Sport - outstanding sporting performance (Art 8^2)

Example scenarios

• Naturalised athlete who misses the oath window · age 28 · nationality: Ukrainian

  GRANT LAPSES — the Government decision's effects cease because the oath was not taken within one year of publication (Art 20(2), Art 21(1)).

  Citizenship vests on the oath date (Art 20(1)). The oath must be taken within ONE YEAR of publication of the Government decision (Art 20(2); confirms one year, not six months). Missing the term causes cessation of the decision's effects under Art 21(1). The athlete would need a fresh process. Art 13^1 applies Art 20 to the sport route correspondingly.

• Elite handball player recruited by a RO federation · age 26 · nationality: Serbian

  ELIGIBLE in principle under Art 8^2 — citizenship by Government decision initiated by the Ministry of Youth and Sport (Art 13^1), subject to the Government's discretion.

  Meets Art 8^2(a) (will represent RO national teams per the international federation's statutory rules) and Art 8(1)(b),(c),(e) (loyalty; age 18; good conduct). The 8-year residence (Art 8(1)(a)), the Art 8(1)(f)/(g) language/civics interview, and the Art 10/11 B1 certificate do NOT apply to this route. Grant is discretionary (Government decision), not an entitlement; the international-federation change-of-sporting-nationality rules govern when she may actually compete for RO.

• Promising junior athlete aged 17 · age 17 · nationality: Moldovan-passport athlete competing internationally

  NOT YET ELIGIBLE under Art 8^2 in her own right — Art 8(1)(c) requires age 18. May acquire derivatively with a naturalising parent under Art 9 if applicable.

  Art 8^2(b) requires Art 8(1)(c) — minimum age 18. A 17-year-old cannot be the principal Art 8^2 applicant until reaching majority. The only minor-acquisition pathway is the derivative Art 9 route (child acquiring with a parent naturalising under Art 8/8^1/8^2), which is not engaged here because the athlete is the would-be principal, not a dependent child. Per RO-isolation, eligibility is judged on RO law only; nationality of the prior passport is not a disqualifier and no MD figures are used.

• Athlete with a disqualifying conviction · age 30 · nationality: Brazilian

  LIKELY REJECTED — fails Art 8(1)(e) good-conduct/'nedemn' condition; Art 12(3) any-doubt-to-rejection backstop reinforces refusal.

  Art 8^2(b) incorporates Art 8(1)(e) (good conduct / not unworthy of being a RO citizen). A disqualifying conviction defeats the condition, and Art 12(3) requires certainty that ALL conditions are met — any doubt leads to rejection. Even outstanding sporting merit cannot cure an (e) failure; the Government decision is discretionary and would not be initiated/adopted.

• Investor seeking to use the sport label · age 45 · nationality: non-EU businessperson

  NOT ELIGIBLE under Art 8^2 — no representation of RO national teams; the route is non-transactional and not a CBI.

  Art 8^2(a) requires the person to represent Romania in its national teams; a non-competing sponsor cannot satisfy it. The route is sovereignty-discretionary and non-transactional — RO has NO citizenship-by-investment and is structurally outside CJEU C-181/23 Commission v Malta (/075). A payment-for-citizenship arrangement is exactly what RO law does not provide; the investor's only lawful path is OUG 194/2002 investor residence then ordinary Art 8 naturalisation (RO-INV-01).