article by Cristina Gavrilă and Andreea Caragui, Glodeanu Partners

As a Romanian lawyer who has spent much of her professional life advising on energy and large‑scale infrastructure projects, my recent work in the defence sector feels less like a natural evolution. Defence manufacturing, storage, logistics and lifecycle support raise many of the same questions familiar from energy and infrastructure: access to land, permitting acceleration, state participation, strategic control, financing structures and long‑term operational risk. 

What has changed is the intensity of the national security overlap and the speed at which the legal framework is evolving.

Over the course of 2025, Romania adopted a series of legislative measures that fundamentally reshape how defence capabilities are procured, financed and industrialized. Two emergency ordinances are particularly transformative. Emergency Ordinance No. 73/2025 introduces a fast‑track regime for strategic investments in the national defence industry, while Emergency Ordinance No. 62/2025 implements the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) instrument, embedding EU‑level financing and joint procurement into national law.

This article looks at these developments through a practitioner’s lens, drawing parallels with infrastructure‑style projects while highlighting the features that make defence investments legally distinct. The underlying message is clear: Romania is no longer approaching defence purely as a procurement exercise, but as an industrial policy priority backed by strong state safeguards.

1. The Existing Legal Architecture: Procurement and Industrial Cooperation
1. Defence and security procurement

At the core of Romania’s defence procurement system rests Government Emergency Ordinance No. 114/2011, which transposes Directive 2009/81/EC. Practitioners coming from the civilian procurement world immediately note what is missing: open procedures. Defence and security contracts are awarded through restricted or negotiated procedures, competitive dialogue or requests for quotations, all framed by stringent security‑of‑information and security‑of‑supply requirements.

Another feature with major practical impact is the requirement for parliamentary approval of acquisition programmes with an estimated value of EUR 100 million or more. From experience, this additional step is not merely formal. It influences transaction timetables, public disclosure and political risk allocation in a way that is rarely encountered in energy or transport infrastructure projects.

Romania may also rely on Article 346 TFEU to derogate from EU internal market rules where this is necessary to protect essential security interests. In practice, this tool is used cautiously. When invoked, it typically results in narrower competition and heightened compliance obligations, particularly around classified information and supply security.

2. Industrial cooperation (offset)

Industrial cooperation obligations are now an integral part of defence acquisitions. The current regime, established by Government Emergency Ordinance No. 124/2023 and Government Decision No. 438/2024, is administered by the Romanian Agency for Technological and Industrial Cooperation for Security and Defence (ARCTIS).

From a legal structuring perspective, one aspect is critical: the offset agreement is legally distinct from the procurement contract and must be signed before it. The cooperation plan attached to the offset agreement, covering technology transfer, R&D, local manufacturing or subcontracting, requires approval from the Supreme Council of National Defence (CSAT). This level of strategic oversight is closer to what one might expect for critical energy infrastructure than for standard public contracts.

2. Emergency Ordinance No. 73/2025: Strategic Defence Investments as Infrastructure‑Type Projects
1. A fast‑track regime grounded in national security

Emergency Ordinance No. 73/2025, in force since 11 December 2025, is perhaps the clearest illustration of how defence is being treated as strategic infrastructure. The ordinance establishes a dedicated legal regime for investments that build, modernise, convert or expand defence production and service capacities of strategic interest. Its legal foundation lies in Article 346 TFEU, but its mechanics will look familiar to anyone who has worked on priority energy or transport projects.

The scope is deliberately broad, covering not only weapons and ammunition but also services and dual‑use capabilities linked to national security. Eligible operators must be authorised under Law No. 232/2016 and are subject to close ministerial oversight.

2. Strategic endorsement, screening and investor qualification

All investments under this regime require endorsement by CSAT. In parallel, they are subject to Romania’s foreign direct investment screening rules. For foreign investors, this dual filter is a defining feature of the risk analysis.

The ordinance sets out investor qualification criteria that go beyond pure financial capability. Relevant defence‑sector experience, technical competence and the ability to comply with classified information requirements are essential. From an infrastructure lawyer’s perspective, this resembles a heightened version of pre‑qualification, with national security replacing bankability as the central concern.

3. Investment structures and state participation

Strategic defence investments may be implemented through state‑owned or majority state‑owned operators, or through joint ventures with private investors. The state may contribute capital directly from the budget, including VAT‑related amounts, in exchange for equity.

Company governance can include reserved matters designed to protect essential security interests. While such mechanisms are not unfamiliar in regulated infrastructure, their scope in defence projects is broader. Mandatory reporting to the competent ministry and statutory audits under EU‑adopted international standards further reinforce the public‑interest character of these projects.

4. Land, assets and permitting acceleration

One of the most practically relevant aspects of the ordinance is access to land and assets. Defence investments benefit from a cumulative set of priority legal classifications: national security, public utility and strategic interest, national public interest for tax purposes and exceptional status under environmental and land‑use legislation.

Public land may be concessioned by direct award, through a simplified procedure approved by Government decision, for periods of up to 49 years. For practitioners used to negotiating land access for energy projects, this approach is strikingly familiar, albeit reinforced by stricter destination and use restrictions.

5. State safeguards and step‑in rights

In line with its infrastructure‑like logic, the ordinance embeds strong state safeguards. If an investment vehicle is dissolved or ceases to use the assets for their intended strategic purpose, ownership may pass to the state. The state also benefits from pre‑emption rights upon investor exit, with pricing based on authorised valuation.

These provisions underline an essential point: private capital is welcome, but control over strategic defence capabilities ultimately remains with the state.

3. Emergency Ordinance No. 62/2025 and the EU SAFE Instrument
1. Centralised coordination and strategic oversight

Emergency Ordinance No. 62/2025 brings the EU SAFE instrument into Romanian law. Shortly after its adoption, Romania secured over €16 billion via the EU SAFE instrument, the second-largest allocation in the EU, to support defence acquisitions, ongoing investments, and the accelerated modernization of critical defence infrastructure. 

Under this framework, the Prime Minister’s Chancellery acts as the central coordinator, liaising with the European Commission and managing an inter‑institutional working group that includes defence, finance, foreign affairs and security authorities. National investment plans require CSAT approval, reinforcing the strategic filter already familiar from other defence instruments.

2. Procurement flexibility and joint programmes

SAFE introduces procurement flexibilities that would be exceptional in other sectors. Negotiated procedures without prior publication are expressly permitted, provided that SAFE cooperation requirements are integrated into the tender documentation. Delivery speed carries significant weight in evaluation criteria, reflecting the urgency logic driving EU defence policy.

Romanian authorities are also empowered to participate in joint procurements with other states, to conclude framework agreements and to make cross‑border payments. For companies active in EU‑wide infrastructure or energy markets, this creates opportunities to align Romanian investments with broader European supply chains.

3. Reduced duplication of oversight

The ordinance adjusts existing national oversight rules, raising thresholds and exempting certain SAFE‑related contracts from duplicative procedures. The intent is pragmatic: to reduce friction and allow Romania to function as an effective participant in EU‑level defence programmes.

4. From Strategy to Shovel‑Ready: Permitting and Licensing as the Real Stress Test

One point that becomes immediately clear when advising defence projects on the ground is that strategy and legislation only matter to the extent they can be translated into permits, endorsements and licences. Here, defence departs sharply from classic energy or infrastructure projects: the permitting process splits into two parallel but deeply interconnected tracks, one focused on construction and environmental compliance, and the other on defence‑specific operational authorisations.

1. Construction permitting: familiar steps, higher stakes

From a construction law perspective, a defence manufacturing facility is, at first glance, “just” a specialised industrial project. The familiar sequence applies: urbanism certificates, zoning instruments (most often a PUZ), environmental assessment, technical endorsements and, ultimately, the building permit under Law No. 50/1991.

In practice, however, multiple elements raise the stakes. 

First, as indicated above, the procedure is initiated by obtaining an urbanism certificate, which defines the legal, economic and technical regime of the land and sets out the full list of required approvals and agreements. Where the existing planning parameters do not allow the proposed industrial use or technical characteristics, the investor must secure approval of a zonal urban plan (PUZ) and its related planning regulation. The PUZ process implies obtaining an opportunity endorsement from the mayor, technical substantiation, extensive institutional consultation and mandatory public participation, and is finalised by approval of the local council.

After the PUZ is approved, the investor must obtain the technical endorsements necessary for construction from a broad range of authorities and utility operators. In defence-related projects, the endorsement phase is typically more complex than in standard industrial developments, both in terms of the number of competent bodies involved and the sensitivity of the issues assessed, including environmental protection, public health, utilities connectivity and, where relevant, national defence considerations.

Second, defence projects almost invariably trigger a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), making the environmental agreement (acord de mediu) the critical path item. The EIA procedure is not only technically complex and document-intensive, but also includes mandatory public information and consultation stages. In the context of defence investments, these stages are likely to attract heightened public scrutiny and active participation from environmental NGOs and local stakeholders. As the building permit application cannot be submitted before the environmental agreement is obtained, investors should factor in both the substantive assessment timeline and the potential for consultation-driven delays when structuring the project calendar.

For practitioners used to large energy developments, this logic will feel familiar: the environmental file effectively dictates the project calendar, and design choices made early on will determine whether later permits are even achievable.

2. Environmental compliance: design first, authorisation later

Defence manufacturing facilities sit at the intersection of environmental and security regulation. Romanian law, aligned with EU environmental acquis, imposes a two‑stage regime: an environmental agreement before construction and an environmental authorisation (or, where capacity thresholds or pollution profiles so require, an integrated environmental authorisation) before operation. The first stage, governed by Law No. 292/2018 on environmental impact assessment, determines whether the project is environmentally acceptable at the design stage and therefore functions as a gatekeeper for the construction permit. Only after the facility has been built in accordance with the approved design can the operator move to the second stage and obtain the relevant operational permit under the general environmental authorisation regime or, where applicable, under the industrial emissions framework established by Law No. 278/2013. In the case of integrated permitting, the operator must demonstrate compliance with Best Available Techniques (BAT) as defined in EU BAT reference documents, making the authorisation process significantly more demanding in both technical and procedural terms.

This sequencing has an important practical consequence: operational environmental requirements strongly feed back into the construction phase, aspect which is often underestimated. Where an integrated environmental authorisation is required, compliance with BAT-compliant technologies is not something that can be retrofitted cheaply. Much like in energy generation or waste‑to‑energy projects, environmental permitting must be treated as a design driver, not as a post‑construction formality.

In addition, both stages involve substantive technical review and mandatory public consultation procedures. Given the strategic nature and potential environmental sensitivity of state defence investments, these consultation phases are likely to attract heightened scrutiny and active participation from environmental NGOs and local stakeholders, which can further affect the predictability of the overall project timetable.

3. Operational licensing: where defence becomes truly different

The real point of divergence from energy and infrastructure projects lies in the operational licensing phase. Manufacturing ammunition or other military products moves the project squarely into the national defence regime governed by Law No. 232/2016 and its implementing legislation.

Before construction can even begin, investors must factor in the need for a prior authorisation issued by the Ministry of Economy, based on binding prior endorsements from the core institutions of the national defence system, including the Ministry of National Defence and the Romanian Intelligence Service. This step is not a technical checklist exercise, as it grants the right to build the facility (in addition to the corresponding building permit). It is a strategic filter assessing whether the proposed capacity is genuinely aligned with Romania’s defence needs and NATO commitments. For this reason, the criteria for the investor to receive the prior authorization are extensive and security driven. The applicant must be incorporated as a Romanian legal entity, demonstrate the technical and financial capability to develop the proposed facility and satisfy strict integrity requirements applicable to significant shareholders and directors. Most importantly, the project must obtain positive prior endorsements from all competent institutions of the national defence system, confirming its strategic relevance. These conditions reflect the legislator’s intention to maintain close State control over the entry of private operators into the defence manufacturing sector. 

Only after the facility is built can the operator seek the operating authorisation from the Ministry of Economy, again subject to security endorsements. The procedure entails renewed security scrutiny and confirmation that the effective production capability corresponds to the parameters previously endorsed. 

In parallel, additional licences may be required under the arms and ammunition regime and the legislation governing explosive materials, notably authorisation as an armorer under Law No. 295/2004 on the regime of arms and ammunition, as well as approvals for the production, storage and handling of explosive materials under Law No. 126/1995. Where the project contemplates exports of military goods, a further control layer arises under Government Emergency Ordinance No. 158/1999, involving transaction-based licensing by the national export control authority. 

Multiple authorities are involved, inspections are cumulative, and timelines are long.

From a project management perspective, the lesson is clear: the operational licensing track must run in parallel with construction permitting. As with environmental permitting, treating defence authorisations as a final step in the authorisation process risks adding many months, if not years, to the overall timeline.

4. A convergence of logics

What emerges from practice is a convergence between defence and strategic infrastructure. Defence projects are now treated as assets of public utility and national interest, benefitting from accelerated land access and permitting, but subject to intrusive state oversight, step‑in rights and ongoing compliance obligations.

For investors and contractors, this means that success is less about navigating a single “defence law” statute and more about orchestrating multiple legal regimes simultaneously: urban planning, environmental law, construction, public procurement, industrial cooperation and national security regulation.

5. What This Means for Investors and Contractors

Taken together, the recent reforms create a layered but coherent framework. Defence procurement, industrial cooperation and strategic investment rules are no longer operating in isolation. From my perspective as an infrastructure lawyer, the parallels are unmistakable: long‑term assets, public interest classification, accelerated permitting and strong state control.

For international contractors, early engagement with authorities, realistic planning of security accreditation and careful structuring of local partnerships are critical. Joint ventures with state‑owned enterprises, licensed production paired with lifecycle support and integration into Romanian supply chains are becoming the norm rather than the exception.

At the same time, investors must be comfortable with governance constraints, reporting obligations and step‑in rights that go beyond what is typical in other regulated sectors. These are not mere formalities; they reflect the non‑negotiable national security dimension of defence projects.

6. Conclusion

Romania’s defence sector is entering a new phase, one that closely resembles the development of strategic energy or transport infrastructure, but with a far stronger security overlay. Emergency Ordinances No. 73/2025 and No. 62/2025 anchor defence investments firmly within a national and European strategic framework, combining openness to private and foreign capital with robust state control.

For lawyers and investors approaching defence from adjacent sectors, this evolution offers both opportunity and challenge. The opportunity lies in a market that is expanding rapidly and actively seeking industrial partners. The challenge lies in understanding that, in defence, legal structuring is inseparable from national security policy. Those who internalise this reality early will be best placed to build durable, compliant and strategically aligned projects in Romania’s defence industry.