Romania's recent adoption of Law No. 14/2025, effective March 15, 2025, has sparked considerable controversy regarding its impact on the acquisition of Romanian citizenship by individuals of Romanian descent living abroad. The Institute of the Golescu Brothers for relations with Romanians from abroad, an organization assisting those seeking citizenship, vehemently criticizes the law, characterizing it as "one of the most unfair and humiliating reforms of the regime of Romanian citizenship after 1989." This analysis delves into the specific criticisms leveled against the law, examining its potential consequences and exploring the broader context of Romanian citizenship laws and their historical implications.
Exorbitant Financial Burdens and Access to Historical Records
A primary concern raised by the Institute of the Golescu Brothers is the substantial financial burden imposed on applicants. The new law demands the submission of documents from countries where archival access is often extremely difficult or impossible. This requirement is particularly problematic for descendants of those deported, affected by wars, or victims of expropriations and territorial losses during the 20th century. The law's stipulation that documents must be issued no more than two years prior to application significantly complicates matters, rendering the process practically insurmountable for many.
The cost of obtaining, authenticating, and apostilling these often-obsolete documents can reach staggering amounts, with estimates exceeding €10,000 in some cases. This financial barrier effectively transforms the moral right to reclaim citizenship into a privilege exclusively accessible to the wealthy, creating an elitist system that contradicts the principles of inclusivity and national belonging. The absurdity is heightened by the fact that many required documents may simply no longer exist in their original form, particularly for individuals tracing their ancestry back to regions like Bessarabia, Bukovina, and Herța, which were subjected to deportations and historical upheaval.
Case Study: The Challenges Faced by Descendants of Deportations from Bessarabia
The challenges faced by descendants of Bessarabian deportations serve as a powerful illustration of the law’s impracticality. Many individuals whose families were forcibly displaced during the Soviet era lack access to crucial birth certificates, marriage certificates, or other essential documents needed to substantiate their claims. These documents may be lost, destroyed, or inaccessible due to the collapse of administrative systems and the passage of time. Even if some records survive, accessing them often requires navigating complex bureaucratic hurdles, significant travel expenses, and potentially substantial fees for translation and authentication. The new law’s restrictive timeframe only exacerbates these pre-existing difficulties, leaving many descendants with no realistic path to obtaining Romanian citizenship. The financial burden, coupled with the logistical and administrative complexities, effectively prevents many from exercising their right to claim their Romanian heritage.
Discrimination Against Vulnerable Individuals
Law 14/2025 also faces criticism for its discriminatory treatment of vulnerable individuals. The law mandates the personal presence of legally protected persons—individuals with intellectual or mental disabilities, or those suffering from serious illnesses—during the application process. This requirement ignores the reality of their limited or nonexistent capacity for independent action. These individuals are forced to endure stressful situations, including long queues and potentially insensitive interactions with officials, solely to submit their applications. This treatment violates fundamental human dignity and contravenes European law on the protection of vulnerable persons. The insensitive disregard for the specific needs and vulnerabilities of this population highlights a profound flaw in the law's design and implementation.
Specific Examples of Discrimination Against Vulnerable Groups
Consider the case of an elderly individual with dementia, accompanied by a legal guardian. The requirement for personal presence necessitates bringing this individual to the relevant office, potentially causing significant distress and disrupting their medical regimen. The inability to handle the complex procedures independently places an immense burden on their guardians and family members. Similar difficulties arise for individuals with physical disabilities who may have limited mobility or require special assistance. These situations reveal the law’s failure to account for individual needs and capacities, resulting in discriminatory treatment and the denial of equal access to citizenship.
Arbitrary and Unpredictable Application Process
The vagueness of the law's criteria further compounds these problems. The power to reject applications rests with officials who must be “convinced without doubt” that applicants meet undefined standards. This subjective assessment creates an arbitrary system where even those fulfilling all legal requirements face the risk of rejection without clear explanations. This lack of transparency and accountability undermines the principle of due process and allows for potential abuse of power. The absence of clearly defined criteria creates an environment conducive to inconsistency and potentially discriminatory practices.
The "Reasonable Doubt" Clause: A Source of Injustice
The inclusion of a "reasonable doubt" clause allows for the rejection of applications based on subjective interpretations, rather than objective evidence. This clause essentially gives officials significant leeway in deciding the fate of applications, potentially leading to unjust outcomes and unwarranted rejections. Such a clause is particularly concerning given the already high barriers to access faced by many applicants. This vagueness renders the process inherently unpredictable, leaving applicants in a state of uncertainty for extended periods.
Historical Injustice and the Lack of Collective Recognition
The law’s failure to acknowledge the historical context surrounding Romanian citizenship further fuels criticism. The vast majority of former Romanian citizens and their descendants were victims of occupation regimes and did not voluntarily relinquish their citizenship. Instead of recognizing these historical injustices collectively, the law burdens individuals with the impossible task of proving their "value" through a humiliating and excessively demanding process. This individualistic approach ignores the collective nature of the historical trauma experienced by many applicants and their ancestors.
The George Barițiu Institute's Position and its Significance
The position of the George Barițiu Institute of History, stating that descendants of individuals who became Romanian citizens through the 1918 royal decrees are entitled to regain citizenship under Law 21/1991, underscores the historical context and legal basis for many of these claims. The law's disregard for this well-established historical perspective further amplifies the injustice it perpetrates. This historical context should form the cornerstone of any just and equitable approach to citizenship acquisition, yet it remains tragically disregarded in Law 14/2025.
Inadequate Protection of Adopted Minors
The law's failure to adequately protect adopted minors is another area of significant concern. The cancellation of an adoption may result in the loss of Romanian citizenship for the child, without proper consideration of their best interests. This creates the possibility of condemning vulnerable children to statelessness or forced exile. This disregard for the well-being of children is particularly egregious and highlights the law’s fundamental flaws. The law's disregard for the best interests of the child, a principle enshrined in international human rights law, represents a profound ethical failure.
Risks of Statelessness and Forced Exile for Adopted Children
The potential for adopted minors to become stateless as a result of this law's provisions is a deeply troubling aspect. Statelessness leaves children vulnerable to exploitation, discrimination, and denial of fundamental rights. The lack of any mechanism to protect these children from such dire consequences is unacceptable. This risk must be addressed urgently to prevent irreversible harm to vulnerable individuals.
Unreasonable Processing Times and Lack of Transparency
The extended processing times, exceeding two and a half years, contribute to the overall negative impact of the law. Applicants are left in a state of prolonged uncertainty, vulnerable to political or administrative changes. The system is described as a “bureaucratic lottery,” where only the privileged are successful. This delays the process indefinitely, preventing many individuals from obtaining citizenship in a timely manner.
The Lack of Transparency and Public Consultation
The lack of transparency in the ANC's procedures and the failure to consult with civil society organizations and experts during the drafting of the law are significant flaws. The lack of meaningful public consultation exacerbates the sense of injustice and undermines the legitimacy of the law. The absence of a formal consultation process underscores a complete disregard for public opinion and expert input.
The Role of the National Authority for Citizenship (ANC) and Political Accountability
The head of the ANC, along with the former Liberal Minister of Justice, Alina Gorghiu, are implicated in the shortcomings of the law. The organization also criticizes the digitalization process, pointing to a series of technical issues that exacerbate the already difficult process for applicants. The overlapping roles of Mr. Silviu Barbu Gabriel and the significant increase in processing times also raise concerns about bureaucratic inefficiency and potential conflict of interest. The involvement of key political figures heightens the call for political accountability.
The Role of the Ministry of Justice and the High Court of Cassation and Justice
The Ministry of Justice’s role in facilitating the public debate on the law’s modifications, along with the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s (ICCJ) appeals against the law’s provisions before promulgation, highlight the concerns surrounding its implementation. The ICCJ's appeal, signed by 70 judges, underscores the law’s lack of clarity, predictability, and accessibility. The rejection of the ICCJ's appeal underscores the potential for systemic abuses of power and a disregard for judicial oversight.
The Language Proficiency Requirement and its Impact
The imposition of a language proficiency requirement, demanding internationally recognized certificates of Romanian language knowledge, further adds to the difficulties faced by applicants. This requirement ignores the educational realities in countries like Moldova and Ukraine, where Romanian language education may not conform to the standards specified in the law. This requirement disproportionately affects individuals from these regions, creating unnecessary obstacles to citizenship acquisition.
The Economic Burden of Language Proficiency Certificates
The significant cost associated with obtaining these certificates, estimated at €1,000 or more, creates another significant financial barrier. This added expense places an even greater burden on applicants, particularly those with limited financial resources. The imposition of this additional cost further exacerbates the existing financial barriers to obtaining citizenship.
Inconsistencies and Contradictions Within the Law and its Implementing Order
Significant inconsistencies exist between the provisions of Law 14/2025 and the implementing Order of the ANC President No. 85. The discrepancies between the requirements set forth in the law and the documentation demanded in the order create further confusion and add to the bureaucratic hurdles faced by applicants. This inconsistency generates further uncertainty and renders the application process even more challenging to navigate. The lack of coordination between the law and its implementing order suggests inadequate planning and oversight.
Conclusion: A Call for Reform and Justice
Law No. 14/2025 represents a significant setback in Romania's efforts to address historical injustices and foster inclusive citizenship. It is not a law of historical repair, but rather a law of humiliation, discrimination, and exclusion. The law’s flaws, ranging from exorbitant financial burdens and discriminatory treatment of vulnerable individuals to arbitrary application processes and inconsistencies within its provisions, demonstrate a profound disregard for the rights and dignity of its citizens. The urgent need for reform, coupled with greater transparency and accountability, is paramount to rectify these injustices and ensure that the process of obtaining Romanian citizenship reflects the values of fairness, equity, and respect for human dignity. The international community and European institutions should take note of these concerns, potentially triggering interventions to ensure compliance with human rights standards and principles of justice.