http://eudo-citizenship.

eu
ROBERT SCHUMAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES
EUDO CITIZENSHIP OBSERVATORY
COUNTRY REPORT: ROMANIA
Constantin Iordachi
December 2009
Revised May 2010
European University Institute, Florence
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
EUDO Citizenship Observatory
Report on Romania
Constantin Iordachi
December 2009
Revised May 2010
EUDO Citizenship Observatory
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
in collaboration with
Edinburgh University Law School
Country Report, RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20
Badia Fiesolana, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI), Italy
2010 Constantin Iordachi
This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes.
Additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically,
requires the consent of the authors.
Requests should be addressed to eucitac@eui.eu
The views expressed in this publication cannot in any circumstances be regarded as
the ofcial position of the European Union
Published in Italy
European University Institute
Badia Fiesolana
I 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI)
Italy
www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Publications/
www.eui.eu
cadmus.eui.eu
Research for the EUDO Citizenship Observatory Country Reports has been jointly supported by the
European Commission grant agreement JLS/2007/IP/CA/009 EUCITAC and by the British Academy Research Project
CITMODES (both projects co-directed by the EUI and the University of Edinburgh).
The fnancial support from these projects is gratefully acknowledged.
For information about the project please visit the project website at http://eudo-citizenship.eu

Romania

Constantin Iordachi

1 Introduction

A member of the European Union since J anuary 2007, Romania has brought a rich historical
experience into the Union that is attributable to the long-lasting Byzantine and Ottoman
imperial legacies as well as to the more recent successive waves of Soviet- and Western-style
modernisation. Given Romanias multiple historical legacies, which combine pan-European
trends with Central and Southeast European regional features, the history of Romanian
citizenship legislation challenges the clear-cut and neatly defined analytical dichotomies, such
as old versus new states and civic versus ethnic, or inclusive versus exclusive
citizenship doctrines, which are, it is submitted, erroneously regarded as corresponding to
Western versus Eastern historical experiences (for a critique of such views, see Iordachi
2006).
This report focuses on the interplay between the various historical legacies in the
evolution of Romanian citizenship, underlining continuities and ruptures in the transition from
communist to post-communist policies of national membership. It focuses on the legal
dimension of state citizenship, which is regulated mainly by constitutions and citizenship
laws. Particular attention is devoted to the most contested component of post-communist
Romanian citizenship policy: the right to reacquisition of citizenship by former citizens and
their descendants living outside the states (post-1945) borders. This policy resulted in the
massive (re)naturalisation of Moldovan and Ukrainian citizens stripped of their Romanian
citizenship following the 19401941/1944 Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern
Bukovina. I argue that Romanias policy regarding the restoration of citizenship should be
placed in the political and analytical context of post-communist restitution. Restitution in its
various forms has been an important component of legal systems since ancient times,
referring to the return of a person to his or her original status and to the restoration of his or
her rights or property, prior to a loss, injury or abuse. In post-communist Central and Eastern
Europe, the concept took on a peculiar legal meaning because it denoted the process of
undoing communist legal and political abuses and dispossessions. Restitution was central to
post-communist legal and political transformation, which was aimed at the restoration of the
status quo ante (before the communist takeover). From this perspective, the legal
revolutions initiated in 1989, which led to the dismantling of the communist regimes, should
be understood more in the literal meaning of the term revolutionthat is, as a movement of
rotation, which returns to an original position.
In post-communist East-Central Europe, practices of restitution have been applied to a
wide range of societal domains. Yet, to date, scholars have focused their research almost
exclusively on the reconstruction of individual and communal property rights. An important
but largely understudied aspect is the restitution of citizenship to former de-naturalised
citizens. In the context of post-communist nationalist upsurges, this practice was not simply a
necessary legal reparation for past injustices; it was also seen as a means of recreating the pre-
communist citizenry and national community and as a means for the restoration of national
identity, allegedly lost under communist rule, which was defined as a regime of Soviet
occupation. The gap between political visions of recreating the inter-war national imagined
community and the far-reaching practical complications this project generated led to a
multitude of political, legal-procedural and diplomatic crises, with wide domestic and
international implications. These complications and the debates surrounding them account for
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 1

the numerous shifts and turns of Romanias policy regarding the restitution of citizenship,
which culminated in the temporary suspension of the process of restitution during the period
from 2001 to 2007.

2 Historical background

2.1 The making of Romanian citizenship: Pre-communist legacies

Modern Romania was established in 1859 through the state union of the principalities of
Moldova and Wallachia. After their establishment in the fourteenth century, the two
principalities were part of the Byzantine political tradition and Eastern Orthodox religious
commonwealth. They fell under Ottoman domination in the fifteenth century and were subject
to Ottoman suzerainty until 1878; and thereafter experienced major stages of nation- and
state-building during the long nineteenth century, with such landmarks as the Congress of
Paris (1856), the Congress of Berlin (1879), and the Versailles Peace Treaties (19191920),
all part of successive geo-political reorganisations of Southeast Europe by the great European
powers. One can identify several historical periods in the development of Romanian
citizenship, corresponding to major stages in the process of nation-building and state-
building: 18591918, 19181937, 19371944, 19441989 and 1989 to the present.
The legal bases of modern Romanian citizenship were set out in the 1865 Civil Code,
which emulated the French legal system put forward in the 1804 Code Civil, based on the ius
sanguinis principle of ascribing citizenship at birth, and a selective policy of naturalisation of
aliens, favouring those born and raised in the country. The French model was nevertheless
amended in several respects: the Romanian Civil Code, soon supplemented but also partially
(and restrictively) modified by a modern Constitution adopted in 1866, introduced Christian
religion and Romanian ethnicity as criteria for naturalisation, both absent in the Code Civil.
Firstly, until 1879, J ews were excluded from Romanian citizenship, on the basis of their
religion, even if born and raised in the country for generations; on this basis, they were
deprived of substantial civil, social and political rights. In 1879, under pressure from the
international community, J ews were granted access to naturalisation; however, instead of
enjoying a swift and collective citizenship emancipation, J ews were only allowed to apply for
individual naturalisation that could be granted by Parliament by means of a special law
adopted for each individual case. This lengthy and highly bureaucratic practice explains the
small number of naturalisations before the First World War, the great majority of J ews
remaining non-citizen permanent residents. Secondly, the Romanian state pursued an active
national policy: ethnic Romanians from neighbouring countries immigrating to the mother
country were granted privileged access to citizenship by the parliament, without a
naturalisation stage, i.e. without the necessity of having lived in the country for a period of ten
years. (They could prove their ethnic origin by means of witness accounts or certificates of
ethnicity issued by Romanian communities abroad and further corroborated by their
knowledge of the Romanian language). This practice, euphemistically called recognition of
citizenship, was justified by the incomplete ethnic boundaries of the Romanian nation-state
and legitimised an irredentist policy of incorporating Romanians from Austria-Hungary,
Russia and the Balkans. This legal model functioned until the First World War, with only
minor modifications necessitated by the annexation of Northern and Southern
Dobrogea/Dobrudja from the Ottoman Empire and from Bulgaria in 1878 in 1913
respectively (Iordachi 2002).
The socio-political upheaval of the Great War brought significant changes to the
Romanian citizenry. Firstly, interwar Greater Romania almost doubled in size and
Constantin Iordachi
2 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author

population as compared to the pre-war Old Kingdom, by incorporating the province of
Bessarabia (situated between the rivers Prut and Dniestr, and annexed by Russia in 1812), and
territories that had been previously part of Austria-Hungarynamely Bukovina,
Transylvania, the Banat, Maramure and the Partium. For the first time in their modern
history, ethnic Romanians thus lived in a single national and unitary state, as Greater
Romania was defined by the 1923 Constitution. Although dominated by Romanians, the new
state also included a high ratio of ethnic and religious minorities: 28.1 per cent of the total
population in 1930, including Hungarians (7.9 per cent), Germans (4.1 per cent), J ews (4.0
per cent), Ruthenians (3.2 per cent), Russians (2.3 per cent), Bulgarians (2.0 per cent),
Gypsies (1.5 per cent), Turks (0.9 per cent) and Tartars (0.1 per cent) (Institutul Central de
Statistic 1940: 4445). Secondly, the events of the war generated an unprecedented
liberalisation of access to citizenship. Under international pressure, Romania took full steps
towards the civil and political emancipation of J ews. Adopted in February 1924, the new law
on citizenship granted citizenship to all legal inhabitants of the Old Kingdom and the annexed
territories. It also preserved the main features of Romanian citizenship doctrine by stipulating
three main ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by descent, according to the principle of ius
sanguinis; (2) by marrying a Romanian man; and (3) by naturalisation, after having fulfilled a
residence requirement of ten years following the declaration of intent to naturalise. Foreigners
born and raised in Romania were exempt from the mandatory residential stage, provided they
requested naturalisation upon reaching maturity. Thirdly, the liberalisation of access to
citizenship was accompanied by major socio-political reorganisations of the country.
Comprehensive reforms such as universal male suffrage (1918), massive land redistribution
(1921) and a new liberal Constitution (1923) remodelled the country into a multi-party
parliamentary monarchy. While the new liberal regime remained largely unconsolidated,
being marred by major regional and socio-political cleavages, it is important to note that
political pluralism was preserved almost throughout the entire interwar period, free
parliamentary elections being held as late as 1937, at a time when the European continent had
long been dominated by authoritarian political regimes. Unfortunately, the 1937
parliamentary elections turned out to be Romanias last free elections until 1990.
The Romanian citizenship doctrine suffered significant changes just prior to and
during the Second World War, with long-term legal consequences. Firstlyunder the joint
pressure of right-wing organisations from below and the authoritarian tendencies of King
Carol II (19301940) from abovethe multiparty parliamentary regime collapsed in 1938,
being replaced by a (short-lived) regime of royal dictatorship (19381940). The new political
changes were also reflected in a new law on citizenship, adopted in 1939 at King Carols
initiative. The law did not alter the main principles of ascribing citizenship, but introduced
numerous changes in the procedure of naturalisation, placed under the control of the Ministry
of J ustice. The most important change was that naturalised citizens were granted full political
rights only six years after the act of naturalisation. The law served as the basis of Romanias
citizenship policy until 19471952, when it was amended and then fully abolished by the new
communist regime; however, in the post-communist period, many of its provisions have been
reinstated. Secondly, the political ascent of the extreme right led to the massive de-
naturalisation of Romanian J ews, their deprivation of substantive political and civil rights
during the royal dictatorship of King Carol II, and their partial deportation and extermination
during the dictatorial regime of Ion Antonescu (19401944). Thirdly, during the Second
World War, Greater Romania suffered major territorial losses. In 1940under the new
political conditions created by Nazi Germanys military domination of EuropeRomania was
forced to cede Northwestern Transylvania to Hungary and Southern Dobrogea to Bulgaria.
Following the 1939 Ribbentrop-Molotov Non-Aggression Pact, which divided the spheres
of influence between Nazi Germany and the USSR, on 28 J une 1940 the Soviet army
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 3

occupied the provinces of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Romania ceded these provinces
without resistance, but in J une 1941, it joined Nazi Germanys anti-Soviet war and managed
to liberate these occupied territories temporarily between 1941 and 1944.
In 1944, a coalition of communists and democratic parties ousted Antonescu from
power, reinstated the 1923 Constitution, abolished all anti-Semitic discriminatory laws and
restored citizenship to all denaturalised inhabitants. The new democratic Romania also joined
the anti-fascist military coalition and restored its control over Northwestern Transylvania. The
return to the legal and territorial order of interwar Greater Romania was nevertheless
hampered by several factors: firstly, in 1944, the Soviets reoccupied Bessarabia, which
became the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (MSSR) including also the Transnistria
region (a long conundrum situated across the river Dniestr); and Northern Bukovina, which
was granted to the Ukraine (together with the southern part of Bessarabia, detached from the
MSSR). Secondly, the Soviets intervened in the political process by installing the tiny
Communist Party in power and initiating the forceful Sovietisation of Romania. The
understanding of the communist legacy is essential to our effort to grasp the main features of
citizenship policies in the post-communist period.

2.2 A new legal beginning: Citizenship under the communist regime

The communist regime implemented radical changes to Romanias legal and political system
(19451989). Through three consecutive constitutions (1948, 1952, 1965), major changes to
the civil code and an all-encompassing set of laws regulating every sphere of activity, the new
political regime broke with the past and redefined the nature of the state by emulating the
Soviet model of development. The evolution of the political regime was, however, neither
linear nor fully consistent in its aims. In order to gain political legitimacy, the regime
combined three main forms of societal control: remunerative, coercive and symbolic-
ideological (Verdery 1991). Based on specific combinations of these three forms of control
and the evolution of its relationship with Moscow, one can distinguish four main stages in the
development of the communist regime in Romania: 19461958, corresponding with the
institutionalisation of communist rule; 19581965, a period of internal consolidation; 1965
1971, a period of relative liberalisation and relaxation of political control; and 19711989,
marked by a growing economic and socio-political crisis most aptly described by the concept
of war-Stalinism. As a legal boundary defining membership in the national and social-
political community, citizenship legislation was an essential dimension of the communist
political transformation and was therefore subject to many revisions in 1947, 1948, 1952,
1954, 1956 and 1971, reflecting the shifts and turns of the political regime.
In the first phase of the communist regime, that of the primitive accumulation of
legitimacy (194658), citizenship legislation had a strong repressive function (Shafir 1985).
Deriving its legitimacy and support from the Soviet Red Army, the new communist regime
engaged in a process of breakthrough meant to subvert the legacy of bourgeois nationalism
and to disrupt alternative centres of power in society (J owitt 1971: 7).
Citizenship legislation was an important instrument in the arduous processes of both
the unmaking of the old bourgeois social classes and the making of the new socialist
proletariat. The communist regime also redefined the conditions of acquisition and loss of
citizenship. With the stroke of a pen, Decree no. 33/1952 abolished all existing laws on
citizenship (art. 10); instead, in two pages and ten articles, it set new rules for the acquisition
of Romanian citizenship, defining the legal boundaries of the socialist nation. Romanian
citizenship was ascribed at birth, iure sanguinis, to children of at least one Romanian parent.
Constantin Iordachi
4 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author

In a major departure from the legal tradition of the country, the decree thus allowed the
transmission of citizenship on the maternal as well as on the paternal line in mixed families,
provided that at least one parent lived in Romania. This transmission could not result in dual
citizenship: upon adulthood, children born into mixed marriages had to choose between the
citizenship of the mother or the father, by parental accord. Combined with Decree no.
130/1949 (which allowed official investigations of the paternity of children, thus eliminating
illegitimacy as an accepted legal category), these stipulations contributed to the formal legal
equality of women, since they were legally enabled to transmit their own citizenship to their
children.
The decree discontinued the traditional ius soli policy of naturalisation of aliens born
in the country and the privileged naturalisation of ethnic Romanians living abroad. Decisions
on the naturalisations of aliens, as well as on the renunciation or withdrawal of citizenship
were taken by the Presidium of the Grand National Assembly, established in 1947 after the
abolition of the monarchy and the proclamation of the republic.
After 1958, political divergences with Moscow and the move of the Romanian leaders
towards political autonomy and a national path to building socialism led to significant
changes in the official socialist ideology. With the retreat of the Red Army (1958), Romanian
leaders renounced external sources of legitimisation and recuperated traditional themes of
nationalist ideology in an attempt to gain broader domestic support (Shafir 1985). Initiated
under the last years of Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dejs rule, the nationalist turn of the regime,
which was intensified during the rule of Nicolae Ceauescu (19651989), resulted in a
syncretism between nationalism and a decayed Marxism, best described by the concept of
national-communism (Verdery 1991).
The new nationalist orientation of the regime was also reflected in the definition given
to the legal principle governing the ascription of citizenship at birth. Adopted in 1971, the
new Law on Romanian citizenship reconfirmed the principle of ius sanguinis as the very
foundation of a homogeneous national community and imbued it with nationalist
connotations. Art. 5 of the law read:
As an expression of the relationship between parents and children, of the
uninterrupted continuity of the fatherland of previous generations that fought for social and
national freedom, children born of Romanian parents on the territory of the Socialist Republic
of Romania are Romanian citizens (emphasis added).
1

This definition linked the application of the ius sanguinis principle to birth on the
territory and uninterrupted continuity of the nation in its fatherland. It made reference not
only to parents and children in the transmission of citizenship, but also to generations. Other
articles of the law made evident that this link operated only at symbolic-ideological level, the
principle of ius sanguinis being in fact also applied to children of citizens born outside the
country. The argument was nevertheless meant to emphasise the autochthonous roots of the
Romanian people and the historical symbiosis between the nation, its territory and the new
socialist citizenry, thus alluding to the idea of organic nationalism elaborated by romantic
nationalist thinkers in the first half of the nineteenth century and brought to political
prominence by right-wing organisations in the interwar period.
In addition to ascription through ius sanguinis at birth, Romanian citizenship could
also be acquired by naturalisation, by adoption and by repatriation. Naturalisation was granted
at adulthood by the Council of State (a leading organ of the republic created in 1961) to
persons who: a) were born in Romania and lived there at the time of their request; b) were

1
All translations of legal texts are the authors, if not otherwise indicated.
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 5

born abroad but had lived uninterruptedly in Romania for at least five years; c) were married
to a Romanian citizen and had lived in the country for at least three years. In addition to the
residence condition, aliens were required to:
prove, through their behaviour and attitude, attachment to the Romanian state
and the Romanian people; be eighteen years of age or above; undertake socially useful work
or prove sufficient material means of subsistence;
renounce their foreign citizenship or any commitment of loyalty to a foreign
power and swear allegiance to Socialist Romania.
The Romanian state reserved its right to unilaterally withdraw unilaterally the
citizenship of those individuals who broke with the fatherland by crossing the border
clandestinely or, after relocating their domicile abroad, assumed a foreign citizenship, worked
against the interests of the country or enrolled in a foreign army (art. 19). Access to
citizenship was firmly controlled by the executive power: Ceauescu alone, as the president of
the Council of State (from December 1967 to December 1989), could grant or withdraw
Romanian citizenship.

3 The current citizenship regime

The 1989 collapse of the communist regime and the gradual democratisation of the political
system had a powerful impact on Romanian citizenship legislation, resulting in the
redefinition of the legal criteria of membership in the national community. Without
significant dissident or reformist movements during the communist period on which to build
the process of democratisation, post-communist Romania modelled its legal and political
systems on the interwar political regime: the restitution of urban and land property, the
recreation of political parties and Parliaments structure and organisation were all shaped by
its pre-communist tradition. Yet, in many ways, the communist legacy deeply affected the
society and could not be written off as a simple parenthesis in the countrys development.
Citizenship legislation is a relevant example in this respect. Adopted in March 1991,
the new Law on Romanian Citizenship was modelled on the 1939 Law, abrogated by the
communist regime in 1952; yet it also preserved many provisions of the 1971 Law, resulting
in a novel synthesis. The 1991 Law specified four main ways of acquiring citizenship by
different categories of inhabitants:
ascription at birth, through transmission iure sanguinis to descendants of
citizens, provided at least one of the childs parents holds Romanian citizenship at the time of
the childs birth;
adoption of an alien child by a Romanian citizen;
by the act of repatriation of former citizens; and
upon request, by naturalisation of aliens born in Romania or who have lived
there for a certain period of time.

Constantin Iordachi
6 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author

3.1 The main modes of acquisition and loss of citizenship

Acquisition at birth
The acquisition of Romanian citizenship at birth is governed solely by the principle of ius
sanguinis, being granted to children who are: a) born within the territory of the country to two
Romanian citizen parents; b) born within the territory of the country in mixed marriages with
only one Romanian citizen; and c) born abroad to at least one Romanian parent. That the
principle of ius soli is of no relevance in the ascription of citizenship at birth is made evident
by the provisions concerning the citizenship of newly-born children of unknown parents; they
are granted citizenship not on the basis of their birth on Romanias territory, but under the
assumption that their parents held Romanian citizenship (art. 5). Evidence to the contrary
results in loss of citizenship, followed by the obligation of naturalisation (art. 30). In order to
make it clear that this procedure does not constitute a ius soli acquisition of citizenship, a
2003 amendment to the citizenship law rephrased art. 5 to read that the child found on
Romanian territory is considered to be [instead of is] a Romanian citizen (art. 5, 3/1;
emphasis added).

Naturalisation
The 1991 Law granted naturalisation, upon request, to adult aliens and their minor children,
who were: a) born in Romania and lived there at the time of their request; b) born abroad but
had lived uninterruptedly in Romania for at least five years; c) married to a Romanian citizen
and had lived in the country for at least three years. In addition to the residence requirement,
applicants also had to:
prove, through their behaviour and attitude, their attachment to the Romanian
state and people;
be eighteen years of age or above;
prove they possess sufficient material means of existence;
have a clean criminal record; and
have sufficient knowledge of the Romanian language in order to be able to
integrate into society.
Although the naturalisation requirements have been amended several times since 1991
(see next section), the procedure of naturalisation, which is patterned on the 1939 Law, has
remained the same. Applications have to be filed personally or through authorised attorneys to
a Commission of Citizenship set up by the Ministry of J ustice and made up of five judges of
the Bucharest Court, appointed for four years by the president of the court. Upon their
registration, requests for naturalisation are published in the Official Monitor of Romania, Part
III, and are subsequently examined by the Commission. Decisions on naturalisation are taken
by the Romanian government upon the recommendation of the commission and are published
in the Official Monitory of Romania, Part I. Naturalisation becomes effective upon the would-
be citizens taking the oath of loyalty in front of the Ministry of J ustice, a sub-secretary of
state, or the chief of a diplomatic mission abroad.
Romanian citizenship legislation underwent substantial amendments, additions and
modifications in 1999, 2002, 2003 and 2008 which were necessitated by the process of
European integration and the intensification of immigration and emigration. As a reaction to
growing migration ties, coupled with EU pressure to exert strict control over external
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 7

acquisitions of Romanian citizenship, requirements for naturalisation have been tightened.
The mandatory residence period for the naturalisation of foreigners was increased from five to
seven years in 1999, and to eight years in 2003 (albeit reduced to five years for foreigners
married to Romanian citizens). In order to eliminate cases of fraud, a 1999 amendment
demands a continuous, stable and legal residence, while a 2003 amendment requires
foreigners applying for naturalisation effectively to relocate to Romania, spend at least six
months per year in the country and pay taxes there.
2
In 1999, the residency requirement was
reduced to half of the period for regular naturalisation for persons of international reputation,
a privilege granted since 2003 also to those who have invested more than 500,000 in
Romania (increased to 5 million in 2008, but decreased to 1 million in 2009), and since
2008 also to refugees and to citizens of EU member states.
Moreover, besides the longer residency requirement, a 1999 amendment to art. 9 of
the law introduced additional conditions for naturalisation, such as sufficient knowledge of
the Romanian language, of elementary notions of Romanian culture and civilisation, of the
Constitution and, since 2003, of the national anthem. Applicants for naturalisation also need
to sign a declaration of loyalty to the Romanian state. Persons suspected of terrorism and
those who present potential threats to national security are ineligible for naturalisation.

Loss of citizenship
According to the 1991 Law, Romanian citizenship can be forfeited: a) as a result of unilateral
withdrawal by the state; b) through voluntary individual renunciation by citizens; c) or in
other special cases, such as the adoption of children by foreign citizens (art. 24). Firstly, the
Romanian state could terminate the citizenship of those individuals who had obtained their
naturalisation by fraud, who worked abroad against the interests of the country or who
enrolled in an enemy army (art. 25). Secondly, the Law allowed Romanian citizens to
renounce their citizenship for solid reasons according to a special procedure and pending
official approval, provided they are not under trial and have no debts to private or public
parties (art. 27).
Since 2001, in particular, Romania has become a major source of intra-EU migration;
taking advantage of the freedom of movement, an estimated 2-2.5 million Romanian citizens
currently live and work abroad either temporarily or permanently. The most recent
stipulations on the loss of Romanian citizenship express the Romanian states concern to
preserve legal ties with its citizens living abroad and to reduce the number of external
renunciations of citizenship. To this end, in 2003, the Romanian state waived its right to
terminate unilaterally the citizenship of natural citizens who had obtained it at birth (art.
24.d). In addition, in 2007, the procedure for the individual renunciation of citizenship
became even more complex, costly and bureaucratic. These stipulations, combined with the
fact that the principle of ius sanguinis operates externally without generational limits (so that
Romanian citizenship can be passed on indefinitely to subsequent generations born abroad
even in cases of acquisition of a new citizenship as long as parents do not renounce their
citizenship of origin), account for the fact that the number of individual renunciations or
losses of Romanian citizenship has been rather smallvarying from 12,594 persons in 1999
to 10,938 persons in 2005 (National Institute of Statistics 2006: 8183)especially when
compared to the massive number of Romanian citizens living abroad on a temporary or even
permanent basis.


2
See the parliamentary debates at www.cdep.ro.
Constantin Iordachi
8 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author

3.2 Restitution of citizenship and multiple memberships

The most debated provision of the post-communist citizenship legislation was the right to
restitution of state citizenship to former citizens. A traditional feature of the Romanian
modern legal system, the right to renaturalisation survived in various forms under the
communist regime as well. Although the Socialist Republic conceived of itself as a new state
and granted citizenship to all inhabitants living in the country, it also (partially) employed the
principle of restitution in order to reconstruct Romanias interwar citizenry on new political
bases. Thus, a law passed in 1947 restored Romanian citizenship to all those denaturalised
during the Second World War under discriminatory legislation or foreign occupation. The
1952 decree granted Romanian citizenship to all inhabitants who had settled in the country by
1920 (the year of ratification of the Peace Treaty with Austria) but who had failed to qualify
for citizenship under previous laws. Another decree passed in 1954 reconfirmed Romanian
citizenship for all those who had held this legal status as of 28 J une 1940 and had resided in
Romania ever since. Under Soviet pressure, the deadline for restitution was chosen
specifically to exclude from this right the inhabitants of Soviet-occupied Bessarabia and
Northern Bukovina, a clear indication of the limits of the communists policy on citizenship
restitution.
The communist regime also permitted the renaturalisation of former citizens, but
granted this right according to strict political criteria. Art. 1.c of the 1952 Decree and art. 7 of
the 1971 Law allowed former citizens to reacquire their citizenship upon request on the basis
of a special authorisation issued by the Presidium of the National Assembly or, after 1969, by
the Council of State. Renaturalisation was conditional on renunciation of the claimants
foreign citizenship, repatriation and integration into the socialist society (i.e. integration into
the workforce) as well as an attachment to the communist political regime, to be affirmed by
an oath of loyalty. In exceptional cases, the Council of State authorised former citizens
applying for renaturalisation to maintain their domicile abroad, but they were expressly
required to renounce in an authentic form their foreign citizenship orwhere they did not
hold a foreign citizenship any commitment, obligation of fidelity or oath of loyalty to a
foreign state (1971 Law, art. 10 and art. 11). Due to massive violations of human rights and
the deterioration of the standard of living, few former citizens applied for repatriation; on the
contrary, in the late 1980s, numerous Romanian citizens fled abroad in order to escape
political persecution and material hardship.
Upon the collapse of the communist regime, the repatriation of previously persecuted
persons and the restitution of citizenship to former citizens were the major concerns of the
new revolutionary power, which was eager to resume ties with the Romanian diaspora and
kin-minorities abroad. On 31 December 1989, the National Salvation Front guaranteed the
right of repatriation to all Romanian citizens residing abroad (Decree no. 7). In addition to the
repatriation of Romanian citizens in exile, the decree also facilitated the reacquisition of
citizenship by former Romanian citizens living abroad (art. 2), by request, through the act of
repatriation. Unlike the 1971 Law, the new decree did not require former citizens
renaturalised in Romania to renounce their foreign citizenship, thus implicitly opening the
gate to dual citizenship.
In May 1990, a new decree passed by the provisional government enlarged the rights
to reacquisition of citizenship by former citizens. While the 1989 Decree made
renaturalisation conditional on repatriation, the 1990 Decree granted former citizens the right
to retrieve their Romanian citizenship, upon request, even if they hold another citizenship
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 9

and they do not establish their domicile in Romania.
3
In doing so, the Decree explicitly
allowed certain categories of citizens to hold dual citizenship for the first time in Romanias
legal history.
The provisions on repatriation and reacquisition of citizenship were reconfirmed and
enlarged by the 1991 Law on Citizenship. The law stipulated three methods for the
reacquisition of Romanian citizenship: a) by repatriation (art. 8); b) renaturalisation by
request without repatriation (art. 11); and c) restoration of citizenship to former Romanian
citizens (art. 35) living in the lost territories of interwar Greater Romania. Firstly, the law
guaranteed former citizens the right to renaturalisation through repatriation: [t]he person who
has lost Romanian citizenship can reacquire it through repatriation, if he or she expresses a
manifest desire to do so (art. 8). Secondly, in line with the 1990 Decree, the 1991 Law
allowed reacquisition of citizenship by former Romanian citizens even without repatriation:
[f]ormer Romanian citizens who, before 22 December 1989, have lost their Romanian
citizenship for different reasons can reacquire Romanian citizenship by request even if they
retain their foreign citizenship and their domicile abroad (art. 37). Thirdly, and most
importantly, the 1991 Law introduced a new form of access to Romanian citizenship that can
be generically called restoration or restitution. An additional paragraph to art. 37 stipulated
that the right to reacquisition of citizenship is also granted to all those who were stripped of
Romanian citizenship against their will or for reasons beyond their control, and their
descendants.
Due to the imprecise and ambiguous wording of the law, at first glance, the difference
between the second and third forms of renaturalisation is not evident: the second referred to
those who had lost Romanian citizenship for various reasons, while the third referred to
those who had lost citizenship against their will or for reasons beyond their control. The
official interpretation of the law, however, made it evident that the first paragraph referred to
those who had lost citizenship as a result of individual actions that unilaterally breached their
citizenship contract with the Romanian state, while the second concerned those citizens
denaturalised en masse as a result of territorial changes. In so doing, the additional paragraph
to art. 37 introduced several major innovations into Romanian citizenship legislation:
Firstly, the right to reacquisition of citizenship was not restricted only to those persons
who had emigrated due to political persecution or were stripped of citizenship by the
communist regime; it was also granted to all former citizens and their descendants
regardless of when or under what conditions they had lost Romanian citizenship. Although
not specifically mentioned in the text of the law, the main beneficiaries of the policy of
restoration of citizenship have been the inhabitants of the former Soviet Socialist Republic of
Moldova, and those of the provinces of Northern Bukovina and Southern Bessarabia in the
Ukraine. Following the Soviet wartime occupation, the inhabitants of these provinces were
forcefully stripped of their Romanian citizenship; the 1991 Law has enabled them to retrieve
that legal status. (Also eligible were the inhabitants of Southern Dobrudja, a province ceded
by Romania to Bulgaria in 1940, yet no claims to Romanian citizenship were reported from
this region).
Secondly, in a departure from the established legal tradition of the country that had
prohibited dual citizenship, the law allowed renaturalised former Romanian citizens to retain
their foreign citizenship as well as their domicile abroad. In doing so, the law generated a
novel category of non-resident dual citizens living in neighbouring countries.

3
Monitorul Oficial, 75, 21 May 1990.
Constantin Iordachi
10 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author

Thirdly, compared to regular naturalisations, the restitution of citizenship was subject
to a simpler procedure: renaturalisation requests could be sent by post or by third-party
intermediaries to Romanian embassies or consulates abroad. Applicants were exempt from
consular taxes and the major conditions of naturalisation required of regular aliens.
Moreover, the process of renaturalisation did not necessitate an official interview, and the
personal presence of the claimant in Bucharest, as the oath of loyalty could be taken at
Romanias diplomatic representations abroad. It was thus technically possible for a
descendant of a former citizen living abroad to reacquire Romanian citizenship without ever
travelling to the country.
Overall, the legislation on the reacquisition of Romanian citizenship was highly
expansive, albeit legally ambiguous. It combined the right to renaturalisation of expatriates
and their repatriation with the principle of restoration of citizenship to former citizens and
their descendants living in former historical provinces of interwar Greater Romania, including
their right to hold dual citizenship. How can one account for these multiple forms of
citizenship restitution? According to the legislators, the motivations behind these provisions
were democratic, as they were meant to redress communist injustice by allowing anti-
communist political dissidents or expatriates to reacquire, upon request, their lost rights.
Adopted in anticipation of the imminent dismemberment of the USSR, the March 1991 Law
was also animated by implicit nationalist motivations, which aimed to symbolically undo the
effects of the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina and to reconstruct the
interwar national community. Seen in a historical retrospective, the law thus completed the
process of restoration of the citizenship body of interwar Greater Romania. Initiated in the
post-1944 period (see above the laws adopted in 1947, 1952 and 1954), this process had,
under Soviet pressure, left out the inhabitants of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina.

4 Post-communist political debates on citizenship

The new policy on the restitution of citizenship has triggered numerous domestic and
international political debates. Far from concentrating on legal technicalities, these debates
were linked to major political issues such as the communist legacy, the ethnic-cultural
boundaries of the nation, issues of state sovereignty and territoriality, diplomatic relations
with neighbouring countries and the compatibility of this policy with the European standard
on citizenship laws and minority protection.

4.1 Restitution of Romanian Citizenship to Anti-Communist Political Dissidents

A first political debate concerns the legal and political rehabilitation of persons persecuted
and denaturalised by the communist regime. Should rehabilitation be a right granted upon
demand, as the Romanian legislation stipulated, or a legal and moral obligation of the post-
communist state? The most debated case in this respect was the peculiar legal situation of the
writer Paul Goma, Romanias most important anti-communist dissident. Born in 1935 in
Romanias province of Bessarabia, Goma relocated with his family across the river Prut in the
face of 1940 Soviet invasion. During the communist regime, as a young writer, Goma
engaged in dissident activities, criticising the regimes internal and foreign policies,
encouraging solidarity with the 1956 Hungarian revolution and later, initiating a pro-Helsinki
movement in Romania. After serving a short term of imprisonment followed by deportation to
the Brgan plain (19561964), in 1977 Goma was arrested again for dissident activities.
Following international pressure, in November 1977 he was released and managed to
emigrate to France, where he received political asylum and lives to date. Upon Gomas
emigration, the Romanian Communist authorities stripped him of his state citizenship. Since
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 11

Goma refused to naturalise to French citizenship, he is currently a heimatlos, a person without
citizenship. Although Goma is entitled to renaturalise under the 1991 law, he refuses to apply
on the ground that he never renounced his citizenship acquired at birth; in his view, it is the
legal and moral obligation of the Romanian state to automatically reinstate his citizenship
rights. In 2003, a public petition of support demanded that Romanian authorities to restore
Gomas citizenship rights; the same call was reiterated in the 2006 Report of the Presidential
Commission for the Study of Communist Dictatorship, which pleaded for the automatic
rehabilitation of citizenship rights to all persons persecuted and denaturalised under the
communist regime.
4


4.2 Dual citizenship

A first set of political debates concerned the right to dual citizenship. Was dual citizenship
permitted only for former citizens reacquiring Romanian citizenship or was it open to all
Romanian citizens? Although the 1991 Law on Romanian Citizenship allowed re-naturalised
Romanian citizens to hold dual citizenship, this provision did not imply a generalised
acceptance of dual citizenship, but only a tolerance of the dual membership of renaturalised
citizens. For other modes of naturalisation, the 1991 Law explicitly eliminated the tolerance
of dual citizenship. For example, children adopted by aliens lost their Romanian citizenship
upon acquiring the citizenship of their adoptive parents (art. 29). Yet, as noted above, the law
did not contain provisions referring to the legal status of Romanian citizens residing abroad
who acquired another citizenship, and did not expressly oblige them to renounce their
Romanian citizenship if the receiving state tolerated dual citizenship in naturalisations, thus
de facto allowing for dual citizenship.
The most debated issue was the right of Romanias ethnic Hungarians to hold dual
citizenship, mostly in connection with campaigns by political forces in Hungary for their
access to Hungarian citizenship. The Romanian-Hungarian post-communist debate over dual
citizenship was linked to a wider ideological controversy between the two countries over
contrasting but also overlapping definitions of the nation (Iordachi 2004: 257260). These
debates originated in the separation of the citizenries of the two countries following the
collapse of Austro-Hungary after World War I, and led to numerous diplomatic and territorial
conflicts. During the communist period, Hungary abandoned the idea of recovering lost
territories but focused instead on the issue of kin-minority protection, legitimised by an ethno-
cultural definition of the nation. To Hungarys policy of treating its kin minorities abroad as
an integral part of the Hungarian nation and its pretence of monitoring their treatment in
neighbouring countries, Romania answered with a statist definition of the nation according to
which all inhabitants of the countryirrespective of their ethnicitywere equal Romanian
citizens and full members of the socialist nation, ethnic Hungarians included. The Romanian-
Hungarian political-diplomatic conflict over the status of ethnic Hungarians in Romania
reached a peak in the late 1980s, as became manifest, for example, during the meetings of the
Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe that took place in Vienna (19861989); it
also continued in the post-communist period, albeit at a lower intensity. Romanian authorities
criticised the stipulations of the 2001 Hungarian Status Law pertaining to Romanian citizens
of Hungarian origin, agreeing to its implementation only after Hungary granted access to its
labour market to all Romanian citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity. Leading Romanian
politicians also opposed, through public statements, the granting of dual citizenship to

4
The report is available online at http://www.presidency.ro/?_RID=htm&id=82. On the request for the
restoration of Gomas citizenship, see page 640. See also Tismneanu, Dobrincu & Vasile, 2007.

Constantin Iordachi
12 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author

Romanias ethnic Hungarians. With the liberalisation of the status of dual citizens in Romania
in 2003 (see next paragraph), on the one hand, and the failure of the 2004 national referendum
in Hungary over granting dual citizenship to ethnic Hungarians living abroad, on the other,
the debates over the issue faded away from the public agenda, dual citizenship ceasing to be a
matter of political contestation. In retrospect, it is important to note that, while rejecting the
right to dual citizenship for Romanias ethnic Hungarians, Romanian policymakers defended
this right in the case of Moldovan citizens opting for Romanian citizenship. This contradiction
can be explained by the fact that Romania acted simultaneously in a double role: as a
nationalising state in regard to the Hungarian minority in Transylvania and as an external
homeland in relation to ethnic Romanians in Bessarabia and Bukovina (Iordachi 2004: 32;
for a conceptualisation of these roles, see Brubaker 1996).
A second set of debates concerned the legal status of dual citizens. The 1991
Constitution restricted the political rights of dual citizens, granting access to public office or
dignity, civil or military, only to persons whose citizenship is only and exclusively
Romanian, and whose domicile is in Romania (art. 16.3; emphasis added). Gradually, the
substantial increase in the number of dual citizens led to a normalisation of their status. In
2003, as part of numerous amendments to the Constitution, the restrictions on the political
participation of dual citizens were lifted. Currently, the only condition of eligibility to public
office, including the parliament and the presidency, is Romanian citizenship and domicile in
the country.

4.3 The restoration of Romanian citizenship to Moldovan and Ukrainian citizens

The restoration of Romanian citizenship to Moldovan and Ukrainian citizens has generated a
new category of non-resident dual citizens. What is the legal status of these absentee citizens?
According to the Romanian legislation, non-resident dual citizens acquired automatic access
to full social and political rights, except for the rights and obligations that are temporarily
discontinued for citizens residing abroad, such as the obligation to pay taxes and perform
ones military service (also discontinued for resident citizens as of 2006), anduntil 2003
eligibility for public offices and awards (restricted for dual citizens, see above paragraph). It
is intriguing to note, however, that the public debates over the restoration of Romanian
citizenship and the right to dual citizenship focused on the national and geo-political effects of
this policy, mostly in connection to Romanias relations with the Republic of Moldova and, to
a lesser extent, the Ukraine. The debates did not address the question of the new citizens
potential socio-political integration into Romanian society or the devaluation of citizenship
implied by the policy of granting citizenship to persons who have not proven their knowledge
of the countrys legislation and might not have even visited Romania.
The massive numbers of restitutions of Romanian citizenship to Moldovan and
Ukrainian citizens also generated international debates regarding issues of overlapping
citizenries and the loyalty of dual citizens. Firstly, Romanias policy on the restitution of
citizenship contradicted the internal legislation of two neighbouring states, since neither
Moldova (until 2000) nor the Ukraine allowed their citizens to hold dual citizenship.
Secondly, Moldovan and Ukrainian policymakers accused Romania of using dual citizenship
as a strategy of increasing its political influence in the region, with the final aim of
reacquiring its lost territories. Romanias citizenship policy was thus perceived as adding to
regional instability rather than to retroactive justice and integration.
Diplomatic debates concentrated mainly on Romanias relationship with the Republic
of Moldova. With the establishment of the new state in 1991, Romania was trapped in the
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 13

dilemma of the Romanian-Romanian relations (Cojocaru 2001). In the early 1990s, the
diplomatic relations between the two countries seemed to proceed in tune with the strategy of
the two Romanian states, put forward by the Moldovan Popular Front and shared by
numerous politicians in Romania as well, according to which Moldovas independence
represented the first step toward a gradual and negotiated process of political unification
between the two countries. To this end, Romania inaugurated a policy of special partnership
with Moldova, introduced visa-free and passport-free travel between the two countries, set up
special educational programmes for Moldovan students and built a comprehensive network of
inter-ministerial consultations. However, at the political-diplomatic level, the two countries
soon drifted further apart. That was mostly because the Republic of Moldova was tormented
by internal inter-ethnic conflicts and secessionist movements, tacitly or openly supported by
Moscow, which degenerated into a civil war in 1992 in the multiethnic province of
Transnistria (also known as the Trans-Dniestr region). Fearing that ethnic strife would lead to
disintegration, Moldovan leaders decided to consolidate the statehood of the new republic by
relying on the Soviet version of local identity, i.e. on Moldovanism rather than on the pan-
Romanian national identity. This change in Moldovas internal policy affected its relations
with Romania. At the official level, the formula of the two Romanian states was gradually
abandoned, with Romania and Moldova defining themselves as two brotherly states and
then more neutrally as two neighbouring states. After the electoral victory of the Communist
Party in 2001, the diplomatic relations between Romania and the Republic of Moldova
worsened considerably. The new Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin launched aggressive
cultural polices to strengthen the Moldovan identity, to marginalise Greater Romanian
unionist forces and to forcefully reduce Romanias political influence in the republic.
Moreover, blaming Romanias irredenta policies, Voronin put forward his own plans for a
Greater Moldova, raising territorial claims to Romanias province of Moldova.
5
This
obstructionist policy led to an almost complete deadlock in diplomatic relations between the
two countries. Due to its importance, the policy of restoration of citizenship deserves special
treatment.

4.4 The restoration of citizenship in practice: domestic and international constraints

Restrictions on the policy of citizenship restitution ahead of Romanias EU accession

From 1991 to 2001, the policy of restoration of Romanian citizenship was applied without
major convulsions, resulting in massive (re)naturalisations of Moldovan citizens. Since 2001,
however, Romania has considerably slowed down the process of restitution for two main
reasons. Firstly, the number of applications from Moldova has increased dramatically since
J anuary 2001, when Romanian citizens were granted visa-free travel in the Schengen space,
effectively clogging the bureaucratic process of restoration of citizenship. Secondly, although
the European Commission has repeatedly stated that the policy of restitution of citizenship is
an internal matter for Romania, several EU agencies voiced concerns that, upon Romanias
accession in J anuary 2007, the countrys policy on restitution of citizenship could become an
uncontrollable gate of access to the Schengen space for non-EU citizens, bypassing restrictive
immigration policies. These combined challenges generated a series of crises in the process of
restitution, leading to its intermittent suspension from December 2001 to September 2007.
According to official figures, between August and December 2001 alone the
Commission for Citizenship received approximately 300 demands for citizenship per day, or

5
Voronin: n Romnia sunt 10 milioane de moldoveni, 24 February 2007, www.bbc.co.uk
Constantin Iordachi
14 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author

an aggregate of 19,000 in six months.
6
Confronted with this massive influx of requests, the
government temporarily suspended the provisions on the restoration of citizenship by
emergency ordinances valid for two periods of six months each, from December 2001 to J une
2002, and then again from November 2002 to May 2003, subsequently approved by
Parliament. In justifying the approval of the second ordinance, a parliamentary report in April
2003 pointed out that the explosive increase in the number of demands blocked the work of
the commission, which was composed of only five magistrates. It also blamed the fact that,
according to official statistics, most of the renaturalisation demands were opportunistic, being
made in the new context created by the elimination of visa requirements for Romanian
citizens who travel in the Schengen space, as well as in view of Romanias prospective
integration into the North Atlantic structures. Pointing out that the reparatory character
taken into account at the time of elaboration of the Law on Citizenship is present in fewer and
fewer cases, the parliament asked the government to identify a legal solution to eliminate re-
acquisitions of citizenship for a purpose alien to the original intention of the law.
7

At the end of each period of suspension of the restoration of citizenship, the
government implemented major alterations to the citizenship law by two emergency
ordinances passed in J une 2002 and April 2003. The first ordinance unified the provisions on
the reacquisition of citizenship with those on the restoration of citizenship in a single article
(art. 10) placed in the section dealing with naturalisation, thus implying that the restoration of
citizenship to former citizens was a privileged naturalisation granted by the Romanian state
and not an automatic entitlement to citizenship. The restoration of citizenship continued to be
exempted from consular taxes (art. 36, para. 2); in addition, claimants were given the right to
contest the decision of the Commission of Citizenship within a time limit of fifteen days.
These new provisions did not offer an efficient solution to the flood of naturalisation
demands, and thus in November 2002just four months after its reinstatementthe
government yet again suspended the restoration of citizenship process for six months. In May
2003, upon the expiry of the new deadline, the law on citizenship was altered once more by a
governmental ordinance approved by parliament with minor modifications in October 2003.
The new ordinance reinstated the suspended provisions on the restoration of citizenship along
with two additions to art.10 dealing with the reacquisition of citizenship (classified as art. 101
and 102), but introduced ample amendments in relation to the implementation of these
provisions: Firstly, applicants to for the restoration of citizenship became subject to almost all
of the conditions for naturalisation demanded of aliens; the only condition waived for former
citizens was the obligation to relocate to Romania and reside there for a mandatory period.
Secondly, the requests for citizenship had to be presented in person to the Commission of
Citizenship in Bucharest and only in thoroughly justified cases by attorneys or third parties.
Until 2003, requests for reacquisition of Romanian citizenship could be filed not only
personally but also by third parties, either at the Ministry of J ustice in Bucharest or at
Romanias consulates abroad. According to media reports, this procedure led to the creation
of clientelist networks in Moldova for the collection of dossiers and their transport in huge
packages to Bucharest. In order to eliminate these practices, the new ordinance obliged
applicants to travel personally to Bucharest, sometimes for undetermined periods of time
necessitated by the new bureaucratic procedures, thus increasing the costs of naturalisation.
Thirdly, the ordinance introduced a new form of renaturalisation of former citizens and their
descendants: a new article (102) allowed persons eligible for the restoration of citizenship to
apply for naturalisation directly to the Ministry of J ustice after four years of continuous

6
Expunere de motive pentru aprobarea Ordonanei de urgen a Guvernului nr. 160/2002, 1, www.cdep.ro.
7
Expunere de motive la Legea pentru aprobarea Ordonanei de urgen a Guvernului nr. 160/2002,
www.cdep.ro
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 15

residence in Romania. This provision was another indication that Romanian authorities
intended to transform the restoration of citizenship into a privileged form of naturalisation of
former citizens relocating to Romania. Fourthly, in order to eliminate opportunistic
reacquisitions of citizenship, the new amendments stripped new citizens of some of the most
immediate advantages of Romanian citizenship: art. 37 stated that former citizens who
reacquire citizenship and effectively live in Romania cannot exercise their right to free
movement of persons, i.e. they are forbidden to travel abroad with a Romanian passport
during the first four years after their naturalisation. Exceptions to this rule were allowed only
in emergency situations, such as periods of study abroad, family unification, medical
treatment abroad, etc. This overt form of discrimination against a certain category of
Romanian citizens depending on the manner of their naturalisation was abolished in
September 2007.
These substantial amendments to the citizenship law revealed the governments
intention to discontinue the restitution of citizenship to former citizens living in Moldova and
the Ukraine, transforming it instead into a selective and privileged naturalisation of alien
ethnic Romanians relocating to Romania, after a residence of four years. Thus, while former
citizens living abroad were required to fulfil additional conditions that made their
naturalisation very lengthy and difficult, former citizens working, studying or living in
Romania were granted access to direct naturalisation after a residence period of four years, by
means of a special procedure. In addition, by requiring applicants to possess knowledge of
the Romanian language and elementary notions of Romanian culture and civilisation,
8
the
government made it more difficult for non-ethnic Romanian applicants to recover their lost
citizenship, fuelling suspicion that the new conditions were specifically meant as an obstacle
to their renaturalisation.

The restoration of citizenship reloaded, 20072009

Predictably, the May 2003 amendments to the citizenship law led to an almost complete
deadlock in the process of renaturalisation, at a time when the number of applications was
soaring. The restrictive policy of the government triggered incendiary reactions from the pro-
Moldovan interest groups in Romania, who conducted media campaigns against the
governmental policy andwith the help of naturalised Moldovans elected to the Romanian
parliamentinitiated bills for amending the citizenship law. The most contested provision
was the applicants obligation to travel to Bucharest and file their dossiers in person.
Following street protests in Bucharest by Moldovan citizens applying for naturalisation, this
condition was finally abrogated by parliament in J une 2003.
In March and April 2006, two open letters signed by 25 non-governmental
organisations from Romania and Moldova urged the government to unblock the process of
citizenship restitution. The petitioners argued that the bureaucratic blockage was
premeditated, with the Ministry of J ustice deliberately creating obstacles to the restoration
of citizenship. In their view, the restoration of citizenship was a legitimate right of the
Moldovans and its denial by the Romanian government violated basic human rights and
established principles of international law. The petitioners also denounced the restrictions on
free movement imposed on new citizens, arguing that this provision discriminated among
Romanian citizens according to their place of residence and the manner of their naturalisation,
in direct violation of the Constitution which stated that all citizens are equal before the law.

8
Monitorul Oficial, Partea I, 399, 9 J une 2003.
Constantin Iordachi
16 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author

In two consecutive responses, the Ministry of J ustice pointed out that the restoration of
citizenship is not an automatic entitlement of former citizens but a right granted by the
Romanian state under certain conditions. Acknowledging that the Commission for Citizenship
was overwhelmed by the large number of applications, the Ministry pledged to consider
potential solutions to the problem.
9

In 2006, two parliamentary bills attempted to provide a legal solution to the issue. In
order to speed up the restoration of citizenship process, they proposed simplifying the
procedure, shortening the processing time, allocating more magistrates to the task and making
the Commission of Citizenship responsible for the resolution of demands within reasonable
administrative deadlines.
10
The Senate, nevertheless, rejected both bills on the grounds that
they contradicted Romanias obligations under the EU treaty of accession, and that they
would lead to potential conflicts with the European Commission.
11

More recently, mounting domestic public and political pressure convinced the
government to modify its citizenship law yet again. Substantial amendments were passed in
September 2007, April and November 2008, and April 2009. On 14 September 2007, a new
governmental ordinance facilitated the restoration of citizenship through a simplified
procedure. Firstly, the Commission of Citizenship was enlarged to consist of a president and
four specially appointed juridical councillors on a full-time basis, who replaced the regular
part-time judges. Applications for citizenship could be sent by post as well; incomplete files
were not to be automatically rejected, with later additions also being permitted. Secondly, in
order to speed up the process of naturalisation, the decisions could now also be taken by the
Minister of J ustice and not solely by the entire Council of Ministers. Rejections could be
appealed by applicants in local courts, not only in Bucharest; new requests for citizenship
could also be filed one year after a rejection. Thirdly, the ordinance also obliged naturalised
citizens to take the oath of allegiance no later than three months after the decision to
naturalise instead of within one year, as previously requested. In April 2008, these
governmental modifications were approved by the parliament, and the composition of the
Commission of Citizenship was enlarged to six full members.
On 4 November 2008, another governmental ordinance further simplified the
procedure of citizenship restitution. The ordinance eliminated a major procedural hurdle in
the official registration of new applications: requests for citizenship restitutions were not to be
published in the Official Monitory of Romania, Part III, anymore. In addition, it also enlarged
the pool of eligible candidates for citizenship restitution from first- to second-degree
descendants of former citizens. Most importantly, the decree guaranteed a deadline of six
months for Romanian authorities to examine naturalisation applications after they have been
officially registered by the secretariat of the Commission.
Finally, on 15 April 2009, in response to the political unrest which broke out in
Moldova after parliamentary elections on 5 April 2009 had been won by the Communist
Party, the Romanian government issued a new decree to speed up the lengthy bureaucratic
process. To this end, the decree enhanced the administrative capacity of the Commission of
Citizenship from six to eight regular members; extended eligibility from second- to third-
degree descendants of former citizens; and reduced to five months the period within which

9
The petitions and the official answers are available on the site www.curaj.net.
10
Ilie Ilacu, Session of the Senate, 19 March 2007, www.parlament.ro. A former Moldovan citizen imprisoned
in Transnistria for his opposition to the secessionist leadership of the region during the civil war, Ilacu was later
elected to the Moldovan and Romanian parliaments in absentia. Following international pressure, Ilascu was
released from prison in 2001 and migrated to Romania, where he agitated for dual citizenship for all Moldovans,
in his capacity as a member of the Romanian parliament. On the case of Ilacu, see Iordachi (2004: 249252).
11
Petre Strchinariu, Session of the Chamber of Deputies, 28 J une 2007, www.parlament.ro.
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 17

Romanian authorities are obliged to examine naturalisation applications. The decree allowed
former citizens resident in Romania to apply for citizenship without a residence requirement
of four years (this stipulation was discontinued by a new law adopted in May 2009).
12
The
recent amendments to Romanias citizenship law will speed up the process of naturalisation
and will increase the number of Moldovan citizens acquiring Romanian citizenship. It is,
however, safe to predict that the bureaucratic process will remain slow for years to come: it is
expected that the 2009 decree will lead to around 30,000 naturalisations per year. Since the
procedure for the naturalisation of aliens, according to the law, is in fact more complicated
than that of the restitution of citizenship, it becomes apparent that the length of the
renaturalisation process was not simply due to the record number of demands but also to a
conscious political decision to halt the process by administrative means. The amendments to
the citizenship law enacted on 14 September 2007 made possible a massive increase in the
number of naturalisations. As a consequence, the duration of the naturalisation process for all
categories of applicants began to converge: while aliens had to wait longer (40 months at
maximum), the waiting period for citizenship restitution slightly decreased from 44 to 40
months, (see figure 6.1). Overall, between 16 J une 2000 and 14 September 2007, the
Romanian government awarded 5,062 naturalisations, of which 2,664 were restitutions of
citizenship to Moldovan citizens and 58 to Ukrainian citizens.
13
From 14 September 2007 to
the end of April 2009, the Romanian government awarded a record number of 11,592
naturalisations, which represented more than double the number of naturalisations granted in
the previous seven years. Out of the total number of 11,592 naturalisations, 8,599 were
awarded to Moldovan and Ukrainian citizens: 316 in the last quarter of 2007; 4,523 in 2008,
and 3,760 in the first quarter of 2009. These figures prove that, after the de facto suspension
during the period 2000-2007, the process of restitution of Romanian citizenship to former
citizens from Moldova and the Ukraine has been fully resumed.

5 Conclusion

The collapse of the communist regimes led to the reorganisation of citizenship policies in
Central and Eastern Europe. One can distinguish two main clusters of citizenship policies,
directly related to patterns of nation-building and state-building in these regions: citizenship
policies in successor states to former multi-ethnic federal states such as Czechoslovakia,
Yugoslavia and the USSR; and in post-communist nation-states such as Albania, Poland,
Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary.
The dismantling of the former federal systems generated numerous legal, political and
territorial conflicts, most notably in Yugoslavia and the USSR (the velvet divorce between
Slovakia and the Czech Republic was smoother, although it was not free of legal conflicts, see
Liebich, Warner & Dragovic 1995). In his analysis of citizenship struggles in the successor
states of the former USSR, Rogers Brubaker differentiated between a new state model of
legislation on citizenship and a restored-state model (1992: 275276). The former was

12
In 2004, when this residential requirement was introduced, official statistics registered 1,254 Moldovan
citizens and 19 Ukrainian citizens who had their permanent domicile in Romania. In 2007, there were 4,349
Moldovan citizens and 38 Ukrainian citizens permanently residing in Romania. See National Institute of
Statistics (2007), 58, available at http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/pdf/ro/cap2.pdf.
In 2009, when the residential requirement was abolished, the total number of Moldovan citizens legally residing
in Romaniaincluding also temporary residentswas 15,500 persons, the largest non-EU contingent. See
http://www.indexstiri.ro/15000-de-cetateni-moldoveni-traiesc-in-romania.html. Of course, these numbers do not
include those Moldovans who received Romanian citizenship and then relocated to Romania.
13
Data calculated after the Official Monitor of Romania, processed and made available online by Constantin
Dolghier at www.cetatenie.info.tm.
Constantin Iordachi
18 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author

enacted in Soviet republics that lacked a statehood tradition. Without a history of distinctive
citizenry, these republics, such as the Republic of Moldova, had to create their citizenship
body by conferring rights on all of their residents, on an inclusive basis. The latter, restored-
state type, was applied in republics that relied on a pre-Soviet statehood tradition, such as the
Baltic States. Motivated by the fear that their nation would die out, these states revived their
pre-Second World War citizenship laws in order to restore the citizenry that had existed prior
to the Soviet conquest and to initially exclude from citizenship all residents who immigrated
to these countries in the post-1945 period. To these, I would add a third, hybrid category,
represented by new states that have also assumed a restored state-dimension, such as the
Ukraine. The Ukrainian legislation granted citizenship to all inhabitants residing within the
republics territory, on a very inclusive basis. At the same time, it also granted access to
Ukrainian citizenship to former citizens and their descendants born or permanently residing
within any territories which formed a part of the historical states of the Ukrainian People's
Republic, the Western Ukrainian Peoples Republic, the Ukrainian State, the Ukrainian
Socialistic Soviet Republic, Trans-Carpathian Ukraine and Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic
Republic (URSR), on the express condition that they renounce their foreign citizenship.
14

A different category of citizenship policies can be found in post-communist nation-
states. Although these states did not suffer territorial changes or a massive influx of
population after 1989, they have all revised their citizenship laws in order to reflect the new
political transformations.
15
New citizenship laws in these states encompassed an important
national dimension, repressed under the regime of Soviet domination; after decades of
political isolation from their kin-populations abroad, most of these states have resumed
policies of positive discrimination towards their co-ethnics.
Romanias post-communist citizenship policy belongs to the second cluster mentioned
above; yet, due to the countrys geo-political position and its territorial disputes with the
Soviet Union during the Second World War, the Romanian policy combines elements
characteristic of policies in East-Central European and former Soviet countries. The most
important concept that dominated Romanias post-communist citizenship policy was that of
the restoration of citizenship in order to undo the effects of the territorial changes that took
place during and after the Second World War, an issue declared taboo during the period of
Soviet domination. Romania granted the right to renaturalisation to all former citizens and
their descendants, irrespective of their ethnic origin, their form of de-naturalisation and the
period of their attachment to the Romanian state. In doing so, Romanian legislation went
beyond regular laws on repatriation, of the kind post-communist Poland passed in relation to
former citizens of Polish ethnic origin deported to the Soviet Union at the end of the Second
World War. It also went beyond forms of privileged naturalisation of kin-populations abroad,
as is the case with Hungarys policy towards former citizens of Hungarian ethnic origin
relocating to the kin-state. To a certain extent, Romanian legislation resembles the policy of
the restoration of citizenship to former citizens and their descendants implemented by the
Ukraine, with the notable difference that, unlike the Ukraine, Romania allowed new citizens
to hold dual citizenship and retain their domicile abroad. Most closely, Romanian citizenship
legislation resembles the restored-state policies of the Baltic States. This similarity is not
surprising: Greater Romanias provinces of Bessarabia and Bukovina as well as the Baltic
States were occupied by the Soviet Union in J une 1940 as a direct consequence of the 1939
Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. In the post-Soviet period, Romania and the Baltic States officially

14
See art. 8 of the 2001 Law on Citizenship of Ukraine, available at www.mfa.gov.ua.
15
This claim is valid for Poland, as well. Although the 1962 Polish Nationality Act has not been replaced by a
new post-communist law, it was nevertheless amended in important points, while numerous procedural changes
have also been implemented. See Grny & Pudzianowska in Baubck, Perchinig & Sievers (2009: 123-149).
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 19

denounced the infamous pact and tried to undo its legal consequences by applying the
principle of restitution of pre-Soviet citizenship. The major difference in the application of
this principle was that in Romania its provisions were not meant to discriminate against
internal foreigners as in the Baltic States, but to include former citizens living abroad.
Due to the legacy of territorial conflicts and competing projects of nation-building and
state-building in post-communist East-Central Europe, Romanias policy on the restoration of
citizenship generated inter-state tensions, most evident in its relations with the Republic of
Moldova. Given the complex and multifarious nature of this relationship, Romanian
policymakers have been unable to put forward a coherent policy toward Moldova, oscillating
between sentimentalism and pragmatism. On the one hand, Romanian politicians regard
Moldova as Romanias former province, occupied as a result of the 1939 Ribbentrop-Molotov
Pact, and reserve the countrys right to unilaterally restore Romanian citizenship to Moldovan
citizens. On the other hand, Romania was the first country to recognise the independence of
the new Republic of Moldova upon its proclamation in August 1991. Unlike the Federal
Republic of Germany, in relation to the former German Democratic Republic, or Greece, in
relation to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania contested neither the
statehood nor the name of the new republic. It has treated Moldova as an independent and
sovereign state, thus implicitly recognising its legitimate right to establish its own version of
national identity and citizenship legislation. The failure of the policy of special partnership
inaugurated between the two countries in the early 1990s and the forceful suspension of the
process of restitution of citizenship following pressure from the EU (20012007), widened
the gap between these two policy lines.
What are the prospects of Romanian-Moldovan relations? Currently, both countries
try to adapt their bilateral relations to the new realities created by Romanias EU membership.
On the one hand, Romania has reiterated its historical rights to Bessarabia. In J une 1991, the
Romanian parliament officially condemned the 1939 Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact as illegal, null
and void ab initio of consequences for Romania; in September 2007, President Traian
Bsescu announced his intention to officially condemn (yet again) the pact in order to give
political force to this declaration.
16
Moreover, in September 2007 Romania relaunched its
policy of restitution of citizenship. Facing criticism from various EU agencies,
17
Romanian
authorities presented this policy as part of the EUs programme of integration with
neighbouring countries, arguing that it would enable the EU to boost its influence in the
former Soviet space, as well as to import a qualified Moldovan workforce in order to reduce
its labour shortages. On the other hand, Moldovas communist leadership, backed by Russia,
took advantage of the securitisation of the EU border between Romania and Moldova and the
imposition of travel visas to Moldovan citizens travelling to Romania in 2007 in order to
discontinue socio-economic and cultural relations between the two countries.
Moreover, a new Moldovan Law on the Status of the Public Functionary, adopted in
2007, excludes all Moldovan citizens who hold dual citizenship or have their domicile abroad,
from public office; this effectively stripped a large part of the population of important

16
Traian Bsescu va denuna Pactul Ribbentrop-Molotov, 21 December 2007, www.bbc.co.uk.
17
On 25 September 2007, President Bsescu asked the government to simplify to the maximum the
naturalisation conditions for Moldovan citizens. His statement was criticised by Marianne Mikko, the President
of the European Parliament Committee for the Cooperation between the EU and the Republic of Moldova, as
lacking political wisdom. See EP official: Basescus statements about citizenship for Moldovans not wise,
Nine OClock 4029, 28 September 2007, www.nineoclock.ro. In J uly 2007, Kalman Mizsei, the director of the
EU representative office in Moldova, called on Romania to cancel its policy of citizenship restitution for
Moldovans as it contradicts the EU charter. See: Romania asked to cancel easy citizenship for Moldovans, New
Europe: The European Weekly, 14 J uly 2007, www.neurope.eu.
Constantin Iordachi
20 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author

political rights. Officially justified by the need to reduce the number of naturalisations abroad,
to eliminate conflicts of interest with other states and to consolidate Moldovas statehood, this
controversial Law primarily targets Romanian-Moldovan dual citizens with a view toward
weakening political opposition to the ruling Communist party and to countering Romanias
political influence in the republic. At a diplomatic level, Moldova has also tried to bypass
Romania as a mediator in its relations with the EU (see the decision to prevent the opening of
new Romanian consulates in Moldova and to use instead Hungarys embassy for the purposes
of granting EU Schengen visas to Moldovan citizens). Although the effects of Romanias
policy on the restitution of citizenship and the response to it by the neighbouring states
(mostly Moldova) should not be unduly exaggerated, it is likely that the interaction of
citizenship policies in East Central Europe will continue to challenge inter-state relations in
the region.
Report on Romania
RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author 21


Bibliography

Brubaker, R.W. (1992), Citizenship Struggles in Soviet Successor States, International
Migration Review 26 (2): 269291.
Brubaker, R.W. (1996), Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the
New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cojocaru, G. (2001), Colapsul URSS i dilema relaiilor romno-romne [The Collapse of the
USSR and the Dilemma of the Romanian-Romanian Relations]. Bucharest: Omega.
Grny, Agata & Dorota Pudzianowska (2009), Same Letter, New Spirit: Nationality
Regulations and Their implementation in Poland in Rainer Baubck, Bernhard
Perchinig, Wiebke Sievers (eds.), Citizenship Policies in the New Europe, 2nd
enlarged and updated edition, 123-149. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Institutul Central de Statistic (1940), Anuarul Statistic al Romniei, 1939 i 1940 [The
Statistical Yearbook of Romania, 1939 and 1940]. Bucharest: Imprimeria Naional.
Iordachi, C. (2002), Citizenship, Nation and State-Building: The Integration of Northern
Dobrogea in Romania, 1878-1913. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Iordachi, C. (2004), Dual Citizenship and Policies toward Kin-Minorities in East-Central Europe:
A Comparison between Hungary, Romania, and the Republic of Moldova, in Z. Kntor,
B. Majtnyi, O. Ieda, B. Vizi & I. Halsz, (eds.), The Hungarian Status Law Syndrome: A
Nation Building and/or Minority Protection, 239269. Sapporo: Slavic Research Centre,
Hokkaido University.
Iordachi, C. (2006), The Ottoman Empire: Syncretic Nationalism and Citizenship in the
Balkans, in T. Baycroft & M. Hewitson (eds.), What is a Nation? Europe, 1789
1914, 120151. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liebich, A., D. Warner & J . Dragovic (eds.) (1995), Citizenship, East and West. London:
Kegan Paul International.
Marshall, T.H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Institute of Statistics (2006; 2007), Romanian Statistical Yearbook. Bucharest:
National Institute of Statistics.
Shafir, M. (1985), Romania: Politics, Economics, and Society: Political Stagnation and
Simulated Change. London: Pinter Publishers.
Tismneanu, V., Dobrincu, D., & Vasile, C. (eds.) (2007), Raportul Final al Comisiei
Prezideniale pentru Analiza Dictaturii Comuniste din Romnia [Final Report of the
Presidential Commision for the Analysis of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania].
Bucharest: Humanitas.
Verdery, K. (1991), National Ideology under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics in
Ceausescus Romania. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Constantin Iordachi
22 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2010/20 - 2010 Author
http://eudo-citizenship.eu
EUDO Citizenship Observatory Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies European University Institute
Via dei Roccettini, 9 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole Italy