From Legal Perfection to Operational Maturity: Romania’s Investment Screening Journey
Authors: Anne Bonet (senior advisor, CELIS institute) & Floor Doppen (senior programme associate, CELIS Institute)
Introduction: A Conversation with Ana-Maria Belacurencu
Across Europe, investment screening mechanisms have moved from legislative blueprints to operational realities. While each Member State followed its own constitutional and political path, many faced similar challenges: designing new institutions, building analytical capacity, and embedding economic security into administrative practice.
While before the current framework, Romania technically had a sort of screening mechanism linked to its merger control regime, it was not a genuine investment screening system. Its new FDI regime entered into force in 2022 and since then the Romanian FDI authority has reviewed over more than 1.000 filings.
Ana-Maria Belacurencu was the primary engineer of Romania’s screening legislation, oversaw its implementation, and currently works as a case handler in Romania’s screening authority within the Romanian Competition Council. She is also one of the most prominent and engaged speakers on investment screening, regularly appearing in panels on investment screening, and helps other governments in developing their own screening capabilities.
In this second instalment of our CELIS series on screening authorities, Ana reflects on Romania’s experience — from drafting the legislation to shaping a cooperative screening ecosystem beyond national borders.
From Legislative Ambition to Operational Reality
Romania’s screening mechanism was not an adjustment of an existing regime. It was built from scratch. “At the time,” Ana recalls, “every delay felt like my own defeat — even when it clearly wasn’t. I took things very personally. In the end it took us two years and three government changes.”
What were the biggest challenges you faced?
“The biggest challenge I/we faced was - without hesitation - the lack of political will in the absence of a unified national position. Considering the potential economic impact of investment screening, you need consistency, you need political courage. And in Romania - and I believe we are not an isolated case - political polarization is very real.”
“The second major challenge was the institutional coordination, because you have to bring to the same table ministries and authorities with completely different mandates and risk cultures.”
“Ultimately, it became an exercise in institutional diplomacy and awareness raising. I am not exaggerating when I say we experienced everything, among other things, advisors and prime ministers throwing papers on the floor, saying: this is not happening in Romania. And when we finally convinced one government, the government would fall, and we would have to start the conversation all over again.”
How did you keep the project alive considering the shifting political landscape?
“I was lucky to have a few, what I call, ‘anchors’. First, I had a member of the parliament who took ownership of the subject, both formally and informally, who supported the ambition consistently across the political changes. Second was the Supreme Council of National Defence, which is a body under the president of Romania. Their backing was really important: when the national security and intelligence community clearly articulates the necessity of a mechanism, it kind of changes the tone of the debate.”
Looking back, what would you do differently?
“The pressure was intense. The objective was clear: build a legally solid, procedurally impeccable mechanism aligned with the EU framework. In our desire to make it robust, we introduced multiple internal filters and safeguards. Everything had layers, double checks, additional procedures. The result was sophisticated — but complex: The internal workflow became extremely complicated, even for us.”
This mirrors a broader European pattern: when building new screening systems, authorities often prioritised legal robustness over operational simplicity. Yet, with experience came recalibration. As Ana confirms, “we streamlined parts of the system. We removed filters that proved unnecessary. But there are still steps we would like to simplify.”
Looking back, the main lesson Ana shares with us, is structural: “We built a real mechanism under difficult political circumstances, but, if I were to rebuild it today, I would design it from the inside out. I would start with the operational flow — what the case handler actually needs from day one to decision — and then draft the legal framework around that reality.”
The ambition remains unchanged. The method, however, would be different.
Learning by Comparing — and Adapting
As was the case for many countries that established screening legislation in the past five years, Romania’s design process was comparative from the outset, as Ana shares: “I looked at several jurisdictions — within the EU and beyond. I took what I could and adapted it to our legal system.”
“The U.S. Department of the Treasury provided technical comments on the draft legislation and offered support during the early stages. The cooperation was practical and direct — largely conducted through virtual exchanges rather than formal study visits.”
In short, it reflects how early European screening expansion relied heavily on peer learning and informal expert networks. This cross-jurisdictional inspiration did not mean transplantation. It meant adaptation. Romania’s mechanism emerged as a hybrid — grounded in EU law, informed by international practice, and tailored to national institutional realities.
From National Mechanism to Screening Ecosystem
How have you seen cooperation on investment evolve over the past years?
“When European Cooperation started, and the EU Regulation came into force, the topic was sensitive, there was caution. Today we are a community, we call each other, we know each other, we trust each other. Yes, our formal cooperation meetings under the regulation created structure. But the informal networks have mattered enormously. And here, I believe platforms like CELIS institute has had an integrative effect. It may sound superficial, but repeated interactions at conferences, workshops, and events allowed us to get to know each other beyond official statements, and some of us have built genuine professional closeness.”
In short, Ana concludes “our ecosystem is becoming more integrated. If I look back three years, I see uncertainty. Today I see more structure and the network of professionals aware of their shared responsibility.”
Romania’s role seems to have evolved from recipient of expertise to contributor to others. How do you see this?
“We help others — especially those who are ambitious and just starting — because we remember how difficult it was to face a blank page. Plus, economic security is interconnected. Vulnerabilities do not stop at border. Especially those countries in the process of EU accession, I think, must be prepared early. I am encouraged to see that some of those countries are already advancing FDI frameworks.”
“I am also not hiding that Romania sits at a strategic crossroads geographically and politically. We border Ukraine, we are deeply engaged in supporting EU neighbourhood partners. If neighbouring countries lack screening capacity, risks propagate. So when we hosted the Screeners Academy for the EU member states, we also invited partners from Western Balkan and Moldova.”
In particular, Romania works closely with Moldova under a Memorandum of Cooperation, particularly on complex multi-citizenship cases — another reflection of the region’s geopolitical sensitivities, as Ana shares: “sometimes we deal with investors holding multiple passports — Moldovan, Ukrainian, sometimes Russian. These cases are layered and require coordination.”
Like in Belgium, the emphasis in Romania is not merely on national efficiency, but on systemic coherence. Ana sees an important responsibility there: “As authorities, we are responsible for the ecosystem.”
After all, investment screening, Ana argues, rests on trust:
- Trust in confidentiality
- Trust in competence
- Trust in responsible information-sharing
“If one Member State conducts a weak analysis, the system feels it. If one neighbour lacks capacity, vulnerabilities spread.”
This systemic view echoes a common theme across member states: screening is no longer purely national. It is embedded in an interdependent European framework.
Pressure, Responsibility — and Commitment
Behind institutional architecture lies something more personal, as Ana explains: “I love what I do. But I also suffer a lot. If someone tells me they want to amend the law, I panic. I won’t sleep that night.”
The emotional investment is real. Building a screening regime is not abstract policy work; it carries responsibility in uncertain geopolitical times.
When jokingly asked whether she would consider working for the European Commission, she replies:
“I had that opportunity — and I said no.”
Her commitment lies in strengthening the mechanism where it was built.
The Next Phase: Connectivity and Consolidation
Asked about the future of investment screening, Ana is cautious but not pessimistic: “We are living in difficult times. There is uncertainty.”
Yet she sees a clear direction.
“This will grow — and we will become more connected to each other. We must. Connectivity is no longer optional. It extends beyond EU Member States to trusted partners and allies.”
Investment screening, she suggests, is entering a phase of consolidation of more structured cooperation, greater interdependence, stronger professional networks, and deeper analytical coordination. The trajectory is not towards isolation, but towards coordination.
A European Story, Told Nationally
Romania’s experience mirrors broader developments seen across Europe — including in Belgium:
- Initial scepticism giving way to operational maturity
- Legal perfection evolving into procedural refinement
- National design embedded within European cooperation
- Growing recognition of screening as a structural component of economic security
What emerges from this conversation is not merely a technical story of regulation. It is a human story of institution-building under pressure.
Investment screening in Europe is not just a regulatory shift. It is an administrative transformation — carried forward by individuals willing to navigate complexity, accept responsibility, and build trust across borders.
And sometimes, lose sleep over amendments.
