Subscribe
Romania is borrowing up to €16.68 billion for defense under SAFE. The Constitutional Court has now confirmed that the government behind a key part of the program overstepped its powers. The court cancelled no contracts, and the political fallout is still arriving.
SAFE loans must be repaid, so every contract signed under the program becomes a debt for Romanian taxpayers. The first tranche of about €2.5 billion arrived on 26 August. Money on that scale demands clean procedures. AUR argues that what Romanians got instead was opacity, and its criminal complaint to the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) lays out why.
The complaint covers the whole chain: preparation, company selection, negotiation, award, financing and execution. It asks prosecutors to examine possible abuse of office, forgery and offences against the EU’s financial interests.
- Rheinmetall: AUR points to large contracts concentrated in a single industrial group and asks how the technical specifications were written.
- Piranha 5: a project for 139 vehicles was rejected. AUR contrasts a cost of about €6 million per vehicle shown to Parliament with roughly €9.4 million later. The manufacturer says the configurations are not directly comparable.
- Individual weapons system: this €816.6 million program started with seven candidate operators, and AUR asks how an eighth became tied to the chosen solution.
- OCCULT-AI: AUR questions how Digi won a project worth about €190–200 million.
One request is especially pointed. AUR wants DNA to seize native electronic files and metadata, so investigators can see when documents were created or altered. Military secrecy can be legitimate. But as AUR puts it, “classified” must not mean “unverifiable”.
The Mangalia Shipyard sale is the other flashpoint. Assets went to Rheinmetall for about €138 million, around €46 million below the initial price. AUR admits that this gap proves nothing by itself, but argues it cannot be waved away. For a state selling strategic industrial assets while borrowing billions, that is a fair thing to ask about.
The Constitutional Court (CCR) upheld Chamber of Deputies president Sorin Grindeanu’s referral by 5 votes to 4. It found a constitutional legal conflict between Parliament and Government. Once a government is dismissed by a no-confidence vote, Article 110(4) limits it to routine public administration. It cannot issue emergency ordinances. The sequence of events is damaging. On 5 May, the day of the censure vote, the government added 12 new articles to what became Emergency Ordinance 38/2026. The explanatory memorandum reportedly admitted the reason: the government might be barred from issuing ordinances in an interim period. The ordinance was published on 8 May. In effect, the cabinet rushed through a legal framework before it lost the power to do so. Accepting this conduct would let the Government control the legislature, when it should be the other way round. Stiripesurse reports that Ilie Bolojan and Radu Miruță must now explain their decisions on SAFE. The court did not find anyone guilty of a crime, but it did confirm that the executive bent a constitutional rule when it suited its timetable.
Lawyer Toni Neacșu argues that “the SAFE ordinance is not the SAFE law”. On his reading, contracts were concluded under other legal bases. A conflict ruling also does not strike down a text. It tells the authorities how to end the conflict. At worst, a competent government might have to reissue the ordinance, which covers matters such as expropriations.
AUR’s Defence Committee takes a similar line. The decision does not automatically annul contracts, but irregularities could generate litigation and extra costs. Critics will say the lack of automatic consequences is the real scandal: a procedural breach is confirmed, yet nothing in the contracts changes. Whether that is true depends on later court challenges, which have not yet happened.
The most concrete damage is in motorway procurement. The Bucharest Court of Appeal has repeatedly sided with competitors:
- In September it annulled most of the acts for lots 1 and 2 of the Suceava–Siret expressway. The authority must continue the procedure and re-evaluate the bids of Concelex, Construcții Erbașu and the Far Foundation association.
- On 6 October it upheld Concelex’s complaint over Lot 3.
- On 5 August it suspended execution of the €3.57 billion A8 Section 4 contract (Iași–Ungheni), awarded to Itinera, Saipem and ICM.
Together these contracts total about 9 billion lei. Delays here mean money. Re-evaluations take time, and time can cost both the state and the contractors. Antena 3 also reports claims from anonymous members of the National Council for Solving Complaints (CNSC) that the Government pressured them to reject complaints. The CNSC president denies it.
AUR is also asking the newly appointed Prime Minister Luca Niculescu whether his cabinet will take on the earlier government’s commitments. His answer will show whether the next government treats SAFE as a legacy to defend or a problem to audit.
The facts are firm on two points. The CCR confirmed a constitutional conflict, and the courts have already pushed back on key motorway awards. Proving the rest, including the allegations of favoritism, inflated costs and pressure on the complaints body, is the job prosecutors and judges now face.