Executive Vice-President Raffaele Fitto, answering a parliamentary question from Romanian MEP Victor Negrescu (S&D), stressed that ensuring appropriate national co-financing for projects under the 2014-2020 Regional Operational Programme (ROP) falls within the remit of the Romanian authorities. Fitto highlighted that the Commission has already provided guidelines and that Romania adopted Emergency Ordinance 36/2023 to facilitate closure and phasing of operations, including provisions to adjust cost estimates for price increases. The answer aims to reassure local municipalities facing a funding gap of over RON 511 million, but places the primary responsibility on the national government.
Negrescu's question, submitted on 18 February 2026, raised concerns that Romanian municipalities like Maramureș and Pucioasa risk losing ERDF funds due to rising costs and insufficient national co-financing. He argued that the government's support mechanisms for other projects have not been applied equally to ROP projects, creating inequities and threatening essential investments in infrastructure, education, and public services.
Fitto's response contains no new concrete proposals or numerical targets. Instead, it reiterates existing tools: Commission notice 2021/C 417/01 on closure guidelines and Romania's Emergency Ordinance 36/2023, which allows updated cost estimates for phased projects financed from 2021-2027 programmes. The Commission will continue to monitor the closure process and remains in contact with Romanian authorities on the partnership principle and sound financial management.
Policy orientation and institutional follow-up The answer signals a cautious, procedural approach: the Commission does not intend to intervene directly but expects Romania to apply its own legal framework uniformly. The cleavage here is between national sovereignty (Romania's responsibility for co-financing) and EU oversight (ensuring equal treatment of beneficiaries and fund absorption). For Romanian municipalities, the impact is moderate: the legal avenue exists to adjust costs, but implementation depends on national authorities. For the Commission, the answer avoids creating a precedent of direct intervention. No immediate legislative follow-up is expected; the Commission will continue monitoring closure deadlines.
45