Romania

IV - Early Emergency Funding

Prior to 2010, loan assistance to States was made primarily via bilateral agreements (to Latvia, Hungary, Romania, 1st round of Greek loan assistance). 
The European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) and the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) are two temporary emergency funds, both resulting from the turbulent political weekend of 7-9 May 2010. On May 9, a Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Euro Area Member States was adopted expressing agreement on both funds.    
The EFSM is based on a ‘Council regulation establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism’ of May 11, 2010 adopted on the basis of article 122(2) TFEU and therefore binding on all 27 member states of the EU.  
(
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:118:0001:0001:EN:PDF
)
The EFSF is a special purpose vehicle created under Luxembourgish private law by the 17 member states of the Eurozone. The EFSF Framework Agreement was signed on June 7, 2010. On June 24, 2011, the Heads of State or Government of the Eurozone agreed to increase the EFSF’s scope of activity and increase its guarantee commitments.           
(
http://www.efsf.europa.eu/attachments/20111019_efsf_framework_agreement_en.pdf and http://www.efsf.europa.eu/attachments/faq_en.pdf)

Negotiation
IV.1:    
What political/legal difficulties did Romania encounter in the negotiation of the EFSF and the EFSM, in particular in relation to (budgetary) sovereignty, constitutional law, socio-economic fundamental rights, and the budgetary process?

– Romania, as a non-Eurozone member state, was not part of the EFSF framework agreement.

– Regarding the EFSM, Romania as a non-Euro Member State did not encounter any political or legal difficulties during the negotiations of the EFSM Regulation.

As for the general position during the negotiations, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Romania was supportive on the adoption of the tool. Given the national objective and obligation under the accession treaties to adopt the Euro currency as soon as the conditions are met, the instrument was seen as indirectly beneficial for Romania. The specific objective of Romania in the negotiations as mentioned by the Ministry was to make sure that no unjustified measures are imposed on non-Euro Member States in the view of adopting the Euro currency that would render Romania’s aspirations towards joining the Monetary Union unnecessarily burdensome.[1]

For the adoption of the final Regulation, during the Council meeting of 9/10 May 2010, Romania was represented by the Ministry of Public Finances’ State Secretary, Mr. Alexandru Nazare.[2] The position of the Romanian Government was expressed by the State Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, Mr. Alexandru Nazare (member of the PDL party), after the Council meeting, stating that:

“[t]he establishment of this mechanism for financial stability, supported by Romania, is a proof of solidarity, a tool that the Union needed and it is also a strong political commitment. Romania will benefit indirectly from this Mechanism in the following years and directly from the moment of its accession to the Eurozone. The Mechanism will be implemented through the joint efforts of the European Commission, of the International Monetary Fund and of the Member States in order to enable the prevention of such future crises and to protect the European single currency. This mechanism is a safety measure in addition to strengthening the European economies; the priority is still that of adjusting each Member State’s budgetary costs in every Member State severely affected by the crisis. In this context, Romania’s reform plan agreed with the IMF was welcomed by EU finance ministers.”[3]

There were no recorded debates in the Romanian Parliament concerning the EFSM. One reason for the absence of parliamentary debate could be the fact that Romania is not yet a Euro Member State and does not benefit directly from the Mechanism. Instead, Romania received assistance loans under the Balance-of-Payments (BOP) facility starting from 2009[4] (please see on the BoP sections X.5 and X.6 below).

Entry into force      
IV.2     
Article 1(1) EFSF Framework Agreement provides that it will enter into force if sufficient Eurozone member states have concluded all procedures necessary under their respective national laws to ensure that their obligations shall come into immediate force and effect and provided written confirmation of this. What does this procedure look like in Romania and in what way does it involve Parliament?

Romania is not a party to the EFSF.

Guarantees
IV.3     
Member states are obliged to issue Guarantees under the EFSF. What procedure was used for this in Romania? What debates have arisen during this procedure, in particular in relation to the implications of the guarantees for (budgetary) sovereignty, constitutional law, socio-economic fundamental rights, and the budgetary process?

Romania is not a party to the EFSF.

Activation problems        
IV.4     
What political/legal difficulties did Romania encounter during the national procedures related to the entry into force of the EFSF Framework Agreement and/or the issuance and increase of guarantees?

Romania is not a party to the EFSF.

Case law 
IV.5     
Is there a (constitutional) court judgment about the EFSM or EFSF in Romania?

No, there is no constitutional or ordinary court judgment about the EFSM.

Romania is not a party to the EFSF.

Implementation
IV.6     
What is the role of Parliament in the application of the EFSF, for example with regard to decisions on aid packages (Loan Facility Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding) and the disbursement of tranches, both of which need unanimous approval by the so-called Guarantors, i.e. the Eurozone member states?

Romania is not a party to the EFSF.

Implementing problems  
IV.7
What political/legal difficulties did Romania encounter in the application of the EFSF?

Romania is not a party to the EFSF.

Bilateral support    
IV.8     
In case Romania participated in providing funding on a bilateral basis to other EU Member States during the crisis, what relevant Parliamentary debates or legal issues have arisen?

Romania did not provide bilateral funding.

Miscellaneous
IV.9     
What other information is relevant with regard to Romania and the EFSM/EFSF?

Even though on the national level there were no debates regarding the negotiations of the EFSM Treaty, mass-media gave brief information to the Romanian public about the Council meeting where the EFSM was adopted.

[1] Source: written answers from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania, 24 September 2014.

[2] Council of the European Union, Extraordinary Council Meeting 9-10 May 2010, press release 9696/2010, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/114324.pdf

[3] http://www.euractiv.ro/uniunea-europeana/articles%7CdisplayArticle/articleID_20131/Uniunea-Europeana-initiaza-Mecanismul-de-Stabilitate-Financiara-pentru-protejarea-zonei-euro.html

[4] Council Decision 2009/459/EC of 6 May 2009. See also: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/assistance_eu_ms/romania/index_en.htm