"CPII" Methodology offers high efficiency in findings deficiencies with regard to laws (non) publication in the Official Journal, thanks to the simplicity of the system that indexes the Laws (uninterrupted increasing numerical order) but also due to the fact that the Laws approved by the Parliament are definitive and as such their final destination is the publication in the Official Journal.

Another situation is presented in the case of acts issued by the Council of Ministers. As made clear already in explanations given above, the Council of Ministers issues acts which are in most of the cases administrative instruments to implement (enforce) in practise the Laws passed by the Parliament; the Council of Ministers  also proposes or “approves in principle” draft agreements. The latter are essentially draft laws, which require further legislative processing; they must be ratified by the Parliament. Therefore, the final destination for each different type of act issued by the Executive branch is different depending on the act’s type: some of them are of a definitive nature and therefore go for publication in the Official Journal, some other are of a non-definitive one and are forwarded for further approval in the Parliament.

This makes it relatively difficult to identify those DCMs which should have been sent indispensably for publication in the Official Journal. Even when identifying these unpublished DCMs in the Official Journal, it is likely that the number of DCMs that, contrary to the legal provision are not submitted for publication in the Official Journal, could be bigger that this methodology has the ability or the potential to “filter”.

There is always a hypothetical possibility that in the official website of the institution that issues acts, the latter are not reflected or publicised accurately. This is many time the case in the framework of this monitoring: on the official website of the Council of Ministers, have not been published DCMs approved by the Government on its meetings from 22nd of January till 5th of May, 2006. If all DCMs approved during this period of time would have been published in the official website of the Council of Ministers, the comparative basis for cross-examination would have been much broader. Probably other acts would have been identified as not published in the Official Journal 2006, of course, except those published de-facto in the Official Journal 2006 during the period of time from 22nd of January till 5th of May, 2006 (it results that about 101 DCMs approved during this period of time are published in the Official Journal).

The official website of the Council of Ministers has significant lack of consistency regarding DCMs publication. It results that lots of them are missing the list, not only during 2006, but also during 2007 and 2008. In several cased, it results that the Council of Ministers held its meetings, presumably to take decisions but which, in fact are not reflected in official website at all. For practical reasons, since the consistency of the official site of the Council of Ministers is not subject of this monitoring, the observed shortcomings will not be treated in the framework of this publication.

It is very important to note, the "CPII" Methodology make possible the identification of non-published acts through examining from outside the institutions system. This methodology is able to accurately identify 97% of the acts, both as title and content, which are published in the Council of Ministers’ websites, but which result to be non-published in the Official Journal. The error margin is round 3% which in fact represents the supposed human calculating error during verification (during the counting process, "Component II") as well as the hypothetical error related to “Window Period” (see below).

The methodology does not enable the identification both as title and content of the absolute total of DCMs which are not published in the Official Journal during a given year. In other words, throughout  "CPII" Methodology it is objectively impossible to determine specifically  "what" content have the acts which theoretically result as unpublished both in the website of the institution that has issued these acts and in the Official Journal.
 
We can only guess at this point that these still-missing acts can only be:

1. all secret acts
2. all acts that should be published
3. part of them "secret" acts and part acts that should be published

The only way that makes it possible to find out "what" precisely are these acts that lack the "appeal" would be through out the application of another method which is applied from within the institution, when full access to relevant archives is granted by the relevant institution. "CPII" Methodology instead is conceived especially for conducting verifications by outside of the institution (or institution system). Consequently, it recognizes its limitations "by definition".

There is only one hypothetical possibility when the findings generated through the application of “CPII” methodology will correspond (coincide) 100% with those generated from another methodology which verifies acts’ publication from within the institution (in our case from within the archive of the Council of Ministers). This will be the case when the official website of the Council of Ministers would have reflected without exception all the acts issued during the given year, excluding only those secret.

Another limitation of the methodology applied for this monitoring, especially for acts issued by the Executive branch, is the relative inability to objectively examine the deficiencies in chronological order of acts during what the authors of this methodology call the "window period". This is the period which corresponds with the end of the calendar year, when acts may be submitted to the State Publication Center, but the legal deadline allow sufficient tolerance to process these acts till a time limit which belongs or correspond to the new calendar year. This restriction in fact does not affect the results generated through Component II, or the so called Factual Verification, but only the Schematic Verification. Consequently, this methodological limitation does not influence the bottom outcome, but just what would be in this case the theoretical result, which, in the context of this study, the authors have not referred to as the ultimate finding.

And finally, there is always a possibility that the act that carries the last number and date (numerical index), and which closes the publication series in a given year, may not be really the last one. We have already proven, particularly in administrative acts issued by the Executive branch that do exist publication deficiencies in the Official Journal. We may also accept the possibility that other absence may occur concerning those acts which may carry index numbers bigger that the last one of the series. This may be not so sensitive when it comes to the DCM-s to due to the numerous amount of them identified to be left out of publication, but this might be extremely sensitive when it comes to the  publication of normative acts (with the force of law) of the Council of Ministers.

In other words, the last index number that closes the publication series on a given calendar year for a certain kind of act, does not necessarily indicates that the search for possible shortages must be oriented only towards precursor dates, or numbers.  The most typical cases that confirm this methodological limitation are the normative acts of the Council of Ministers during year 2008 (see: MONITORING CONCLUSIONS,  2008).