In brief

  • The Senate has adopted a political act, not a rule of law. Senate Declaration no. 2/2026 is issued under art. 87 paragraph (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate, the paragraph that allows the Senate to adopt „messages, declarations, resolutions and other acts of a political nature”. Paragraph (1) of the same article lists the legal acts separately: laws, resolutions and simple motions.
  • What it criticises. The Senate argues that Romania’s participation, since 2023, in the „Group of Friends on Qualified Majority Voting in CFSP” and the signing, on 1 September 2026, by the interim minister of foreign affairs, Oana-Silvia Țoiu, together with the representatives of 10 other member states, of a letter addressed to the High Representative went beyond the level of „reflection and debate” and took place without a transparent political and parliamentary mandate.
  • What it demands. An immediate halt to the steps towards extending qualified majority voting in the common foreign and security policy, the delivery to Parliament, within 15 days of adoption, of six categories of documents, official explanations about the mandate behind the signature of 1 September 2026 and about the briefing of the President of Romania, plus a debate in two Senate committees.
  • What legal effects it produces. None that bind anyone. The declaration is not among the acts listed in art. 67 of the Constitution and it is not a resolution, the only act to which Law no. 373/2013 attaches, through art. 3 paragraph (2), the Government’s duty to take the position over when finalising the national negotiating position in the Council.
Act: Senate Declaration no. 2/2026 on the defence of Romania’s right to protect its national interests within the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union and on the lack of a transparent political and parliamentary mandate of the interim minister of foreign affairs, Oana-Silvia Țoiu, in the matter of abolishing the unanimous voting mechanism at the level of the EU Council in questions of foreign and security policy
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial), Part I, no. 857 of 13 October 2026, pages 2-4
In force from: the declaration does not enter into force as a rule of law, because it lays down no rules of law. It was adopted by the Senate in the sitting of 12 October 2026, in compliance with art. 129 of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate, and has been public since 13 October 2026, the date it appeared in the Official Gazette of Romania. The 15 day period it sets runs from adoption.

The Senate is asking the Government to stop the push to replace unanimity with a qualified majority in the foreign policy of the European Union, and the request obliges nobody to do anything. Senate Declaration no. 2/2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 857 of 13 October 2026, is adopted under art. 87 paragraph (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate, approved by Senate Resolution no. 28/2005. The text of that paragraph, in the republished form of the rules, reads: „The Senate may also adopt messages, declarations, resolutions and other acts of a political nature.” The preceding paragraph, (1), says what the Senate adopts when it produces law: „The Senate adopts laws, resolutions and simple motions.” By its own legal basis, the declaration sits in the second category.

Its subject is the way votes are cast in the Council of the European Union on the common foreign and security policy, known by the acronym CFSP. Today’s rule is unanimity. The declaration reproduces it correctly: art. 24 paragraph (1) of the Treaty on European Union provides that this policy „shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise”, and that the adoption of legislative acts is excluded. Art. 31 paragraph (1) repeats the rule for the decisions under the CFSP chapter, while art. 31 paragraph (3) allows the European Council to decide, again unanimously, that in cases other than those covered by paragraph (2) the Council shall act by a qualified majority. This is the mechanism the declaration calls „passerelle” and treats as the central risk.

The facts the Senate invokes are four, and the declaration presents them as a chain. In May 2023 Romania joined the „Group of Friends on Qualified Majority Voting in CFSP”, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time took part in the group’s meeting of 22 May 2023. According to an official document of the Council of the European Union dated 10 July 2025, Romania was listed among the members of the group and among the states that sent the European External Action Service the document entitled „Options in the Treaties for improved decision-making in CFSP, including the safety net”. On 1 September 2026 the interim minister of foreign affairs signed, together with 10 other ministers, a letter to the High Representative asking that the move to a qualified majority in certain fields be explored, that greater use be made of constructive abstention and that additional conditions be attached to the exercise of the right of veto. 41 days passed between the signing of the letter and the adoption of the declaration.

The Senate frames its position in two registers that do not mix. On the substance, the declaration argues that moving from unanimity to a qualified majority is not a technical change of procedure but a reduction in each state’s capacity to block a decision contrary to its interests, and it reproaches the interim minister for having taken an official step without a „clear, transparent and verifiable” mandate. On the other hand, the declaration expressly acknowledges that the initiative „does not in itself bring about the immediate loss of Romania’s right of veto”, which in the Senate’s view does not lessen its political gravity. In the same opening sentence of its operative part, the Senate reaffirms „the fundamental importance of Romania’s membership of the European Union”.

There are thirteen requests and they have different addressees. To the Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs go the immediate halt to the steps on qualified majority voting in the CFSP, the end of participation in the group’s activities and the notification of the other participating states, the commitment not to support the activation or extension of the treaty mechanisms without prior parliamentary consultation and an explicit mandate, official and public explanations about the signature of 1 September 2026 and clarifications about the prior briefing of the President of Romania. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has to present Parliament, within 15 days of the adoption of the declaration, with the documents of the 2023 accession, the mandates and instructions sent to Romania’s representatives, including the internal memorandum on the approval of the signing of the letter, the positions taken within the group, the 2025 document, any position paper that formed the basis of the signature and any internal legal analysis of the consequences of extending qualified majority voting. Two requests stay inside the Senate: the organisation of an institutional debate by the Committee on Foreign Policy and the Committee on European Affairs. The declaration is sent to the President of Romania, the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Romania’s Permanent Representation to the European Union, the Council of the European Union, the High Representative and the national parliaments of the member states.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is publicity. Since 13 October 2026 the Senate’s position has been an official text, published, numbered and sent to seven categories of addressees, including the other national parliaments of the Union. For a political act this is no small effect: it fixes a position that can be quoted, compared with the Government’s later positions and invoked in any parliamentary debate that follows.

The second point, however, has to be stated with the same clarity: the declaration creates no legal obligation. Art. 67 of the Constitution, headed „Legal acts and the legal quorum”, provides that „the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate adopt laws, resolutions and motions, in the presence of the majority of their members”. An act of this kind is not in that list, and its legal basis, art. 87 paragraph (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate, places it explicitly among the acts of a political nature. Art. 129 paragraph (1) of the same rules, cited in the adoption formula, confirms that the Senate may adopt „other acts of a political nature” in the presence of the majority of senators, so the quorum condition was met, but that does not change the category of the act.

The practical consequence is clearest on the very law the declaration itself invokes. Law no. 373/2013 on cooperation between Parliament and the Government in the field of European affairs, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 820 of 21 December 2013 and supplemented by Law no. 9/2026, defines the mandate in art. 2 point (e) as „Romania’s negotiating position on the topics on the Council’s agenda”. Art. 3 paragraph (1) says that, in exercising the powers conferred by that law, „Parliament or one of the two Chambers adopts resolutions”, and paragraph (2) that „the resolution of Parliament or of one of the two Chambers is taken over by the Government when finalising the national negotiating position in the Council, as set out in the mandate”. Paragraph (5) adds the Government’s duty to give written reasons for supporting a different position. All these effects are tied to a resolution. A declaration does not trigger them.

The third element concerns who actually decides on the thing the declaration wants to prevent. The decision provided for in art. 31 paragraph (3) of the Treaty on European Union is adopted by the European Council, which, under art. 15 paragraph (2) of the same treaty, „shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States”, and it is adopted unanimously. In other words, as long as Romania’s representative votes against, the decision is not adopted and the risk the declaration describes does not materialise. This explains why the question the Senate asks about briefing the President of Romania is not a matter of protocol: at the level of the European Council, Romania’s vote is cast there, not at ministerial level.

One effect that does not occur deserves to be stated just as plainly: no right of veto is lost or narrowed by this act, and no right is gained. The unanimity in art. 24 paragraph (1) and art. 31 paragraph (1) of the treaty remains exactly as it was. Equally unchanged is the limit in art. 31 paragraph (4), under which paragraphs (2) and (3) „shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications”, and so is the brake written into art. 31 paragraph (2), by which a member of the Council invoking „vital and stated reasons of national policy” obtains the postponement of the vote and the referral of the matter to the European Council, for a decision adopted unanimously.

The 15 days, finally, are a deadline without a sanction, and the text does not say whether they are calendar or working days. Counted in calendar days from adoption, the deadline falls on 27 October 2026. If the documents do not reach Parliament by then, the text provides for no consequence, and the instruments that would produce one, the simple motion and the resolution, are adopted through other procedures and are not invoked here.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Until 13 October 2026, Romania’s participation in the „Group of Friends” and the letter of 1 September 2026 existed as facts of foreign policy, but they had no act of either Chamber of Parliament standing against them. No text published in the Official Gazette of Romania recorded a position of the Senate on this matter. Now the position exists, it has a number, a date and addressees, and the six categories of documents requested are described precisely enough not to be confused with anything else: the documents of the 2023 accession to the group, the mandates and the instructions, including the ministry’s internal memorandum, the positions taken within the group, the 2025 document with its exact title, the documents that formed the basis of the signature of 1 September 2026 and the internal legal analyses.

What has not changed, on the other hand, is anything in the mechanism for setting Romania’s position in the Council. There things still rest on Law no. 373/2013: the Government draws up the mandate, and Parliament steps in through resolutions, through parliamentary scrutiny and, for European Council meetings, through the proposals on the mandate that the Government sends the two Chambers at least 10 days in advance, under art. 18 of the same law. None of these steps is touched by the declaration, because it is not the act through which the law allows Parliament to step in.

Nor has the constitutional standing of the main addressee changed. The declaration repeatedly addresses „the dismissed Government of Romania” and raises the question of the „limited powers of a dismissed executive”. The standard is the one in art. 110 paragraph (4) of the Constitution: „The Government whose mandate has ceased under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall only carry out the acts necessary for the administration of public affairs, until the members of the new Government take the oath of office.” That limit existed on 1 September 2026 as well, and the declaration neither creates it nor strengthens it; it only asks the Government to explain itself in relation to it.

In terms of European law, between 2023 and 2026 no decision was adopted under art. 31 paragraph (3) or art. 48 paragraph (7) of the treaty in the field of foreign policy. The difference between what there was and what there is comes down, therefore, to the existence of a published political act. That is a real change, but of a different nature from the one the title of the declaration might suggest to a hurried reader.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The Senate’s position becomes a public, numbered and verifiable text, sent to the President, the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Permanent Representation, the Council of the European Union, the High Representative and the national parliaments of the other member states.
  • The request for documents is set out under six separate letters, with identifiable objects, including the exact title of the 2025 document and the internal memorandum on the approval of the signing of the letter. A request that precise is hard to sidestep with a general answer.
  • The question about the mandate held before 1 September 2026 is a real one, not rhetorical: art. 110 paragraph (4) of the Constitution limits a Government whose mandate has ceased to the acts necessary for the administration of public affairs.
  • The declaration correctly reproduces the unanimity rule in art. 24 paragraph (1) and art. 31 paragraph (1) of the treaty, the mechanism in art. 31 paragraph (3) and the fact that the signature of 1 September 2026 does not in itself bring about the loss of the right of veto.
  • Two of its requests lie entirely within the Senate’s own power, because they are addressed to its own committees, and the institutional debate it calls for can be held without help from anyone outside the institution.

What remains a problem

  • The instrument does not have the effect its content calls for. The declaration invokes Law no. 373/2013, and the law attaches the taking over of a position into the negotiating mandate to a resolution, not to a declaration.
  • The 15 days carry no sanction, and the text does not say whether they are calendar or working days. On the first reading the deadline falls on 27 October 2026, on the second, on 2 November 2026.
  • The main addressee is, by the declaration’s own wording, a dismissed Government, that is, precisely the authority with the narrowest capacity to take on new commitments.
  • Art. 31 paragraph (4) of the treaty is not mentioned, although it puts decisions having military or defence implications beyond the reach of a qualified majority, while the declaration lists security and NATO’s Eastern Flank among the interests it defends.
  • It does not distinguish between art. 31 paragraph (3) and art. 48 paragraph (7) of the treaty, although under the second procedure any national parliament, the Romanian one included, can block the decision on its own by notifying its opposition within six months.
  • It attributes to Law no. 373/2013 the statement of a „principle of loyal cooperation”. That formula does not appear in the text of the law, which in art. 1 regulates the „framework for cooperation” between Parliament and the Government.

Practical advice

  1. Read art. 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate in full, not only the paragraph invoked. Paragraph (1) lists laws, resolutions and simple motions, while paragraph (2) lists messages, declarations, resolutions and the other acts of a political nature. The legal basis invoked tells you by itself what kind of act you are looking at.
  2. If you want to find out which act changes Romania’s negotiating position in the Council, look for a resolution of the Senate or of the Chamber of Deputies, not for a declaration. The basis is art. 3 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law no. 373/2013.
  3. For the voting rule in European foreign policy, open art. 24 paragraph (1) and art. 31 of the Treaty on European Union. The exceptions that already exist are in art. 31 paragraph (2), and the limit that protects the military and defence field is in art. 31 paragraph (4).
  4. Do not confuse the two gateways to a qualified majority. Art. 31 paragraph (3) requires unanimity in the European Council and nothing else; art. 48 paragraph (7) requires, in addition, the consent of the European Parliament, notification to the national parliaments and the absence of opposition from any one of them within six months.
  5. Remember what the arithmetic of a qualified majority looks like before judging the risk. Art. 16 paragraph (4) of the treaty requires at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least 15 of them, and states that make up at least 65% of the population of the Union, while a blocking minority has to include at least four members.
  6. If you are following the documents requested, note 27 October 2026 as the first day on which the deadline of 15 calendar days from adoption is treated as expired, and look for the answer at the Senate’s committees on foreign policy and on European affairs, where the declaration sends the debate.

Frequently asked questions

What is a Senate declaration and what effect does it have?
It is an act of a political nature, provided for in art. 87 paragraph (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate, alongside messages, resolutions and other acts of the same kind. It is not among the legal acts listed in art. 67 of the Constitution, which are laws, resolutions and motions. It therefore expresses a position, makes it public and forwards it, but it does not oblige any authority to behave in a particular way.
Does Romania lose its right of veto through the letter of 1 September 2026?
No, and the declaration says exactly that: the initiative „does not in itself bring about the immediate loss of Romania’s right of veto”. Unanimity remains the rule under art. 24 paragraph (1) and art. 31 paragraph (1) of the Treaty on European Union. What the Senate criticises is the participation in promoting formulas that could lead, by the routes the treaties provide, to unanimity being replaced in certain fields.
Who can extend qualified majority voting in foreign policy, and how?
By two routes. The first is art. 31 paragraph (3) of the treaty: the European Council, acting unanimously, may decide that the Council shall vote by a qualified majority in cases other than those in art. 31 paragraph (2). The second is art. 48 paragraph (7), which requires unanimity in the European Council, the consent of the European Parliament and notification of the initiative to the national parliaments; opposition from a single national parliament, notified within six months, prevents adoption. Both exclude decisions having military or defence implications.
What is constructive abstention?
The mechanism in the second subparagraph of art. 31 paragraph (1) of the treaty: a member of the Council that abstains may justify its abstention by a formal declaration, and is then not obliged to apply the decision, but accepts that the decision commits the Union. The Senate rightly points out that a state using it does not prevent adoption. The treaty adds a threshold, however: if the states abstaining in this way represent at least one third of the member states, comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision is not adopted.
By when do the documents requested have to be sent?
The text sets 15 days from adoption, that is from 12 October 2026, without saying whether they are calendar or working days. In calendar days the deadline falls on 27 October 2026; in working days, on 2 November 2026. The text provides for no consequence if it is missed.
Is the Government obliged to answer?
Not on the basis of this declaration. The duty to take Parliament’s position in European matters into account, provided for in art. 3 paragraph (2) of Law no. 373/2013, is tied to a resolution of Parliament or of one of its Chambers, not to a declaration, and the same goes for the duty to give written reasons for supporting a different position, under art. 3 paragraph (5). Answering a declaration remains, in law, a matter of political will.
Why does the declaration speak about „the dismissed Government of Romania”?
That is the wording used in the text, eight times, for the addressee of the requests. Its legal weight comes from art. 110 paragraph (4) of the Constitution, under which a Government whose mandate has ceased „shall only carry out the acts necessary for the administration of public affairs”. On that basis the Senate questions whether signing a position paper in foreign policy fell within the powers of an executive in that situation, and the answer to the question is not in the declaration.

Editorial analysis

The observation that matters most is not visible when the declaration is read from beginning to end, but when it is placed next to the law it invokes itself. The Senate cites Law no. 373/2013 on cooperation between Parliament and the Government in the field of European affairs and takes from it exactly the useful mechanism: the definition of the mandate as Romania’s negotiating position and the rule that a resolution of Parliament or of one of its Chambers is taken over by the Government when the national position is finalised. It then chooses, for its own act, the instrument that does not trigger that mechanism. The difference is written into the very article the Senate invokes as its legal basis: art. 87 paragraph (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Senate lists laws, resolutions and simple motions, while paragraph (2) lists messages, declarations and resolutions. A resolution adopted on the basis of Law no. 373/2013 would have bound the Government to one of two courses, either taking the position over into the mandate or giving written reasons for a different position, under art. 3 paragraph (5). The declaration binds it to neither. On a subject the Senate itself describes as being „of constitutional and strategic importance”, the choice of the instrument without effect is the hardest part of the act to explain.

The second observation emerges from comparing the two gateways to a qualified majority, which the declaration lumps together under the name of „«passerelle» type mechanisms”. They are not equivalent, and the difference concerns precisely the power of the Romanian Parliament. Under art. 31 paragraph (3) of the treaty, the decision belongs to the European Council, acting unanimously, and there is neither consent from the European Parliament nor notification to the national parliaments. Under art. 48 paragraph (7), the text requires unanimity in the European Council, the consent of the European Parliament by a majority of its component members, notification of the initiative to the national parliaments and, where a single national parliament notifies its opposition within six months, the decision is not adopted. In other words, on one of the two routes the Senate already has, together with the Chamber of Deputies, an instrument of its own for blocking, which it does not invoke; on the other it has nothing but the vote cast by Romania’s representative in the European Council. The declaration asks the Government not to support the activation of the mechanisms „including on the basis of art. 31 paragraph (3)”, without saying where Parliament has a direct say and where it does not.

The third observation concerns the arithmetic the declaration quotes by halves. Art. 16 paragraph (4) of the treaty defines a qualified majority as „at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union”, and the second subparagraph adds that a blocking minority has to include at least four members of the Council. The declaration keeps the first part and presents the figure of 15 states as an effect of „the current configuration of the Union”, when it is written as a fixed threshold into the text of the treaty, and it does not keep the second part at all. The consequence the Senate does not state is harsher than the warning it gives: under a qualified majority regime, Romania cannot block any decision on its own, however much it weighs demographically, because a blocking minority requires at least four members. That is exactly why the 2025 document the declaration asks for carries the phrase „including the safety net” in its title: the technical discussion inside the group is about a safety net to replace the function of the veto. The brake that could play that role, invoking „vital and stated reasons of national policy”, is written into art. 31 paragraph (2) and attached to the cases listed there; whether it would also cover the cases added later under paragraph (3) does not follow from the text of the treaty, and the declaration does not touch the question.

What remains is the question about the addressee, where the declaration puts the problem correctly, but without the legal basis that would turn it into a legal test. 41 days passed between the signing of the letter, on 1 September 2026, and the adoption of the declaration, on 12 October 2026, and the text addresses „the dismissed Government of Romania” eight times and speaks of the „limited powers of a dismissed executive”. The measure of that limit is art. 110 paragraph (4) of the Constitution, which the declaration never cites, although it is the only provision that turns a political reproach into a verifiable question. By the same logic, art. 15 paragraph (2) of the treaty places the European Council at the level of Heads of State or Government, which makes the question about the prior briefing of the President of Romania the most operational of all thirteen requests, because that is where the vote that would count is actually cast. One final point, of the same kind: the declaration attributes to Law no. 373/2013 the statement of a „principle of loyal cooperation between the Government and Parliament”, a formula that does not appear in the text of the law; art. 1 of the law speaks about the „framework for cooperation”. On an act with no binding effect, the inaccuracy changes no legal outcome, but it weakens precisely the part the Senate leans on most.

What should be changed

  1. The declaration should be paired with a resolution adopted on the basis of Law no. 373/2013. The practical effect: the Government would be bound either to take the Senate’s position over when the negotiating mandate is finalised, or to give written reasons for a different position, under art. 3 paragraph (5), instead of being free not to answer at all.
  2. The two legal bases for moving to a qualified majority should be treated separately in the text. The result: on art. 48 paragraph (7) of the treaty, the Romanian Parliament would know that it has a right of opposition of its own, exercisable within six months of the initiative being notified, and the request addressed to the Government would be left only for art. 31 paragraph (3), where it has no other instrument.
  3. The request concerning the dismissed executive should cite art. 110 paragraph (4) of the Constitution. In practice: the question whether signing the letter of 1 September 2026 fell within the „acts necessary for the administration of public affairs” becomes a test with a verifiable answer, rather than a political assessment that either side can dismiss.
  4. The 15 day period should be qualified and tied to a next step. The practical effect: the reader and the ministry would know whether the deadline is 27 October or 2 November 2026, and a hearing scheduled before the two committees immediately after that date would give the deadline a consequence, instead of a date with nothing following it.
  5. The text should say that art. 31 paragraph (4) of the treaty takes decisions having military or defence implications out of paragraphs (2) and (3). The result: the list of interests the declaration defends, from the Eastern Flank to border security, would be read correctly, with the part already protected by the treaty separated from the part that is exposed.
  6. The reference to Law no. 373/2013 should be corrected to what the law actually says. In practice: instead of a „principle of loyal cooperation” that does not exist in the text, the declaration could invoke art. 1, art. 3 and art. 18, that is, the concrete duties to forward the mandate and to take resolutions over, which support its request better than a general formula.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 857 of 13 October 2026, pages 2-4 16 pages PDF, 105 KB the act starts on page 2

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.