{"id":10934,"date":"2026-09-30T17:46:36","date_gmt":"2026-09-30T14:46:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/?p=10934"},"modified":"2026-09-30T17:55:13","modified_gmt":"2026-09-30T14:55:13","slug":"mica-is-live-across-the-eu-in-romania-it-is-stuck-in-a-legal-loop","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/legalaccelerators.com\/en\/mica-is-live-across-the-eu-in-romania-it-is-stuck-in-a-legal-loop\/","title":{"rendered":"MiCA is live across the EU. In Romania, it is stuck in a legal loop."},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

An EU Regulation is directly applicable, but without a national authority to enforce it, the market is stalled.<\/i><\/p>\n


<\/p>\n

The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) is the bloc’s first unified framework for crypto-assets, and it works on a simple principle: authorisation obtained in one member state acts as a passport valid across all 27.
To use it, Crypto-Asset Service Providers (CASPs) must meet a common set of requirements: formal authorisation, sound governance, protection of client funds, and compliance with anti-money laundering rules.
The regulation’s transitional period ended on 1 July 2026, meaning any provider operating in the EU now needs that authorisation to do so legally. Except, in Romania, that authorisation simply isn’t possible yet.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n


<\/h2>\n

Romania’s incomplete implementation<\/h2>\n

A first step came through Government Emergency Ordinance 10\/2025, in force since 13 March 2025, which designated the Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) as the main regulator for crypto-asset service providers. On its own, this act was never enough to make authorisation operational; its purpose was to set out who would be responsible, without building the actual mechanism through which a company could apply, be assessed, and be authorised.
That mechanism was meant to arrive through a second, more detailed emergency ordinance, one that would formally designate both ASF and the National Bank of Romania (BNR) as separate competent authorities, each with distinct responsibilities under MiCA. The draft was presented for a first reading in Government on 2 April 2026, but it has not moved since.
The practical consequence was made explicit by Gabriel-Ioan Avr\u0103mescu, ASF’s first vice-president, who confirmed that without this formal designation, the authority cannot legally receive or process a single application under the regulation, not because ASF lacks the willingness or the technical capacity, but because the legal basis for it to act simply isn’t there yet.
Because MiCA is a regulation, it doesn’t require \u201ctransposition\u201d into national law the way EU directives do; it applies directly, automatically, in every member state from the date set out in the text itself. What member states do need to put in place are the national implementing measures: designating a competent authority, setting up authorisation procedures, and defining penalties for non-compliance.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Who this affects<\/h2>\n

The numbers involved are larger than they might first appear. Current estimates put crypto-asset adoption in Romania at around 15.4% of the population, with total holdings estimated at up to \u20ac12 billion. The country also has an estimated 174 crypto ATMs in operation. Against that scale, the roughly 600,000 Romanian investors identified in industry estimates as directly affected by the MiCA transition represent only part of a much wider base of people already holding or using crypto-assets day to day.
For that group, the practical effect of the regulatory gap is straightforward and immediate. Platforms that were operating under Romania’s old pre-MiCA notification regime are legally required to stop offering services without proper authorisation, but that authorisation is precisely what ASF cannot yet grant. Local providers are caught in the same bind from the other side: technically obligated to comply, with no functioning process through which compliance is even possible. Some may already be preparing wind-down plans, as recommended by European regulators for firms unable to secure authorisation in time; others are likely waiting, betting the ordinance will move before the gap causes real damage.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

What should businesses and investors take away?<\/h2>\n

For companies already operating, or planning to operate, crypto-asset services in Romania, the priority is straightforward: keep a close watch on the pending emergency ordinance. Nothing about applying, being assessed, or being authorised can move forward until it clears Government and enters into force.
In the meantime, it’s worth using the delay productively: preparing documentation, governance structures, and Anti-Money Laundering procedures in advance means being able to apply immediately once the mechanism exists, rather than starting that work from scratch once the door finally opens.
For investors, the more useful question isn’t when Romania will catch up, but whether it needs to, at least for now. MiCA’s passporting principle means authorisation obtained in any EU member state is valid across all 27, so a platform authorised in Malta, France, or Lithuania, for example, can legally serve Romanian users today, regardless of where ASF’s own process stands. Checking whether a platform already holds that authorisation, rather than assuming Romanian oversight is a precondition, is a simple, practical way to avoid the grey zone altogether.<\/p>\n

MiCA isn’t a proposal, a draft, or a directive waiting to be transposed; it’s already binding law, in force across the entire EU, Romania included. What’s missing isn’t the rule itself, but the administrative machinery needed to apply it. Until that gap closes, the regulation exists in a strange kind of suspended animation: fully valid on paper, and largely unenforceable in practice.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Sources<\/h2>\n