Romania Crypto & Digital Asset Regulation

Crypto Licensing

The defining fact for Romania's crypto-asset licensing regime this cycle is that the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation's Article 143(3) transitional period, available to entities registered with Romania's national AML registry (ONPCSB) before 30 December 2024, expired on 1 July 2026. From that date, providing crypto-asset services in Romania without a valid ASF-granted MiCA authorisation is unlawful in principle. In practice, however, ASF cannot grant any such authorisation, because it has not yet been formally designated as the national MiCA competent authority under Romanian law. That designation is contingent on adoption of a national implementing Government Emergency Ordinance, which remains in draft form as of mid-October 2026, having advanced only as far as a first parliamentary reading on 2 April 2026.

The result is a licensing vacuum rather than an ordinary administrative backlog. An applicant with a complete and fully compliant MiCA authorisation file cannot receive approval in Romania today, not because ASF is slow to process applications, but because the authority does not yet hold the legal competence to process them at all. This distinguishes Romania's position from a jurisdiction where authorisation is merely delayed by caseload or resource constraints; here, the authorisation function itself has not been activated.

Reported commentary from early July 2026, relayed through Romanian press coverage of ASF's own public statements, indicates that the European Commission has opened an infringement procedure against Romania specifically over non-adoption of the national MiCA implementing legislation. The precise procedural stage of this infringement action, whether it has reached the level of a letter of formal notice, a reasoned opinion, or any further escalation, was not established within the material reaching this cycle, and this remains an open item for future research.

The practical consequence for any crypto-asset service provider with Romanian operations or Romanian-domiciled corporate structure is that it cannot currently hold, and cannot currently obtain, a Romanian MiCA authorisation under any circumstances, irrespective of its compliance readiness. This status applies uniformly across the crypto-asset service provider categories that would otherwise fall under ASF's prospective jurisdiction, pending the eventual resolution of the supervisory split anticipated between ASF and the Banca Nationala a Romaniei once the implementing ordinance is adopted.

Outlook

The regulatory horizon for this gap points to possible adoption of the implementing Government Emergency Ordinance in the first quarter of 2027, though this estimate carries a half-year uncertainty band given the ordinance's extended time in draft status since its April 2026 first reading, and should be read as scheduled rather than assured. Two open questions bear directly on how this situation develops: whether the draft ordinance has advanced beyond first-reading government review since April 2026, and what formal stage the Commission's infringement procedure against Romania has reached. Neither question was resolved within this cycle's sourcing. Until the ordinance is adopted and ASF's competent-authority designation is confirmed, Romania's MiCA licensing route will remain structurally closed to all applicants.

Crypto Licensing

Romania's crypto-licensing position is defined by the expiry of the MiCA transitional period and the absence of any domestic mechanism to replace it. The transitional period under MiCA Article 143(3), available to firms that had been providing crypto-asset services under pre-existing national law, ran for its full permitted duration of 18 months and expired on 1 July 2026; Romania did not shorten this period. From that date, firms wishing to provide crypto-asset services in Romania are required to hold a MiCA authorisation, but Romania's Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) has stated it is not currently designated as competent authority for applying the Regulation. This means ASF cannot receive or process CASP authorisation applications, leaving no domestic authorisation pathway operative in Romania more than three months past the deadline that was meant to require one.

The remedial instrument under consideration is a draft emergency ordinance, reviewed by the Romanian government in first reading on 2 April 2026. As reported, it would designate ASF as competent authority for crypto-asset service providers and asset-referenced-token issuers, designate BNR for e-money-token issuance oversight, and establish a national sanctions regime for breaches of CASP and crypto-ATM rules. The ordinance had not been adopted as of the most recent reporting located this cycle, meaning its provisions remain prospective rather than operative.

The consequence for market structure is an asymmetry in passporting: large crypto-asset platforms that hold MiCA authorisation from another EU Member State reportedly continue to serve Romanian users under the Regulation's passporting mechanism, so Romanian consumers are not without access to MiCA-authorised services. However, Romania itself cannot grant a domestic CASP authorisation, so a firm seeking to be licensed in Romania specifically, rather than passporting in from elsewhere, currently has no route to do so. This is a national implementation-capacity gap rather than a restriction on crypto-asset activity as such.

Outlook

The principal development to track is whether the draft emergency ordinance is adopted, which would designate ASF and BNR as competent authorities and close the licensing gap. No confirmed adoption date exists as of this cycle. Until adoption, the inbound-passporting/no-domestic-authorisation asymmetry will persist, and any firm specifically seeking Romanian domestic CASP authorisation, as opposed to passporting in from another Member State, has no operative route available.