Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

One of the poorest countries in Europe, Moldova relies heavily on foreign trade and remittances from workers abroad for its economic growth. Under Moldovan law, foreign companies enjoy national treatment in most respects. In principle, the government views FDI as vital for sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. In 2019, the government tried to attract more foreign investors, but a lack of qualified labor and the continued emigration of qualified, working-age Moldovans undermined those efforts. The COVID-19 crisis will disproportionally affect foreign investment as low-skilled diaspora return to Moldova – adding to unemployment numbers – and remittances are expected to sharply decline.

Moldova ratified its Association Agreement with the EU in 2016, with the intent of bringing closer political association and economic integration with the EU. The DCFTA, a component of the Association Agreement, provides for mutual elimination of customs duties on industrial and most agricultural products and for further liberalization of the services market. It also addresses other barriers to trade and reforms in economic governance, with the goal of strengthening transparency and competition and adopting EU product standards. Given its small economy, Moldova has relied on a liberalized trade and investment strategy to increase the export of its goods and services to the EU.

A member of the WTO since 2001, Moldova has signed bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements, including:

• Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Free Trade Agreement
• Central European Free Trade Agreement
• EU DCFTA
• Turkey

Since September 2013, Moldova has faced a Russian ban on its alcoholic beverage exports, which is significant given its substantial wine industry. After signing the Association Agreement and DCFTA in 2014, Russia imposed trade bans on Moldova’s exports of fruit, canned products, and fresh and processed meat as a means to impact Moldova’s economy and foreign policy. These Russian trade bans drove Moldova to expand to new export markets, and, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU continues to be the country’s largest export destination, absorbing more than half of all Moldovan exports. Nonetheless, Moldova’s Socialist-led government has renewed efforts to expand trade with Russia. In 2020, Moldova also participated as an observer in the Eurasian Economic Union meeting.

In addition to priority sectors, the government has identified in its national development strategy “Moldova 2020” seven priority public sector areas for development and reform: education; access to financing; road infrastructure; business regulation; energy efficiency; justice system; and social insurance. The government has made a formal commitment to accelerate the country’s development by making the economy more capital-intensive, sustainable, and knowledge-based. Thus far the government has not fully completed its commitments under the Plan. In fall 2019, the government published an overall Action Plan for 2020-2021 and committed to implement outstanding AA/DCFTA requirements.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

There are no formal limits on foreign control of property and land, with the significant exception that foreigners are expressly prohibited from owning agricultural or forest land, even via a locally-domiciled corporation or business. However, foreigners are permitted to buy all other forms of property in Moldova, including land plots under privatized enterprises and land designated for construction.

Moldova does not have a formal investment screening mechanism for inbound foreign investment but is working on putting in place a mechanism to screen for risks to national security. Under Moldovan law, foreign companies enjoy national treatment in most respects. The Law on Investment in Entrepreneurship prohibits discrimination against investments based on citizenship, domicile, residence, place of registration, place of activity, state of origin, or any other grounds. The law provides for equitable conditions for all investors and rules out discriminatory measures hindering management, operation, maintenance, utilization, acquisition, extension, or disposal of investments. Local companies and foreigners are to be treated equally with regard to licensing, approval, and procurement. Companies registered in questionable tax havens are technically prohibited from holding shares in commercial banks.

By statute, special forms of legal organizations and certain activities require a minimum of capital to be invested (e.g., MDL 20,000 (USD 1,125) for joint stock companies, MDL 15 million (USD 844,000) for insurance companies, and MDL 100 million (USD 5.6 million) for banks).

Moldovan law restricts the right to purchase agricultural and forest land to Moldovan citizens. Foreigners may become owners of such land only through inheritance and may only transfer the land to Moldovan citizens. In 2006, Parliament further restricted the right of sale and purchase of agricultural land to the state, Moldovan citizens, and legal entities without foreign capital. There are reportedly Moldovan-registered companies with foreign capital known to own agricultural land by means of loopholes in the previous law. The only straightforward option available to foreigners who wish to use agricultural land in Moldova is to lease the land.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

The latest Investment Policy Review of Moldova was conducted by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) as part of a broader South-East Europe Review in 2017 and can be accessed at: https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2017d6_en.pdf 

https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2017d6_en.pdf 

Moldova underwent a trade policy review by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in October 2015: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp423_e.htm 

Business Facilitation

Moldova has an investment promotion agency to assist prospective investors with information about business registration or industrial sectors, facilitate contact with relevant authorities, and organize study visits. The Investment Agency has an investment guide available on its website: invest.gov.md

The government has established a special council for promoting investment projects of national importance and to tackle red tape limiting larger investment, and has taken steps over the years to simplify and streamline the process of business registration and licensing, lower tax rates, strengthen tax administration, and increase transparency.

Business registration is overseen by the Public Services Agency, created in 2017 as a result of the merger of the State Registration Chamber, Licensing Chamber, Land Registry, Civil Records Service, and State Information Center Registry.

By law, registration should take three days for a standard procedure or four hours for an expedited procedure and is done in two stages. The first stage involves submission of an application and a set of documents, the range of which may vary depending on the legal form of the business (LLC, joint-stock company, sole proprietorship, etc.). At the second stage, the Agency issues a registration certificate and a unique identification number for the business, conferring full legal capacity to the entity. In 2010, the government introduced the “one-stop-shop” principle, under which businesses are relieved of the requirement to register separately with fiscal, statistical, social security, or health insurance authorities. There are currently no procedures for online business registration. Certain types of activity listed in the law on licensing require businesses to be first licensed by public authorities.

In 2006, the Moldovan Parliament ratified the 1961 Hague Convention on Abolishing the Requirement for Legalization for Foreign Public Documents. Acceptance of U.S. apostilles applied on official documents simplifies the legalization of official documents issued in the United States that are required in the process of business registration.

Outward Investment

Moldova does not have an official policy or mechanism for promoting or incentivizing outward investment.

Transparency of the Regulatory System

The Prime Minister chairs an Economic Council, which liaises with the Moldovan business community to discuss government proposals and gather ideas to improve Moldova’s economy, especially in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Laws and regulations are published in the official gazette called Monitorul Oficial, while a database of laws and regulations is available online at http://www.legis.md .

The Foreign Investors Association (FIA) was established in 2004 with the support of the OECD. FIA engages in a dialogue with the government on topics related to the investment climate and produces an annual publication of concerns and recommendations to improve the investment climate. In 2006, the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) registered in Moldova, presenting another voice for the business community. In 2011, a group of ten large EU investors founded the European Business Association (EBA). These are the three largest foreign business associations, and they regularly engage in policy discussions with the government.

All regulations and governmental decisions related to business activity have been published in a special business registry, “Register of Regulations on Business Activity,” to raise the awareness of businesspeople about their rights, increase the transparency of business regulations, and help fight corruption. The government has an approved list of business permits and authorizations. Government agencies and inspectors cannot issue any form of documents not included in the list.

The Moldovan government generally publishes significant laws in draft form for public comment. Draft laws are also available on-line, on the website of Moldovan Parliament. Business and trade associations provide other opportunities for comment. A significant exception to this norm is a mechanism that allows Parliament to also propose draft laws.. The working group of the State Commission for Regulation of Entrepreneurial Activity, which was established as a filter to eliminate excessive business regulations, meets to vet draft governmental regulations dealing with entrepreneurship. The working group’s meetings are open to interested businesses and the agenda is published online: https://mei.gov.md/ro/agenda .

Nevertheless, bureaucratic procedures are not always transparent, and red tape often makes processing registrations, ownership, and other procedures unnecessarily long, costly, and burdensome. Discretionary decisions by government officials provide room for abuse and corruption. While the government adopted laws to improve the business climate and reduce excessive state controls and regulation, effective implementation is insufficient.  This inconsistent application of laws and regulations undermines fair competition and adds uncertainty for less politically-connected businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses as well as new entrants. Moldova committed to implementing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in 2008. Use of IFRS is required by law for all public interest entities (financial entities, investment funds, insurance companies, private pension funds, and publicly listed entities) and national accounting standards (which approximate IFRS in many ways) are used by other firms, although many use IFRS as well due to foreign ownership.

Moldova committed to implementing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in 2008. Use of IFRS is required by law for all public interest entities (financial entities, investment funds, insurance companies, private pension funds, and publicly listed entities) and national accounting standards (which approximate IFRS in many ways) are used by other firms, although many use IFRS as well due to foreign ownership.

Moldova has a “one stop window” which provides clear and uniform rules for the release of information and standardized documents for business registration.

A law simplifying the system of inspectorates and various inspection bodies was adopted in 2017 to increase efficiency and reduce regulatory burden. Through the reformation of inspection bodies, the government intends to reorganize the state inspection agencies for better planning and monitoring of inspectors’ activity. By reducing the number of inspection agencies and introducing risk-based criteria for inspections, the government seeks to improve the business climate by reducing the opportunity for inspections to be used for political purposes.

International Regulatory Considerations

The EU Association Agreement (AA), including a Deep Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), has binding regulatory provisions committing Moldova to a reform agenda and to approximating domestic legislation to EU standards in a range of areas, including corporate law, labor, consumer protection, competition and market surveillance, general product safety, tax, energy, customs duties, public procurement, intellectual property rights, and others. Under the DCFTA, Moldova will gradually abolish duties and quotas in mutual trade in goods and services. It will also eliminate non-tariff barriers by adopting EU rules on health and safety standards, intellectual property rights, and other fields. The agreement contains a timeframe for implementation, with phase-ins up to ten years.

Moldova has been a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since 2001 and, as such, is a signatory to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). These agreements contain major investment-related commitments, such as opening to the establishment of foreign service providers, prohibiting local content, trade-balancing, and domestic sales requirements (TRIMs), and protection of intellectual property(TRIPS). No major WTO TRIMS inconsistencies have been reported.

As a WTO member, Moldova must notify draft technical regulations to the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade. In 2016, Moldova ratified the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement and adopted a number of measures to conform to WTO requirements.

The government has undertaken incremental steps since 2017 on a draft Customs Code, which would merge existing separate laws on customs procedures and goods crossing national borders and approximate national customs rules to the EU Customs Code. In 2017, the government changed customs rules to align with the EU Authorized Economic Operator requirements and Approved Exporter conditions.

Thanks to negotiations linked to Moldova’s WTO accession, modern commercial legislation has been adopted in accordance with WTO rules. The main challenges to the business climate remain the lack of effective and equitable implementation of laws and regulations, and arbitrary, non-transparent decisions by government officials to give domestic producers an edge over foreign competitors in certain areas. For example, an environmental tax is applied on bottles and other packaging of imported goods, but not levied on bottles and packaging produced in Moldova. Additionally, the government may liberally cite public security or general social welfare as reasons to intervene in the economy in contravention of its declared respect for market principles. There are reports of problems with customs valuation of goods, specifically that the Customs Service has been applying the maximum possible values to imported goods, even if their actual purchase value was far lower. This has increased customs revenues but disadvantaged importers.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

Moldova has a civil law legal system with codified laws that govern different aspects of life, including business, trade, and economy. The country’s legal framework consists of its constitution, organic and ordinary laws passed by the Parliament, and administrative acts issued by the government and other public authorities. Although Moldovan courts are constitutionally independent, their structures have facilitated government and political interference; the courts suffer from inefficiency and low public trust.

The court system consists of lower courts (i.e., trial courts), four courts of appeal, the Supreme Court of Justice, and a separate Constitutional Court.

Moldova is preparing a new justice reform strategy in 2020 to build on its 2016 reform strategy Parliament passed amendments in 2016 “optimizing” the country’s court system as part of broader justice sector reforms intended to reduce the number of trial courts in Moldova from 40 to 15. Specialized courts such as the Commercial Circumscription Court and Military Court were eliminated. Five trial courts from Chisinau were conceptually merged into one — the Chisinau trial court – although in 2018 the “merged” Chisinau trial court was further reorganized to specialize across five districts (investigative and contravention; criminal; administrative; bankruptcy; and civil, which includes adjudication of commercial disputes). The government’s court optimization plan is scheduled to be fully implemented by 2027.

The 2016 reforms created two specialized quasi-independent prosecution offices. The Anticorruption Prosecution Office is responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption, bribery and abuse of power by public officials, and money laundering. The Prosecution Office on Combating Organized Crime and Special Cases investigates and prosecutes organized, transnational and particular complex crimes, including tax evasion, smuggling, intellectual property offenses, trafficking in persons, and narcotics. In 2017-2019, the Moldovan Prosecution Service continued the implementation of reforms under a law on the prosecution service passed in 2016. The Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) guided and led the drafting of new regulations for the specialized prosecution offices, regional, district and municipal offices.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

In addition to its international agreements, Moldovan laws affecting FDI include the Civil Code, the Law on Property, the Law on Investment in Entrepreneurship, the Law on Entrepreneurship and Enterprises, the Law on Joint Stock Companies, the Law on Small Business Support, the Law on Financial Institutions, the Law on Franchising, the Tax Code, the Customs Code, the Law on Licensing Certain Activities, and the Law on Insolvency.

The current Law on Investment in Entrepreneurship came into effect in 2004. It was designed to be compatible with European standards in its definitions of types of local and foreign investment. It provides guarantees of investors’ rights, prohibitions against expropriation or similar actions, and for payment of damages if investors’ rights are violated. The law permits FDI in all sectors of the economy, while certain activities require a business license.

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

In 2012, Parliament passed a law on competition in line with EU practice and legislation. The National Competition Agency was subsequently renamed the Competition Council. The Competition Council oversees compliance with competition and state-aid provisions and initiates examination of alleged violation of competition laws. The Competition Council may request cessation of action, prescribe behavioral or structural remedies, and apply fines.

Expropriation and Compensation

The government has had a history of depriving investors, both national and foreign, of their businesses in various forms. Many of them have sued the government at the European Court for Human Rights for violation of the right to fair trial and of the respect for property, or in international arbitral tribunals.

The Law on Investment in Entrepreneurship states that investments cannot be subject to expropriation or to measures with a similar effect. However, an investment may be expropriated if done for purposes of public utility, is not discriminatory, and just compensation is provided. If a public authority violates an investor’s rights, the investor is entitled to compensation equivalent to the actual damages at the time of occurrence, including any lost profits.

The government has given no indication of intent to discriminate against U.S. investments, companies or representatives by expropriation, or of intent to expropriate property owned by citizens of other countries. No particular sectors are at greater risk of expropriation or similar actions in Moldova.

Since 2001, the government has cancelled several privatizations, citing the failure of investors to meet investment schedules or irregularities committed during the privatization process. While the government agreed to repay investors in such disputes, investors have had to apply to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to enforce compensation payments. The government has complied with the ECHR rulings in these instances.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

In 2011, Moldova ratified the Convention on the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID – Washington Convention). The country also ratified the New York Convention of 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Domestic courts recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards. Moldova is also a party to the Geneva European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of April 21, 1961, and the Paris Agreement relating to the application of the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of December 17, 1962.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Moldova is signatory to a number of bilateral investment treaties (see chapter 3 above), including the U.S.-Moldovan Treaty Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, which includes access to international arbitration for investment disputes.

Local courts recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards against the government. There are no known cases when the Moldovan government denied voluntary payment under an arbitral award rendered against it.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Private parties may choose alternative dispute resolution mechanisms instead of going to courts. Moldovan law provides the options of mediation and arbitration. The arbitration legislation is modeled after UNCITRAL rules. There are a number of arbitration bodies available in Moldova, including the arbitration court of the Moldovan Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The American Chamber of Commerce in Moldova (AmCham Moldova) has established the Chisinau Court of International Commercial Arbitration (CACIC) under its auspices.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are regulated by a complex framework of documents, including the Code for Civil Procedures, international conventions and bilateral treaties. Therefore, depending on the nationality of the court, Moldovan courts may apply different legal norms in examining the enforcement of foreign judgments. However, as a rule, foreign judgments are enforceable in Moldova on the basis of reciprocity and subject to New York Convention obligations.

Moldova’s court system generally enjoys a low level of public trust and is perceived to be vulnerable to acts of corruption, while court processes lack transparency. The overall expectation in court hearings involving representatives of public authorities, including economic entities, is that final court rulings will be in favor of state representatives. While arbitration is often seen as a preferable option to the courts, the courts must still enforce the arbitral decision. Investors have at times been discouraged by the slow pace of court enforcement of arbitral awards and the judge’s perceived discretion over the arbitral decision.

Bankruptcy Regulations

In terms of resolving insolvency, the World Bank ranks Moldova 67th out of 190 economies in the 2020 Doing Business Index; it takes creditors on average 2.8 years to recover their credit. . This is below the regional average and trails EU members in Central and Eastern Europe. The country has changed its insolvency law to introduce expedited insolvency proceedings, including by granting priority to secured creditors, introducing new restructuring mechanisms, reducing opportunities for appeals, adding moratorium provisions, establishing strict statutory periods in the proceedings, and enhancing the role of insolvency administrators.

Capital Markets and Portfolio Investment

Moldova’s securities market is underdeveloped. Official National Bank of Moldova (NBM) statistics include data on portfolio investments, yet there is a lack of open-source information fully reflect the trends and relevance of these investments. NBM data shows that most portfolio investments target banks, while the National Statistics Bureau does not differentiate between foreign direct investment and portfolio investments of less than 10 percent in a company.

Laws, governmental decisions, NBM regulations, and Stock Exchange regulations provide the framework for capital markets and portfolio investment in Moldova. The government began regulatory reform in this area in 2007 with a view to spurring the development of the weak non-banking financial market. Since 2008, two bodies in particular – the NBM and the National Commission for Financial Markets – have regulated financial and capital markets.

Foreign investors are not restricted from obtaining credit from local banks, the main source of business financing. However, access to credit continues to be difficult, especially for SMEs, in light of stringent lending practices; this has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Local commercial banks provide mostly short-term, high-interest loans and require large amounts of collateral, reflecting the country’s perceived high economic risk. Progress in lending activity suffered a sharp reversal in 2015 in the wake of the late-2014 banking crisis, triggered by a massive bank fraud, which severely weakened the banking system. Extreme monetary tightening by the NBM in the wake of significant currency flight connected to the resulting bank bailouts led to prohibitively high interest rates, which dipped below 9 percent in 2019.

Large investments can rarely be financed through a single bank and require a bank consortium. Recent years have seen growth in leasing and micro-financing, leading to calls for clear regulation of the non-bank financial sector. As a result, Parliament passed a new law on the non-bank financial sector, which entered into effect on October 1, 2018. Raiffeisen Leasing remains the only international leasing company which has opened a representative office in Moldova.

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the private sector’s access to credit instruments has been limited by the insufficiency of long-term funding, high interest rates, and unrealistic lending forecasts by banks. Financing through local private investment funds is virtually non-existent. A few U.S. investment funds have been active on the Moldovan market. The government adopted a 2018-2022 strategy for the development of the non-banking financial sector aimed at bolstering the capital markets combined with prudential supervision. A new Central Securities Depository was established under the supervision of the National Bank of Moldova to bring greater transparency and integrity to ownership and the recordkeeping associated with it.

Acting as an independent regulatory agency, the National Commission for Financial Markets (NCFM) supervises the securities market, insurance sector and non-bank financial institutions. A new capital markets law adopting EU regulations came into effect in 2013. It was designed to open up capital markets to foreign investors, strengthen NCFM’s powers of independent regulator, and set higher capital requirements on capital market participants.

Money and Banking System

In 2014, a crisis at three Moldovan banks (which resulted in their closure and the loss of USD 1.2 billion), two of them among the country’s largest, undermined confidence in the banking system. The role of a Moldovan bank in the “Russian Laundromat” case, estimated to have laundered from USD 20 to 80 billion, further underscored these challenges. The crisis shook Moldova’s banking system, causing some foreign correspondent banks to terminate ties with Moldovan banks and others to significantly tighten their lending.

In March 2020, Moldova successfully completed its first $178 million IMF program after implementing reforms to its financial and banking sectors. As a result of these reforms, the financial sector is better prepared to withstand the economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis. There is a high degree of capital and liquidity, and an overall reduction of non-performing loans to approximately 8 percent. Moldovan banks remain the main, albeit currently limited, source of business financing. The non-bank financial institutions however have been gaining sizable market share, especially in individual and SME lending, where banks have been encumbered by prudential banking rules. Bank assets account for about 44 percent of GDP. Banks are also the largest loan providers, with loans amounting to approximately USD 2.3 billion. The COVID-19 crisis slowed down bank lending in 2020.

Moldova currently has 11 commercial banks. The NBM regulates the commercial bank sector and reports to Parliament. Foreign bank subsidiaries must register in Moldova and operate under the local banking legislation. Although the integrity of true bank ownership records is questionable, foreign investors’ share in Moldovan banks’ capital is approximately 87 percent of total capital, and includes such major foreign investors as OTP Bank (Hungary), Erste Bank (Austria), Banca Transilvania (Romania) and Doverie Holding (Bulgaria).

As of December 31, 2019, total bank assets were MDL 90.6 billion (USD 5.16 billion) and 90 percent of total assets in the financial sector. Moldova’s three largest commercial banks account for more than 65 percent of the total bank assets, as follows: Moldova Agroindbank – MDL 25.8 billion (USD 1.47 billion); Moldindconbank – MDL 18.4 billion (USD 1.05 billion); and Victoriabank – MDL 14.7 billion (USD 834.0 million). To prevent another crisis, the NBM instituted special monitoring of these top three banks over concerns about the transparency of bank shareholders; this monitoring was lifted in April 2020.

After 2016, the Moldovan Parliament adopted legislation that would strengthen the independence of decision making at the NCFM and NBM – to help address systemic supervisory problems that had a negative effect on Moldova’s financial sector. To strengthen the system of tracking shares and shareholders, with USAID assistance, authorities put in place a law establishing the aforementioned Centralized Securities Depository. In addition, all bank shares must be sold and purchased on the Moldovan Stock Exchange. These measures have improved the transparency and reliability of the financial sector.

NBM’s Banking Law of 2018 and the Bank Recovery and Resolution Law from 2016 bring the financial sector closer to harmonization with EU standards, including through the application of stronger risk-based supervision to banks, increased enforcement powers and monetary penalties applied to banks, structures to address problem banks, and strengthening the NBM’s ability to conduct risk assessments. Also, NBM required banks to increase their credit loss provisioning and take urgent action to reinforce internal risk management as well as procedures on related-party financing. In addition, the NBM developed a methodology to better identify the related parties at banks.

Local authorities have not announced any intention to implement blockchain technologies in banking transactions. In 2017, the NBM warned domestic investors of the highly speculative nature of virtual currencies and their use as means of payment. Authorities in the breakaway region of Transnistria have passed a law encouraging the use of blockchain technologies for mining cryptocurrencies in specially created economic zones; however, this development is not expected to have any direct impact on Moldova’s financial sector.

Foreign Exchange and Remittances

Foreign Exchange

Moldova accepted Article VIII of the IMF Charter in 1995, which required liberalization of foreign exchange operations. There are no restrictions on the conversion or transfer of funds associated with foreign investment in Moldova. After the payment of taxes, foreign investors are permitted to repatriate residual funds. Residual fund transfers are not subject to any other duties or taxes and do not require special permissions. Moldova’s central bank uses a floating exchange rate regime and intervenes only to smooth sharp fluctuations.

Between late 2014 and early 2016, the national currency, the leu (plural lei), depreciated following challenges in the political environment, Russian bans on Moldovan food exports, and falling remittances from Russia, which impacted Moldova’s balance of payments. A massive banking fraud and a subsequent bailout program further undermined the leu, which depreciated by 36 percent. Since 2016, the National Bank has been pursuing a tight monetary policy that has contributed to a strengthening of the leu. In 2019, the national currency exchange rate fluctuated, but stabilized toward the end of the year.

Remittance Policies

No significant delays in the remittances of investment returns have been reported. Domestic commercial banks have accounts in leading multinational banks, and foreign investors enjoy the right to repatriate their earnings.

The Moldovan leu is the only accepted legal tender in the retail and service sectors in Moldova. Foreign exchange regulation of the NBM allows foreigners and residents to use foreign currencies in some current and capital transactions in the territory of Moldova. Generally, there are no difficulties associated with the exchange of foreign or local currency in Moldova.

Sovereign Wealth Funds

The embassy is not aware of any sovereign wealth funds run by the government of Moldova.

While Moldovan legislation deals with issues pertaining to environment, workers’ rights, social fairness or governance, there is little awareness of the concept of the due diligence approach to ensuring responsible business conduct. The country’s corporate culture and private sector are still at an early stage of development and still seeking to define the nature of interactions between private business, government authorities, broader stakeholders, and the public at large. There is no governmental policy to encourage enterprises to follow OECD or UN Guidelines in this area.

Foreign companies operating in Moldova are gradually introducing the concept of corporate social responsibility as an aspect of responsible business conduct. However, the Soviet-era notion of a paternalistic government responsible for maintaining the social welfare for all citizens remains quite widespread. AmCham Moldova has set a leading example, with its corporate members engaging in a forestation project, in the rehabilitation of medical facilities, and in Christmas collection projects for orphanages.

While Moldova has taken steps to adopt European and international standards to combat corruption and organized crime, corruption remains a major problem.

In 2012-13, the government enacted a series of anti-corruption amendments. This package included new legislation on “integrity testing” related to a disciplinary liability law for judges. It also extended confiscation and illicit enrichment statutes in the Moldovan Criminal Code as per the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). The Constitutional Court subsequently restricted integrity testing (e.g., excluding random testing as “entrapment”), but enactment of these reforms substantially augmented Moldova’s corruption-fighting toolkit.

The National Anticorruption Center (NAC), created in 2012, focuses on investigating public corruption and bribery crimes, and is subordinated to the Parliament (the CCECC had been organized under the executive branch). Moldovan judges, who had previously enjoyed full immunity from corruption investigations, can now be prosecuted for crimes of corruption without prior permission from their self-governing body, although the Superior Council of Magistrates still must approve any search or arrest warrant against a judge.

The government has developed and enacted a series of laws designed to address legislative gaps such as the Law on Preventing and Combating Corruption, the Law on Conflict of Interests, and the Law on the Code of Conduct for Public Servants. The Criminal Code criminalizes two forms of public sector corruption: passive and active. These statutes apply only to corrupt acts and bribery committed by public officials. In 2016, Moldova continued the reform of the prosecution system through adoption of the Law on the Prosecution Service, and created two specialized prosecution agencies – the Anticorruption Prosecution Office (APO) and the Prosecution Office for Combating Organized Crime and Special Cases (PCCOCS). Beginning in 2015, specialized prosecution offices began to investigate and prosecute individuals allegedly involved in the “billion dollar” banking theft and a series of high-profile bribery, corruption, and tax evasion cases, though with only limited progress. These offices face multiple challenges, including lack of independent budgets, high workload, external interference, and serious questions about their independence, transparency and impartiality.

In 2018, APO and PCCOCS started recruitment for seconding investigators to their offices. According to the 2016 prosecution reform law, these investigators are responsible for supporting prosecutors to investigate complex corruption cases. However, even with a nearly-full complement of seconded investigators, APO still relies on NAC investigators to conduct many corruption-related investigations and prosecutions. Also in 2018, a new statutorily-created agency, the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency (CARA), began operating as a specialized unit within NAC. The selection and appointment of the agency’s leadership is coordinated through a competitive process by the NAC. The agency continues to grow and has demonstrated increased capacity to detect, track, seize and recover criminal proceeds throughout 2019.

In 2016, Parliament passed the Law on the National Integrity Authority (NIA) and the Law on Disclosure of Assets and Conflict of Interest by public officials. The NIA became operational in 2018. The director, deputy director, and all inspectors are hired in competitive processes, but the agency has not yet hired a full complement of inspectors. NIA continues to lack staff and sufficient resources to fulfill its mission. The issuance of “integrity certificates” to individuals with well-known ties to the billion dollar heist further degraded the organization’s reputation.

Moldova’s 2017-2020 National Integrity and Anticorruption Strategy was drafted and passed following public consultations, and is structured along the “integrity pillars” concept that aims to strengthen the integrity climate among civil servants at all levels. It includes a role for civil society organizations (CSOs) through alternative monitoring reports and promoting integrity standards in the private sector. The strategy addresses the complexity of corruption by employing sector-based experts to evaluate specific integrity problems encountered by different vulnerable sectors of public administration. Moldova is expected to begin developing a new strategy during 2020, led by NAC and the Ministry of Justice.

Moldovan law requires private companies to establish internal codes of conduct that prohibit corruption and corrupt behavior. Moldova’s Criminal Code also includes articles addressing private sector corruption, combatting economic crime, criminal responsibility of public officials, active and passive corruption, and trading of influence. This largely aligns Moldovan statutory law with international anti-bribery standards by criminalizing the acts of promising, offering, or giving a bribe to a public official. Anti-corruption laws also extend culpability to family members. A new illicit enrichment law was added in 2013, but its potential as an effective anti-corruption tool is severely constricted by the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of a constitutional provision creating a presumption in the law that assets possessed by a person were lawfully acquired. In 2017, the Anticorruption Prosecution Office started the only illicit enrichment case initiated in Moldova to date, against a prominent chief judge involved in the construction of private apartments. The criminal case remains unresolved, as the judge has resigned from the judiciary.

The country has laws regulating conflicts of interest in awarding contracts and the government procurement process; however these laws are not assessed as widely or effectively enforced. In 2016, Parliament added two new statutes to the Criminal Code criminalizing the misuse of international assistance funds. These provisions provide a statutory basis for prosecutors to investigate and prosecute misuse of international donor assistance by Moldovan public officials in public acquisitions, technical assistance programs, and grants

Despite the established anti-corruption framework, the number of anti-corruption prosecutions has not met international expectations (given corruption perceptions), and enforcement of existing legislation is widely deemed insufficient. In 2019, Moldova ranked 120 out of 180 (falling from 117 the prior year) among countries evaluated in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index.

A Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) survey published in 2017 showed that 84 percent of Moldovans thought the government was doing badly in fighting corruption. Globally, Moldova is among the top countries where people perceive public authorities to be most corrupt; almost 70 percent say people working in public sector institutions (the President’s office, Parliament, central government, tax inspection, police, the judiciary and local government) are assessed by those polled as highly corrupt. Almost 50 percent of Moldovans say they had to pay bribes over the past 12 months when coming in contact with public authorities. The latest GCB survey concluded that Moldova needs genuine and urgent measures to address corruption. Negative ratings of official efforts to curb corruption suggest that more must be done to reduce public sector graft and clean up institutions to act in the public interest.

The Freedom House Moldova “Nations in Transit Report” 2018 concluded the government has focused more on improving the legal framework than on implementing it. The report found anti-corruption initiatives did not contribute to tackling endemic corruption or the de-politicization of public institutions and regulatory agencies. Public competitions have been mostly non-transparent and based on controversial regulations or political loyalty to, or membership in, the ruling political group, rather than on the basis of merit. The investigation into the “billion-dollar” banking sector theft has yielded few results. Official data reported that by the end of 2018, only USD 100 million has been recovered, mainly from taxes, credits, and the sale of assets belonging to the three banks liquidated following the theft. The stolen assets have not been recovered, there remains no assurance that significant remaining funds will be recovered.

Freedom House’s most recent report, Democracy in Retreat: Freedom in the World 2019, found Moldova continues to be only “partially free,” earning 58/100 points for political rights/civil liberties, 3 points less than the prior year. The decline was due largely to perceptions of ongoing corruption. According to the 2020 Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index, Moldova’s economic freedom score was 62.0, making its economy 87th, just ahead of Belarus (88) and behind Samoa (86). Its overall score increased by 2.9 points, with improvements in government integrity and government spending. Regionally, Moldova is ranked 40 of 45 countries in Europe, and its overall score is well below the regional average and approximately equal to the world average. In the rule of law area, Heritage indicated property rights are undermined by a weak and corrupt judiciary.

Opinion surveys conducted by reputable pollsters like the International Republican Institute (IRI) consistently show over 95 percent of Moldovans see corruption as a big problem for the country. Moldovans name the top corrupt institutions as: 1) Parliament; 2) public servants, including the police; 3) the judiciary; 4) top government officials; 5) political parties and their leaders.

In 2007, Moldova ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, subsequently adopting amendments to its domestic anti-corruption legislation. Moldova does not adhere to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery. However, Moldova is part of two regional anti-corruption initiatives: the Stability Pact Anti-Corruption Initiative for South East Europe (SPAI), and the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) of the Council of Europe. Moldova cooperates closely with the OECD through SPAI and with GRECO, especially on country evaluations. In 1999, Moldova signed the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and Civil Law Convention on Corruption. Moldova ratified both conventions in 2003. In 2020, Moldova joined OECD’s Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan.

Resources to Report Corruption

Ruslan Flocea
Director
National Anti-Corruption Center
Bul. Stefan cel Mare si Sfant 168, Chisinau MD2004, Moldova
Tel. +373 22-257 257 (secretariat)/800-55555 (hotline)/22-257 333 (special line) secretariat@cna.md

Lilia Carasciuc
Executive Director
Transparency International Moldova
Strada 31August 1989 nr. 98, of.205, Chisinau MD2004, Moldova
Tel. +373-22 203-484(office)/800-10 000 (hotline)
office@transparency.md

Levels of street crime and other types of violent crime are equal or lower in Moldova than in neighboring countries and businesses typically only employ the most basic security procedures to safeguard their personnel.  Moldova has not had significant instances of transnational terrorism.  While there have been occasional instances of political violence in the past decade, these cases have typically been directed against Moldovan state institutions and have not generally impacted the international business community in Moldova.  There have been no significant instances of political violence in the last four years and all recent large demonstrations have been peaceful.

The Embassy has received no reports over the past ten years of politically-motivated damage to business projects or installations in Moldova. In 2015 and early 2016, there was public outcry over the political class’ failure to prevent (or even facilitate) massive bank fraud where nearly 15 percent of GDP disappeared from the country’s then-three largest banks. Round-the-clock anti-government protests culminated in January 2016 in clashes with riot police when protesters tried to prevent Parliament from voting in a new government. The clashes were limited and did not turn into full-blown violence or cause extensive damage that would affect businesses in any way, and the government remained in power.

After parliamentary elections in 2019, there was a standoff between the outgoing government and a new majority coalition of opposition parties. The new coalition peacefully assumed power after calls for calm and restraint by the international community.

Separatists control the Transnistria region of Moldova, located between the Nistru River and the eastern border with Ukraine. Although a brief armed conflict took place in 1991-1992, the sides signed a cease-fire in July 1992. Local authorities in Transnistria maintain a separate monetary unit, the Transnistrian ruble and a separate customs system. Despite the political separation, economic cooperation takes place in various sectors. The government has implemented measures requiring businesses in Transnistria to register with Moldovan authorities. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), with Russia, and Ukraine acting as guarantors/mediators and the United States and EU as observers, supports negotiations between Moldova and the separatist region Transnistria (known as the “5+2” format). Throughout the years, progress has been inconsistent, with talks stalling in 2006 and formally resuming in late November 2011. Important achievements in the past few years include the resumption of rail freight traffic through Transnistria, the opening of a bridge across the Nistru river, Transnistrian-registered vehicles gaining access to international traffic, issuance of Moldovan apostilles on Transnistrian-issued higher education diplomas, and the operation of Latin Script schools in Transnistria.

* National Bureau of Statistics and National Bank of Moldova are the primary source of the information. The FDI figure is preliminary.

Table 4: Sources of Portfolio Investment
Note: Moldova does not submit data for the IMF’s Coordinated Portfolio Investment Survey (CPIS). However, according to the National Bank of Moldova, the preliminary figure for total portfolio investment in 2019 amounted to USD 11.2 million. A breakdown by country for all portfolio investments is not available.

Policies Towards Foreign Direct Investment

Romania actively seeks foreign direct investment, and offers a market of around 19 million consumers, a relatively well-educated workforce at competitive wages, a strategic location, and abundant natural resources.  To date, favored areas for U.S. investment include IT and telecommunications, energy, services, manufacturing – especially in the automotive sector, consumer products, and banking.  InvestRomania is the government’s lead agency for promoting and facilitating foreign investment in Romania.  InvestRomania offers assistance and advisory services free of charge to foreign investors and international companies for project implementation and opening new offices or manufacturing facilities.

Romania’s accession to the European Union (EU) on January 1, 2007 helped solidify institutional reform.  However, legislative and regulatory unpredictability as well as weak public administration continue to negatively impact the investment climate.  As in any foreign country, prospective U.S. investors should exercise careful due diligence, including consultation with competent legal counsel, when considering an investment in Romania.  Governments in Romania have repeatedly allowed political interests or budgetary imperatives to supersede accepted business practices in ways harmful to investor interests.

The energy sector has suffered from recent changes.  In 2018, offshore natural gas companies benefited from a streamlined permitting process but were hit with a windfall profit tax that previously applied only to onshore gas production.  Additionally, in February 2018, legislation changed the reference price for natural gas royalties from the Romanian market price to the Vienna Central European Gas Hub (CEGH) price, resulting in a significant increase in royalties.  The GOR has set July 1, 2020 as the deadline for natural gas market liberalization and January 1, 2021 as the deadline for electricity market liberalization.

Investments involving public authorities can be more complicated than investments or joint ventures with private Romanian companies.  Large deals involving the government – particularly public-private partnerships and privatizations of key state-owned enterprises (SOE) – can be stymied by vested political and economic interests or bogged down due to a lack of coordination between government ministries.

The government has repeatedly reviewed Public-Private Partnership (PPP) legislation, and there are no active PPP projects under implementation to date.  In December 2017, the GOR shifted the burden of mandatory payroll deductions for pensions, healthcare, and income taxes from employers to employees.  To avoid reductions in employee net pay and retain labor in a tight market, many companies increased salaries to offset employee losses.  Other companies, wary of further possible changes, offered monthly bonuses rather than formally amending employee contracts.

The government and foreign investors have ongoing disputes over tax matters such as the “claw back tax” on pharmaceuticals, which increased from 19 percent in Q4 2017 to 28 percent in Q4 2019.  A presidential decree capping the tax at its current levels was issued in March 2020 due to concerns that further increases would impact COVID-19 medication.  Additionally, Parliament passed concurrent legislation in April 2020 that, pending a presidential signature, would create classes of medication that are taxed at separate levels:  15% for medicine produced in Romania, 20% for generics, and 25% for innovative drugs.  Pharmaceutical companies pay the claw back tax on all sales of drugs reimbursed through the public health system.  The Ministry of Health (MOH) calculates the tax to recover the cost for reimbursed drug sales in the previous quarter that exceed its budget.  Since implementation in 2009, the pharmaceutical industry has suggested numerous solutions to increase predictability and transparency in the National Health Insurance House’s computations.

Limits on Foreign Control and Right to Private Ownership and Establishment

Foreign and domestic private entities are free to establish and own business enterprises, and to engage in all forms of remunerative activity.  Romanian legislation and regulation provide national treatment for foreign investors, guarantee free access to domestic markets, and allow foreign investors to participate in privatizations.  There is no limit on foreign participation in commercial enterprises.  Foreign investors are entitled to establish wholly foreign-owned enterprises in Romania (although joint ventures are more typical), and to convert and repatriate 100 percent of after-tax profits.

Romania has taken established legal parameters to resolve contract disputes expeditiously.  Mergers and acquisitions are subject to review by the Competition Council.  According to the Competition Law, the Competition Council notifies Romania’s Supreme Defense Council regarding any merger or acquisition of stocks or assets which could impact national security.  The Supreme Defense Council then reviews these referred mergers and acquisitions for potential threats to national security.  To date, the Supreme Defense Council has not blocked any merger or acquisition.  The Romanian capital account was fully liberalized in 2006, prior to gaining EU membership in 2007.  Foreign firms are allowed to participate in the management and administration of the investment, as well as to assign their contractual obligations and rights to other Romanian or foreign investors.

Other Investment Policy Reviews

Romania has not undergone any third-party investment policy reviews through multilateral organizations in over ten years.  The Heritage Foundation’s 2020 Economic Freedom Report indicates recognition of secured interests in private property, but that the property registry is inadequate and impedes investment.  The Report also notes that, for Romania to make the leap into the mostly free economic freedom category, the government must repair the weakest link in the country’s economic freedom chain: the low integrity of the government and its ineffective fight against corruption.  Inconsistency and a lack of predictability in the jurisprudence of the courts and the interpretation of the laws remain major concerns.  High levels of corruption, bribery, and abuse of power remain problems.  Legislative instability, unpredictable decision-making, and the low quality of institutions create an uphill battle for business owners.  Labor force participation is among the lowest in the EU and the labor market is heavily regulated.

According to the World Bank, economic growth rates have increased, but the benefits have not been felt by all Romanians.  Progress on implementing reforms and improving the business environment has been uneven.  The World Bank’s 2020 Doing Business Report and Doing Business in the European Union Report indicate that Romania ranks below the EU average in the ease of starting a business.

Business Facilitation

The National Trade Registry has an online service available in Romanian at https://portal.onrc.ro/ONRCPortalWeb/ONRCPortal.portal .  Romania has a foreign trade department and an investment promotion department within the Ministry of Economy, Energy, and Business Climate.  InvestRomania is the government’s lead agency for promoting and facilitating foreign investment in Romania.  InvestRomania offers assistance and advisory services free of charge to foreign investors and international companies for project implementation and opening new offices or manufacturing facilities.  More information is available at http://www.investromania.gov.ro/web/ .

According to the World Bank, it takes six procedures and 20 days to establish a foreign-owned limited liability company (LLC) in Romania, compared to the regional average for Europe and Central Asia of 5.2 procedures and 11.9 days.  In addition to the procedures required of a domestic company, a foreign parent company establishing a subsidiary in Romania must authenticate and translate its documents abroad.  Foreign companies do not need to seek an investment approval.  The Trade Registry judge must hold a public hearing on the company’s application for registration within five days of submission of the required documentation.  The registration documents can be submitted, and the status of the registration request monitored online.

Companies in Romania are free to open and maintain bank accounts in any foreign currency, although, in practice, Romanian banks offer services only in Romanian lei (RON) and certain hard currencies (Euros and U.S. dollars).  The minimum capital requirement for domestic and foreign LLCs is RON 200 (USD 47).  Areas for improvement include making all registration documents available to download online in English as currently only a portion are available online, and they are only in Romanian.

Romania defines microenterprises as having less than nine employees, small enterprises as having less than 50 employees, and medium-sized enterprises as having less than 250 employees.  Regardless of ownership, microenterprises and SMEs enjoy “de minimis” and other state aid schemes from EU funds or from the state budget.  Business facilitation mechanisms provide for equitable treatment of women in the economy.

Outward Investment

There are no restrictions or incentives on outward investment.

Transparency of the Regulatory System

Romanian law requires consultations with stakeholders, including the private sector, and a 30-day comment period on legislation or regulation affecting the business environment (the “Sunshine Law”).  Some draft pieces of legislation pending with the government are available in Romanian at http://www.sgg.ro/acte-normative/ .  Proposed items for cabinet meetings are not always publicized in advance or in full.  As a general rule, the agenda of cabinet meetings should include links to the draft pieces of legislation (government decisions, ordinances, emergency ordinances, or memoranda) slated for government decision, but this is not always the case.  Legislation pending with the parliament is available at http://www.cdep.ro/pls/proiecte/upl_pck.home for the Chamber of Deputies and at https://www.senat.ro/legis/lista.aspx  for the Senate.  The Chamber of Deputies is the decision-making body for economic legislation.  Regulatory impact assessments are often missing, and Romanian authorities do not publish the comments they receive as part of the public consultation process.

Foreign investors point to the excessive time required to secure necessary zoning permits, environmental approvals, property titles, licenses, and utility hook-ups.

Public comments received by regulators are not made public.  The Sunshine Law (Law 52/2003 on Transparency in Public Administration) requires public authorities to allow the public to comment on draft legislation and sets the general timeframe for stakeholders to provide input.  However, if the public authority does not follow the Sunshine Law’s public consultation timelines, no penalty or sanction applies.  In some cases, public authorities have set deadlines much shorter than the standards set forth in the law.

International Regulatory Considerations

As an EU member state, Romanian legislation is largely driven by the EU acquis, the body of EU legislation.  EC regulations are directly applicable, while implementation of directives at the national level is done through the national legislation.  Romania’s regulatory system incorporates European standards.  Romania has been a World Trade Organization (WTO) member since January 1995 and a member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) since November 1971.  Romania is a member of the EU since 2007.  Technical regulation notifications submitted by the EU are valid for all Member States.  The EU signed the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) in October 2015.  Romania has implemented all TFA requirements.

Legal System and Judicial Independence

Romania recognizes property and contractual rights, but enforcement through the judicial process can be lengthy, costly, and difficult.  Foreign companies engaged in trade or investment in Romania often express concern about the Romanian courts’ lack of expertise in commercial issues.  There are no specialized commercial courts, but there are specialized civil courts.  Judges generally have limited experience in the functioning of a market economy, international business methods, intellectual property rights, or the application of Romanian commercial and competition laws.  As stipulated in the Constitution, the judicial system is independent from the executive branch and generally considered procedurally competent, fair, and reliable.  Affected parties can challenge regulations and enforcement actions in court.  Such challenges are adjudicated in the national court system.

Inconsistency and a lack of predictability in the jurisprudence of the courts or in the interpretation of the laws remains a major concern for foreign and domestic investors and for wider society.  Even when court judgments are favorable, enforcement of judgments is inconsistent and can lead to lengthy appeals.  Failure to implement court orders or cases where the public administration unjustifiably challenges court decisions constitute obstacles to the binding nature of court decisions.

Mediation as a tool to resolve disputes is gradually becoming more common in Romania, and a certifying body, the Mediation Council, sets standards and practices.  The professional association, the Union of Mediation Centers in Romania, is the umbrella organization for mediators throughout the county.  Court-sanctioned and private mediation is available at recognized mediation centers in every county seat.

There is no legal mechanism for court-ordered mediation in Romania, but judges can encourage litigants to use mediation to resolve their cases.  If litigants opt for mediation, they must present their proposed resolution to the judge upon completion of the mediation process.  The judge must then approve the agreement.

Laws and Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment

Romania became a member of the European Union on January 1, 2007.  The country has worked assiduously to create an EU-compatible legal framework consistent with a market economy and investment promotion.  At the same time, implementation of these laws and regulations frequently lags or is inconsistent, and lack of legislative predictability undermines Romania’s appeal as an investment destination.

Romania’s legal framework for foreign investment is encompassed within a substantial body of law largely enacted in the late 1990s.  It is subject to frequent revision.  Major changes to the Civil Code were enacted in October 2011 including replacing the Commercial Code, consolidating provisions applicable to companies and contracts into a single piece of legislation, and harmonizing Romanian legislation with international practices.  The Civil Procedure Code, which provides detailed procedural guidance for implementing the new Civil Code, came into force in February 2013.  Fiscal legislation is revised frequently, often without scientific or data-driven assessment of the impact the changes may have on the economy.

Given the state of flux of legal developments, investors are strongly encouraged to engage local counsel to navigate the various laws, decrees, and regulations, as several pieces of investor-relevant legislation have been challenged in both local courts and the Constitutional Court.  There have been few hostile takeover attempts reported in Romania.  Romanian law has not focused on limiting potential mergers or acquisitions.  There are no Romanian laws prohibiting or restricting private firms’ free association with foreign investors.

Competition and Anti-Trust Laws

Romania has extensively revised its competition legislation, bringing it closer to the EU Acquis Communautaire and best corporate practices.  A new law on unfair competition came into effect in August 2014.  Companies with a market share below 40 percent are no longer considered to have a dominant market position, thus avoiding a full investigation by the Romanian Competition Council (RCC) of new agreements, saving considerable time and money for all parties involved.  Resale price maintenance and market and client sharing are still prohibited, regardless of the size of either party’s market share.  The authorization fee for mergers or takeovers ranges between EUR 10,000 (USD 10,858) and EUR 50,000 (USD 54,291).  The Fiscal Procedure Code requires companies that challenge an RCC ruling to front a deposit while awaiting a court decision on the merits of the complaint.

Romania’s Public Procurement Directives outline general procurements of goods and equipment, utilities procurement (“sectorial procurement”), works and services concessions, and remedies and appeals.  An extensive body of secondary and tertiary legislation accompanies the four laws and has been subject to repeated revisions.  Separate legislation governs defense and security procurements.  In a positive move, this new body of legislation moved away from the previous approach of using lowest price as the only public procurement selection criterion.  Under the new laws, an authority can use price, cost, quality-price ratio, or quality-cost ratio.  The new laws also allow bidders to provide a simple form (the European Single Procurement Document) to participate in the award procedures.  Only the winner must later submit full documentation.

The public procurement laws stipulate that challenges regarding procedure or an award can be filed with the National Complaint Council (NCC) or the courts.  Disputes regarding execution, amendment, or termination of public procurement contracts can be subject to arbitration.  The new laws also stipulate that a bidder has to notify the contracting authority before challenging either the award or procedure.  Not fulfilling this notification requirement results in the NCC or court rejecting the challenge.

The EC’s 2020 European Semester Country Report for Romania notes that despite improved implementation, public procurement remains inefficient.  According to the report, 97% of businesses think corruption is widespread in Romania, and 87% say it is widespread in public procurement managed by national authorities.

Expropriation and Compensation

The law on direct investment includes a guarantee against nationalization and expropriation or other equivalent actions.  The law allows investors to select the court or arbitration body of their choice to settle disputes.  Several cases involving investment property nationalized during the Communist era remain unresolved.  In doing due diligence, prospective investors should ensure that a thorough title search is done to ensure there are no pending restitution claims against the land or assets.

Dispute Settlement

ICSID Convention and New York Convention

Romania is a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.  Romania is also a party to the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration concluded in Geneva in 1961 and is a member of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID).  Romania’s 1975 Decree 62 provides for legal enforcement of awards under the ICSID Convention.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Romania is a signatory to the New York Convention, the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (Geneva), and the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID).  There have been 15 ICSID cases in total against Romania.  Three of them involved U.S. investors.  The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of Romania in two of them.  Six investor-state arbitration cases against Romania are currently pending with the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).  Local courts recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards against the government.  There is no history of extrajudicial action against investors.

International Commercial Arbitration and Foreign Courts

Romania increasingly recognizes the importance of investor-state dispute settlement and has provided assurances that the rule of law will be enforced.  Many agreements involving international companies and Romanian counterparts provide for the resolution of disputes through third-party arbitration.  Local courts recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards and judgments of foreign courts.  There are no statistics on the percentage of cases in which Romanian courts ruled against state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

Romanian law and practice recognize applications to other internationally known arbitration institutions, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Paris Court of Arbitration and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).  Romania has an International Commerce Arbitration Court administered by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania.  Additionally, in November 2016, the American Chamber of Commerce in Romania (AmCham Romania) established the Bucharest International Arbitration Court (BIAC).  This new arbitration center focuses on business and commercial disputes involving foreign investors and multinationals active in Romania.

According to the World Bank 2020 Doing Business Report, it takes on average 512 days to enforce a contract, from the moment the plaintiff files the lawsuit until actual payment.  Associated costs can total around 27 percent of the claim.  Arbitration awards are enforceable through Romanian courts under circumstances similar to those in other Western countries, although legal proceedings can be protracted.

Bankruptcy Regulations

Romania’s bankruptcy law contains provisions for liquidation and reorganization that are generally consistent with Western legal standards.  These laws usually emphasize enterprise restructuring and job preservation.  To mitigate the time and financial cost of bankruptcies, Romanian legislation provides for administrative liquidation as an alternative to bankruptcy.  However, investors and creditors have complained that liquidators sometimes lack the incentive to expedite liquidation proceedings and that, in some cases, their decisions have served vested outside interests.  Both state-owned and private companies tend to opt for judicial reorganization to avoid bankruptcy.

In December 2009, the debt settlement mechanism Company Voluntary Agreements (CVAs) was introduced as a means for creditors and debtors to establish partial debt service schedules without resorting to bankruptcy proceedings.  The global economic crisis did, however, prompt Romania to shorten insolvency proceedings in 2011.

According to the World Bank’s Doing Business Report, resolving insolvency in Romania takes 3.3 years on average, compared to 2.3 years in Europe and Central Asia, and costs 10.5 percent of the debtor’s estate, with the most likely outcome being a piecemeal sale of the company.  The average recovery rate is 34.4 cents on the dollar.  Globally, Romania stands at 56 in the ranking of 190 economies on the ease of resolving insolvency.

Capital Markets and Portfolio Investment

Romania welcomes portfolio investment.  In September 2019, the Financial Times and the London Stock Exchange (FTSE) promoted the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BVB) to Emerging Secondary Capital Market status from Frontier Capital Market classification.  The decision comes into force beginning September 1, 2020, when the BVB will transfer from FTSE Frontier Index to FTSE Global Equity Index Series (GEIS).  The Financial Regulatory Agency (ASF) regulates the securities market.  The ASF implements the registration and licensing of brokers and financial intermediaries, the filing and approval of prospectuses, and the approval of market mechanisms.

The BVB resumed operations in 1995 after a hiatus of nearly 50 years.  The BVB operates a two-tier system with the main market consisting of 83 companies.  The official index, BET, is based on an index of the ten most active stocks.  BET-TR is the total return on market capitalization index, adjusted for the dividends distributed by the companies included in the index.  Since 2015, the BVB also has an alternative trading system (MTS-AeRO) with 297 listed companies – mostly small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – and features a relaxed listing criteria.  The BVB allows trade in corporate, municipal, and international bonds.  Investors can use gross basis trade settlements, and trades can be settled in two net settlement cycles.  The BVB’s integrated group includes trading, clearing, settlement, and registry systems.  The BVB’s Multilateral Trading System (MTS) allows trading in local currency of 15 foreign stocks listed on international capital markets.

Despite a diversified securities listing, international capital and financial markets have adversely affected the Romanian capital market and liquidity remains low.  Neither the government nor the Central Bank imposes restrictions on payments and transfers.  Country funds, hedge funds, private pension funds, and venture capital funds continue to participate in the capital markets.  Minority shareholders have the right to participate in any capital increase.  Romanian capital market regulation is now EU-consistent, with accounting regulations incorporating EC Directives IV and VII.

Money and Banking System

Thirty-four banks and credit cooperative national unions currently operate in Romania.  The largest is the privately-owned Transilvania Bank (17.7 percent market share), followed by Austrian-owned Romanian Commercial Bank (BCR-Erste, 14.4 percent); French-owned Romanian Bank for Development (BRD-Société Générale, 11.3 percent); Dutch-owned ING (9.01 percent); Italian-owned UniCredit ( 9.0 percent); and Austrian-owned Raiffeisen ( 8.7 percent).

The banking system is stable and well-provisioned relative to its European peers.  According to the National Bank of Romania, as of December 2019, non-performing loans accounted for 4.08 percent of total bank loans.  As of December 2019, the banking system’s solvency rate was 20.0 percent, which has remained steady over recent years.

The government has encouraged foreign investment in the banking sector, and mergers and acquisitions are not restricted.  The only remaining state-owned banks are the National Savings Bank (CEC Bank) and EximBank, comprising 8.1 percent of the market combined.

While the National Bank of Romania must authorize all new non-EU banking entities, banks and non-banking financial institutions already authorized in other EU countries need only notify the National Bank of Romania of plans to provide local services based on the EU passport.

The Romanian Association of Banks has promoted a dialogue with interested parties – institutions, representatives of consumers’ associations, businesses, and the media – to improve the legal framework to allow adoption of digital technologies in the financial and banking sectors.

Foreign Exchange and Remittances

Foreign Exchange

Romania does not restrict the conversion or transfer of funds associated with direct investment.  All profits made by foreign investors in Romania may be converted into another currency and transferred abroad at the market exchange rate after payment of taxes.

Romania’s national currency, the Leu, is freely convertible in current account transactions, in accordance with the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Article VII.

Remittance Policies

There is no limitation on the inflow or outflow of funds for remittances of profits, debt service, capital gains, returns on intellectual property, or imported inputs.  Proceeds from the sales of shares, bonds, or other securities, as well as from the conclusion of an investment, can be repatriated.

Romania implemented regulations liberalizing foreign exchange markets in 1997.  The inter-bank electronic settlement system became fully operational in 2006, eliminating past procedural delays in processing capital outflows.  Commission fees for real-time electronic banking settlements have gradually been reduced.

Capital inflows are also free from restraint.  Romania concluded capital account liberalization in September 2006, with the decision to permit non-residents and residents abroad to purchase derivatives, treasury bills, and other monetary instruments.

Sovereign Wealth Funds

Plans to establish a Sovereign Development and Investment Fund (SDIF) were repealed by the current government in January 2020.

Romania adhered to the OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprise in 2004.  The government regularly sends representatives to the working sessions of the OECD Investment Committee and its Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct.  Romania established an OECD National Contact Point in 2005 to promote the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.  Romania’s investment promotion agency InvestRomania currently serves as the contact point.

Several NGOs in Romania monitor, advocate, and raise concerns on RBC issues.  No high-profile cases of private sector impact on human rights were recorded in 2019.  However, the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD), the government agency responsible for applying domestic and EU anti-discrimination laws, imposed several fines on companies for discrimination against their own staff or prospective employees.  The cases involved gender-based discrimination and harassment over labor union membership and childcare leave.  The government has not fully implemented a law which prohibits discrimination against persons with physical, sensory, intellectual, and mental disabilities in employment, education, transportation, and access to health care.

Romania does not participate in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), but is an adherent to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas since 2012.

Romania’s fight against high- and medium-level corruption, a model in Southeastern Europe over the past decade suffered significant setbacks between 2016 and late 2019 due to a concerted campaign under the previous government to weaken anti-corruption efforts, the criminal and judicial legislative framework, and judicial independence.  Judicial institutions, NGOs, the EU, and NATO allied governments have all raised concerns about legislative initiatives that furthered this trend in that time period.  In Transparency International’s 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index, Romania’s score fell from 47 in 2018 to 44 out of 100.  This is among the lowest ranking of EU member states, tying with Hungary and ranking one position above Bulgaria.  The current government has begun rolling back the negative actions of the prior government, but this effort will take some time to have full effect.

Domestic and internal rule-of-law observers and law enforcement criticized the wide range of amendments that the former government introduced to the criminal and criminal procedure codes as weakening the investigative toolkits, including in fighting corruption between 2016 and 2019.  In July 2019, the Constitutional Court found these changes unconstitutional, and the current government plans to revise these codes.

The European Commission (EC) under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), and the Council of Europe’s (COE) Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO) prepared 2019 reports prior to the current National Liberal Party (PNL) government taking power in November 2019.  The October 2019 report, which covered actions taken through June 2019, confirmed the backtracking from the progress made in previous years and set out in the November 2018 report.  The report also emphasized that “The key institutions of Romania need to collectively demonstrate a strong commitment to judicial independence and the fight against corruption as indispensable cornerstones, and to ensure the capacity of national safeguards and checks and balances to act.”  GRECO’s July 2019 Interim Compliance Report warned that statutes enacted through emergency ordinances, or with insufficient transparency and public consultation, will weaken judicial independence.  A June 2019 Venice Commission report was also highly critical of the use of Emergency Ordinances.  The Constitutional Court found most of those changes unconstitutional.  A May 2019 non-binding referendum bans the use of Emergency Ordinances for issues related to the justice sector.

After a political and media campaign against the National Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) resulted in the dismissal of the Chief Prosecutor of the DNA in 2018, the position remained vacant until a new government took power in November 2019.  The government filled the position in March 2020.  Meanwhile the prosecutor’s office set up by the previous government to investigate and prosecute judges and prosecutors, which appeared to only be undertaking politically motivated cases, continues to operate.  The current government’s efforts to disband or reform it stalled during the COVID-19 crisis.  Successful court challenges of the High Court of Cassation and Justice’s procedures triggered the review of numerous high-level corruption cases.  Both the national cabinet and Parliament adopted codes of conduct, yet their overly general provisions have so far rendered them inconsequential.  Conflicts of interest, respect for standards of ethical conduct, and integrity in public office in general remained a concern for all three branches of government.  Individual executive agencies enforced sanctions slowly, and agencies’ own inspection bodies were generally inactive.

In June 2019, the previous government adopted a sizable Administrative Code by emergency ordinance.  The Code weakened the authority of the National Civil Service Agency to oversee civil service by merit-based selection, lowered the voting requirements for transferring management of properties by local councils, and limited local elected officials’ legal liability for official acts by shifting it to civil servants.  Implementation of the 2016-2020 national anticorruption strategy, which the previous government adopted in 2016, has been slow, especially with regard to prevention efforts.  The strategy focused on strengthening administrative review and transparency within public agencies, prevention of corruption, increased and improved financial disclosure, conflict of interest oversight, more aggressive investigation of money laundering, and passage of legislation to allow for more effective asset recovery.  The strategy includes education in civics and ethics for civil servants, a requirement for peer reviews of state institutions, stepped-up measures to strengthen integrity in the business environment, a significant decrease in public procurement fraud, and an increased role for ethics advisors and whistle-blowers.  There has been little action in these areas, especially on the prevention component.  Absent political support from the top, the new National Agency for Managing Seized Assets (ANABI) has only made limited progress.

Romania implemented the revised Public Procurement Directives with the passage in 2016 of new laws to improve and make public procurement more transparent.  The National Agency for Public Procurement has general oversight over procurements and can draft legislation, but procurement decisions remain with the procuring entities.  State entities, as well as public and private beneficiaries of EU funds, are required by law to follow public procurement legislation and use the e-procurement system.  Sectoral procurements, including private companies in energy and transportation, also have to follow the public procurement laws and tender via the e-procurement website.  The February 2020 EU Country Report for Romania points out that public-procurement remains inefficient.

In October 2016, the “Prevent” IT system, an initiative sponsored by the National Integrity Agency for ex-ante check of conflicts of interests in public procurement, was signed into law.  The mechanism aims to avoid conflicts of interest by automatically detecting conflict of interests in public procurement before the selection and contract award procedure.

The laws extend to politically exposed persons yet at the same time, politicians frequently criticize magistrates in the media and judicial decisions are often treated with a lack of respect.  Laws prohibit bribery, both domestically and for Romanian companies doing business abroad.  The judiciary remains paper-based and inefficient, and Romania loses a number of cases each year in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) due to excessive trial length.  Asset forfeiture laws exist, but a functioning regime remains under development.  Fully 80 percent of cases in the court system are property related.

While private joint stock companies use internal controls, ethics, and compliance programs to detect and prevent bribery, since 2017 the government has rolled back corporate governance rules for state-owned enterprises and has repeatedly resorted to profit and reserves distribution in dividends to bolster the budget.  U.S. investors have complained of both government and business corruption in Romania, with the customs service, municipal officials, and local financial authorities most frequently named.  According to the EC’s 2020 European Semester Country Report for Romania, since 2013, the share of companies that perceive corruption as a problem increased in Romania by 23 percentage points, the largest increase in the EU.  This result stands in stark contrast with the EU average, which continued to decrease (now at 37%).  Overall, 97% of businesses think that corruption is widespread in Romania, and 87% say it is widespread in public procurement managed by national authorities.  On a more positive note, 50% of respondents think that those engaged in corruption would be caught by police, and 43% think that those caught for bribing a senior official receive appropriate sanctions.  These results are both higher than the EU average.

Romania is a member of the Southeast European Law Enforcement Center (SELEC).  NGOs enjoy the same legal protections as any other organization, but NGOs involved in investigating corruption receive no additional protections.  Recent regulations have increased costs and administrative burdens for NGOs and reduced the pool of potential donors.

UN Anticorruption Convention, OECD Convention on Combatting Bribery

Romania is member of the UN Anticorruption Convention and the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO).  Romania is not a member of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

Romania expressed interest to join the new anti-corruption working group of the Open Government Partnership initiative.

Resources to Report Corruption

Contact at government agency responsible for combating corruption:

ORGANIZATION: National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA)
ADDRESS: Str. Stirbei Voda nr. 79-81, Bucuresti
TELEPHONE NUMBER: +40 21 312 73 99
EMAIL ADDRESS: anticoruptie@pna.ro
WEBSITE: http://www.pna.ro/sesizare.xhtml?jftfdi=&jffi=sesizare 

Contact at “watchdog” organizations:

ORGANIZATION: Expert Forum
ADDRESS:Strada Semilunei, apt 1, Sector 2, Bucuresti,
TELEPHONE NUMBER: +40 21 211 7400
EMAIL ADDRESS: office@expertforum.ro

ORGANIZATION: Freedom House Romania
ADDRESS: Bd. Ferdinand 125, Bucuresti
TELEPHONE NUMBER: +4021 253 28 38
EMAIL ADDRESS: guseth@freedomhouse.ro

ORGANIZATION: Funky Citizens
ADDRESS: Colivia, Pache Protopopescu 9
TELEPHONE NUMBER: +40 0723 627 448
EMAIL ADDRESS: elena@funkycitizens.org

Romania does not have a history of politically motivated damage to foreign investors’ projects or installations.  Major civil disturbances are rare though some have occurred in past years.  Anti-shale gas protestors invaded the site of a U.S. energy company’s exploratory well in 2013, damaging the perimeter fence and some equipment.

During the February 2017 anti-government protests, and intermittently during the previous government, some government leaders pointed to “multinationals” as among the orchestrators.  As of March 2019, the government has taken no adverse action against the multinational companies, and public attention has diminished.

* Source for Host Country Data: