Romania’s National Liberal Party (PNL) has withdrawn its €400,000 Golden Visa program proposal from Parliament following critical assessments from state institutions and the Supreme Council for National Defense (CSAT).
Deputy Glad Varga announced the withdrawal on Tuesday, explaining that “we decided to withdraw from Parliament the project regarding the ‘Golden Visa Romania’ program” after reviewing feedback from security agencies. He initiated the bill alongside 33 co-signatories who have also formally withdrawn their support.
Varga defended the withdrawal as “the right decision” given that such mechanisms must fully comply with national security standards and European Union regulations.
Anca Ulea, Partner at RGVISA, notes that CSAT issued an unsolicited assessment despite the program not formally requiring Council approval, “an exceptional move that signals how seriously the national security establishment viewed the risks.”
Ulea explains that CSAT’s intervention centered on timing and geopolitical optics. Romania is simultaneously pursuing Schengen consolidation, Visa Waiver eligibility, and OECD accession, all of which depend on institutional credibility and robust risk-management frameworks.
She explains that introducing an investment migration scheme now would have placed Romania at odds with EU expectations and recent enforcement trends against similar programs across the Union.
She points out that security vulnerabilities extended beyond Romania’s borders. A Romanian residence permit would have granted beneficiaries free movement throughout the Schengen Area, “transforming domestic leniency into a European security gap.”
Ulea also notes that CSAT explicitly warned that weaknesses in Romania’s screening processes would not remain contained at the national level but would be exported across the entire Schengen space.
The proposed program would have granted non-EU citizens a five-year renewable residence permit for investments of at least €400,000 in four categories:
- Romanian government bonds with five-year maturity,
- Real estate,
- Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF)-authorized investment funds, or
- Shares in Romanian-listed companies.
Permit holders would have faced no minimum annual stay requirement. Ulea observes that this design made meaningful oversight nearly impossible, particularly coupled with the absence of periodic security checks that are mandatory under current law.
Two mandatory screening stages had been built into the draft legislation: A preliminary check followed by an investment analysis before residence approval. CSAT apparently deemed these insufficient.
Varga acknowledged flaws in the initial formulation but emphasized that the project aimed to “attract solid investments and stimulate economic development in strategic areas.” Consultations with institutions revealed shortcomings that necessitated the bill’s removal from consideration.
Ulea notes that legislative redundancy compounded security concerns. Romania already has a legal framework regulating investor residence through OUG 194/2002, and the draft would have created a parallel, inconsistent structure that complicates institutional roles and weakens regulatory clarity.
She explains that economic distortions loomed large in CSAT’s assessment. Drawing from the experience of other EU countries, the Council anticipated that most investments would gravitate toward real estate, driving speculative price increases and generating negative social effects.
She says the bill’s own explanatory memorandum acknowledges this risk, which is why many European states have already abandoned or drastically reformed such programs.
Varga insisted the initiative pursued only one goal: “to attract serious capital to Romania, under conditions of security, transparency and responsibility towards the Romanian state and investors.” Plans call for reintroducing the proposal “in a revised and improved form” after addressing CSAT’s concerns.