordinating body organises a new competition within 6 months.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

The biggest change is who runs the competition. The 2016 methodology gave the organising role to a single institution, the state authority for research and development, through the National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, which also drew up the list of institutes with a vacant post. The 2026 rules move everything to the coordinating body of each institute, that is to the ministry or public institution under whose coordination it sits. That changes who is responsible for the calendar, who provides the platform, and who signs the appointment order.

The second change is the committee. In 2016 it had five members: a representative of the authority, the chair of the institute’s scientific council and three specialists holding the rank of senior researcher grade I or the title of professor. From 2026 it has three members: a representative of the coordinating body and two specialists proposed by the Advisory Board for Research, Development and Innovation, who are required to hold at least the rank of senior researcher grade II or the post of associate professor. The institute therefore loses its seat on the committee that picks its director, and the rank bar drops by one step.

The third change passes unnoticed, but it also falls on the candidate. In 2016 the appeals committee was made up of three representatives of the authority, one of them with legal training, while the technical secretariat had three people, one of them again with legal training. The new methodology gives the appeals committee the same composition as the competition committee and leaves the secretariat with two people. The legal training requirement disappears from both places, even though the appeal is the only step in the procedure where a rule is applied to a specific case.

The fourth change is the scoring grid. The 2016 criteria were professional activity, quality of the management proposal, decision-making skills and communication skills, weighted at 30%, 40%, 10% and 20%, and marks were given in bands, from 1 to 6 in the first phase and from 1 to 4 in the second. From 2026 the criteria carry the same labels, C1 to C4, but mean something else, the weightings apply per phase, and each criterion has indicators with maximum scores written into the act. Scientific activity, absent as such from the old criteria, becomes the most heavily weighted component of the first phase.

The remaining differences show up in deadlines and formalities. The submission window has narrowed: in 2016 the notice had to be published at least 45 days before submissions closed, whereas now the maximum interval from notice to deadline is 28 working days, that is under 40 calendar days. The appeal deadline has dropped from 3 to 2 working days. On the other hand, the appointment order is issued within 15 working days of the final report, not 45. The medical certificate may be issued up to 6 months beforehand, not 3. The notice no longer has to be published in a national newspaper. Employer and trade union observers are now nominated as a matter of obligation, within 15 working days of the notice, instead of sending a letter of interest on their own initiative, but in exchange they no longer draw up the separate report that the 2016 rules required within 5 working days of the interviews.

One rule appears with no counterpart in 2016. For institutes coordinated by accredited state universities, Article 2 leaves the competition methodology for the director general to the university senate. The 2016 rules drew no distinction of this kind.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The whole file goes onto the platform, with an automatically generated registration number and the option of asking for the name to be anonymised when results are posted. Anyone applying from a job they do not want to lose is no longer forced to do so in public.
  • The mark becomes verifiable. The four criteria are broken down into 16 indicators with maximum scores written into the act, and the weightings and calculation formulas sit in the text of the decision, not in an internal marking scheme.
  • The interview is audio recorded and the recording is kept for between one year and 5 years. The appeals committee receives it too, so an objection about what was asked at the interview can be checked.
  • The winner waits less. The appointment order comes within 15 working days of the final report being approved, against 45 working days under the 2016 methodology.
  • Employer and trade union observers are nominated as a matter of obligation, at the request of the coordinating body, and they sign the minutes of the interview.
  • Conflict of interest finally has a procedure: a declaration on the platform in respect of each candidate, replacement from the list of substitutes, and recalculation of the result if the situation comes to light late.

What remains a problem

  • The appeal has to be filed within 2 working days, while the committee has 3 working days to settle it. The candidate gets less time to draft than the administration gets to answer, even though it is the candidate who has to identify the error.
  • An appeal can make the result worse. It is declared admitted, under Article 23(1)(c), whenever the reassessment differs by at least 1.00 from the initial mark, without the text saying in which direction, and Article 24(1) makes the appeals committee’s mark the final mark. A downward reassessment is therefore final too.
  • A three-member committee leaves little room for manoeuvre. A single conflict of interest discovered after Stage II brings the assessment down to the minimum of two members, and a second one restarts the competition from Stage I, with a new committee.
  • The rank required of the specialists on the committee drops from senior researcher grade I or professor to grade II or associate professor, that is exactly the threshold required of the candidate they are assessing.
  • The requirement that someone have legal training disappears from both the appeals committee and the technical secretariat, where the 2016 rules had it in both.
  • Preparation time has been cut. The 12-page management proposal, the list structured by criteria, the criminal and tax records and the certificates all have to be gathered within a maximum of 28 working days from the notice, against a minimum of 45 calendar days before.
  • There is no transitional provision at all. The old methodology ceases to apply on 22 September 2026, and the act says nothing about competitions announced before that date and not yet finished.

Practical advice

  1. Prepare your list of achievements before the platform opens and structure it exactly along criteria C1, C2 and C4 and the indicators in Article 19. Article 9(f) asks for precisely that structure, and a list organised any other way forces the assessor to hunt for the points.
  2. Check the validity periods of your documents separately from the submission deadline. The criminal record certificate and the tax record certificate have to be valid on the date of submission, and the medical certificate has to have been issued no more than 6 months before the competition takes place.
  3. Respect the limits on the management proposal: a maximum of 12 pages, Times New Roman 12 point, single spaced, with a maximum of 4 pages for the management concept and 4 for the performance indicators undertaken. The outline in Annex no. 2 is in fact the list of sub-points that criterion C3 marks.
  4. Tick the anonymisation request on the application form if you do not want your name to appear on the published lists. The form in Annex no. 1 provides for it expressly, but it does not apply automatically.
  5. Before you lodge an appeal, weigh the risk. If the reassessment lowers your mark by at least 1.00, the lower mark becomes the final mark, and the only avenue left is the administrative court.
  6. Upload your documents early. You can change them up to the deadline, but the registration number and the confirmation e-mail arrive only after the upload is complete, and the platform closes 25 working days after it opens.
  7. If the institute you are interested in is coordinated by a state university, ask the university senate which methodology it applies. Article 2 takes those institutes out of the general rule and leaves their rules to the senate.

Frequently asked questions

From when do the new competition rules apply?
From 22 September 2026, the date of publication in the Official Gazette of Romania. The decision sets no later date, and Government decisions enter into force on the date of publication under Article 12(3) of Law no. 24/2000, republished. The methodology approved by Government Decision no. 576/2016 is repealed the same day.
What happens to a competition started before 22 September 2026?
The act does not say. There is no transitional provision, and the old methodology was repealed without reservation. Two readings remain possible and the text settles neither. In practice, the coordinating body will have to choose between restarting the procedure and continuing it under rules that are no longer in force.
Who organises the competition?
The public institution that oversees the institute, called the coordinating body in the methodology. It approves the calendar and the composition of the committees, provides the IT platform and issues the appointment order. Under the 2016 rules, this role belonged to a single national research authority.
What mark do I need in order to pass?
At least 8.00 in Stage II, which is the arithmetic mean of the Phase I mark, that is the assessment of the file, and the Phase II mark, that is the interview. The winner is the candidate who has at least 8.00 and comes first in the ranking after the appeals have been settled. The threshold was the same under the 2016 methodology.
How long does the interview last and is it recorded?
No more than 60 minutes per candidate, in Romanian and in the presence of all committee members. It is audio recorded, and the recording is kept for between one year and 5 years from the posting of the final results. Consent to the recording is given in the application form itself.
What happens if no candidate reaches 8.00?
The post stays vacant and the coordinating body organises a new competition within 6 months. Until then the post is held on an interim basis, under Article 17(13) and (14) of Law no. 183/2024, which limits an interim appointment to 6 months and does not allow the same person more than four such appointments.
Can I appeal the result, and within what time?
Yes, in writing, to the technical secretariat, within 2 working days of the result being posted, after each stage, failing which the right is lost. The appeals committee answers within 3 working days of the filing deadline expiring, with reasons. After that, the only avenue is the administrative court.
Which documents are compulsory in the file?
The application form, the identity document, the birth certificate and, where applicable, the marriage certificate, a Europass curriculum vitae, the list of achievements structured along criteria C1, C2 and C4, the education certificates, the document awarding the professional rank, the seniority certificates or the documents on the projects led, the management proposal, the criminal record certificate, the medical certificate, the tax record certificate and the declaration on own responsibility. All of them are uploaded to the platform in PDF or JPG.

Errors and inconsistencies in the published text

  • Annex no. 2, table no. 1, indicator I11. The published formula for total expenditure is I6 + I7 + I8 + I9. Yet I6 is, in the same table, total revenue, while I10, other expenditure, is left out. As written, the total expenditure undertaken through the management contract adds up all revenue plus three expenditure categories out of four. The formula consistent with the rest of the table would be I7 + I8 + I9 + I10. It can be seen on page 17 of Official Gazette of Romania no. 804/2026.
  • Article 2 of the methodology. For institutes coordinated by accredited state universities, the text says the competition methodology is drawn up by the university senate, but it sets no deadline, no minimum content and no rule applicable in the meantime. At the same time, Article 171(1) of Law no. 183/2024 requires the post to be filled through a competition organised in accordance with the methodology approved by the Government, drawing no distinction according to who coordinates the institute. For these institutes, it is impossible to establish from the text which methodology applies from 22 September 2026.
  • Annex no. 2, the notes to table no. 1. Indicator I11 appears both in the list of indicators for which the undertaken performance represents minimum values and in the list of those for which it represents maximum values. The same indicator cannot be both a floor and a ceiling. On top of that, I12, gross result for the financial year, and I13, net profit, fall into none of the three categories in the notes, so it is unknown what exactly is being undertaken for them. Page 19 of the same edition.
  • Annex no. 2, table no. 1, indicator I6. Total revenue is defined as I1 + I2 + I3 + I4, even though the table also contains I5, other revenue, as a separate revenue indicator. The category stays in the table but outside the total.

Editorial analysis

The methodology is, at bottom, a good act: it takes the competition out of the paper file, puts the weightings into the text of the decision and records the interview. The problem lies in the date it appeared. Law no. 174/2026 entered into force on 17 August 2026 and allowed 30 days for the methodology to be updated, so the deadline fell on 16 September 2026. The decision is dated 18 September and was published on 22 September, that is 6 days after it was due. The number that says something, however, is 36, not 6. That is how many days passed between the law entering into force and the methodology entering into force, and throughout that interval the law described one competition while the only methodology in force described another. The coincidence of labels makes matters worse: the law used C1 to C4 for managerial activity, scientific activity, quality of the management proposal and scientific standing, whereas the 2016 rules gave the same four labels the meaning of professional activity, management proposal, decision-making skills and communication skills. A competition announced between 17 August and 21 September 2026 had, quite literally, two sets of criteria bearing the same names.

The second observation does not show up on a straight reading of the act, because it emerges only once its deadlines are added together. End to end, the maximum deadlines in the procedure give: 3 working days until the platform opens, 25 while it stays open, 15 for Stage I, 20 for Stage II, 15 until the appointment order and another 15 until the management contract. That is 93 working days, almost 19 weeks, so roughly four and a half months from notice to signature. On top of that come the 6 months that Article 3(1) gives the coordinating body simply to start the procedure. A vacant post can therefore stay vacant for almost ten months without anyone breaching anything. At the same time, Article 17(13) of Law no. 183/2024 says that interim exercise of the post lasts until it is filled by competition, but for no more than 6 months. The methodology’s own calendar overruns that by some four months, and the option of successive appointments under paragraph (14) opens only after a competition that ended without a winner, not during the first one. An institute can therefore reach the end of its lawful interim period with the competition still within its own deadlines.

The third observation measures who gains time and who loses it. The only deadline shortened to the candidate’s disadvantage is the appeal deadline, from 3 to 2 working days, and it stays shorter than the 3 working days the committee allows itself for the answer, even though the candidate has the harder task: the candidate has to find the error, the committee merely has to confirm it. At the other end, the deadline cut the most, from 45 to 15 working days, is precisely the one the administration owed the winner. The combination of Article 23(1)(c) and Article 24(1) adds a trap: a difference of at least 1.00 from the initial mark leads to the appeal being admitted and makes the appeals committee’s mark the final mark, regardless of which way the reassessment went. The procedure therefore contains a possible worsening of the position of whoever appeals, which the act names nowhere and flags to no candidate.

The last observation concerns the three-member committee. Article 12(3) and (4) say that if a conflict of interest is discovered after Stage II, the assessment by the member concerned is discarded, provided the assessments of at least two members remain valid, and that otherwise the procedure restarts from Stage I with a new committee. With five members, as the committee had in 2016, the rule left room for two removals. With three, the first removal brings the committee exactly to the minimum, and the second wipes out everything done so far and starts a fresh clock of up to 20 working days on top of an interim period that is already nearing its ceiling. Shrinking the committee makes the procedure cheaper, but it moves the fragility to exactly the point where a break is most expensive.

What should be changed

  • A transitional provision for competitions already announced. A single sentence in the decision, saying that procedures started before its entry into force are completed under the methodology in force on the date of the notice, would spare every coordinating body a decision of its own and every candidate the risk of the procedure being restarted from scratch.
  • The appeal deadline should be at least equal to the deadline for settling it and should run from the communication of the individual assessment sheet. Two working days from the posting of a list of registration numbers means appealing against something you have not yet seen. Three working days from receiving the scores per indicator would turn the appeal from a formality into a real check.
  • The final mark should not be able to fall below the mark appealed against. One sentence to that effect in Article 24 would solve it. Otherwise the candidate’s only protection is not to appeal, which defeats the purpose of the remedy. If reassessment in both directions is nevertheless preferred, then the risk belongs in the appeal form, in plain sight, not in an inference drawn from two articles read together.
  • Article 2 needs a deadline and a minimum set of rules. For as long as the university senate has not adopted a methodology of its own, institutes coordinated by universities are left without any applicable procedure. A 90-day deadline and a clause making the Government methodology applicable in the meantime would close the gap.
  • The total calendar of the procedure should be capped expressly and aligned with the interim period. A written cap, say 60 working days from notice to final report, would stop the partial deadlines from adding up to almost 19 weeks and would place the procedure inside the 6 months of interim exercise allowed by Law no. 183/2024.
  • The formulas in table no. 1 and the notes below it should be put right by a corrigendum. These are indicators that go into the management contract and into the annual assessment of the director, and a formula that adds revenue to expenditure produces a figure that someone will have to calculate and sign. That goes beyond a drafting slip.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 804 of 22 September 2026 32 pages PDF, 174 KB the act starts on page 9

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.