שחזור למבקשים ממוצא הונגרי טרנסילבניה (אמנות 10 / אמנות 11, ניטראלית)

תרחישים לדוגמה

התרחישים לדוגמה מוצגים באנגלית.

• Not a restoration case. Eniko is ALREADY a Romanian citizen by birth under Art 5(1)-(2) jus sanguinis (RO-DSC-01); she does not need Art 10/11 restoration. She should pursue confirmation/clarificare of existing citizenship, not reacquisition.

  Born on Romanian territory to Romanian-citizen parents (Art 5(1)), citizenship vested at birth and was never lost. RO-RST-03 only applies to descendants of someone who LOST Romanian citizenship. Holding Hungarian citizenship under HU XLIV/2010 does not affect her Romanian citizenship (Art 3: marriage/foreign acquisition does not of itself change RO citizenship; dual nationality permitted, ECN Art 17(1) declaration). The common ethnic-Hungarian misconception is that a separate ethnic statute is needed; in fact most Transylvanian Hungarians are RO by birth (VC-RO-F-02 reframe).

• Eligible under Art 11 (restoration, grade III) AND under Art 10 (grade II) as a grandchild. The involuntary 1940-44 loss (motive neimputabile lor) unlocks Art 11; as a grade-II descendant he is within both doors. Art 11 is the better fit (no lawful-means condition, no residence). Must provide B1 Romanian-language certificate (under 65, never himself a citizen).

  The 1940-1944 Northern-Transylvania cession is the paradigmatic Art 11 'motive neimputabile lor' event (RO-ERA-W2). Art 11 reaches grade III, so a grandchild (grade II) is comfortably within reach; Art 10 (grade II) is also available since the loss occurred. Art 11 requires only Art 8(1) b), c), e) (omits d lawful-means) + language proof, no Romania-residence (VC-RO-F-06). Zsolt is under 65 and was never himself a Romanian citizen, so the Art 15^1(5) exemption does not apply and he needs the B1 certificate (Art 15^1(4)); the OUG 16/2026 window allows filing it by ~15-Mar-2027. May file at the Romanian consulate in Hungary (Art 13(3)).

• Eligible under Art 10 (general reacquisition) as a former citizen who lost citizenship (voluntary loss maps to Art 10, not Art 11). EXEMPT from Romanian-language proof on two independent grounds: she was herself a Romanian citizen (Art 15^1(5)(a)) AND she is 65+ (Art 15^1(5)(b)).

  Voluntary emigration/renunciation is NOT 'motive neimputabile lor', so Art 11 restoration does not apply; the correct door is Art 10 general reacquisition, open to 'persons who lost Romanian citizenship' regardless of cause (RO-EVID-040). As the former citizen herself (degree 0), she is squarely within Art 10. Two Art 15^1(5) exemptions apply (former citizen + age 65+), so no B1 certificate is required. She still meets Art 8(1) b)-e) and faces the Art 12(3) any-doubt standard. Ethnicity is irrelevant throughout — the hook is her prior Romanian citizenship (VC-RO-F-02).

• Eligible ONLY under Art 11 (grade III). Art 10 (grade II) does NOT reach a great-grandchild. He must prove an unbroken filiation chain to grade III and produce the B1 Romanian-language certificate (under 65, never a citizen). Expect the slower Art 11 processing track (~3.28y snapshot, trending higher).

  The degree trap is decisive (VC-RO-F-05): Art 10 stops at grade II (grandchildren), so a great-grandchild can qualify only via Art 11 (grade III). Art 11 requires involuntary/non-imputable loss, which the 1940-44 disruption supplies. Daniel speaks no Romanian and is under 65 and never a citizen, so no Art 15^1(5) exemption applies — he must obtain the B1 certificate (Art 15^1(4)); the OUG 16/2026 derogation lets him file it within ~2 years of L14/2025 (to ~15-Mar-2027). Documentary burden under Art 16 (apostilled extracts <2 years old) is heaviest here because the chain spans four generations and a territorial disruption; archival reconstruction may be needed. Art 11 average processing is the longest of the routes (~3.28y, moving upward).

• INELIGIBLE under this route. With no ancestor who held and lost Romanian citizenship, neither Art 10 nor Art 11 is available. Romania has no ethnic-Hungarian fast-track. His only Romanian path would be ordinary Art 8 naturalisation (8-year residence + the Art 8(1)(f)/(g) interview), which is a different route entirely.

  This scenario tests the FATAL reframe (VC-RO-F-02 / VC-RO-F-01): Romania has NO ethnicity-keyed statute and no 'Art 10(1)(e) ethnic clause'. Art 10 and Art 11 both require a qualifying ancestor's PRIOR Romanian citizenship and its loss; Hungarian ethnicity and language are not eligibility keys (that is the Hungarian XLIV/2010 logic, not Romanian — RO-EVID-059). With no documented Romanian-citizen ancestor, the Art 12(3) any-doubt standard guarantees rejection of an Art 10/11 application. Imre would have to use Art 8 ordinary naturalisation (RO-NAT-01), where the NEW Art 8(1)(f) language/culture and (g) Constitution/anthem tests DO apply — unlike Art 10/11.