EN ECB-PUBLIC  
 
OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 
of 29 December 2014 
on Romania’s contribution to the International Monetary Fund’s Poverty Reduction and Growth 
Trust  
(CON/2014/92) 
 
Introduction and legal basis 
On 27 November 2014, the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from Banca Na ţională a 
României (BNR) for an opinion on a draft law concerning Romania’s contribution to the General Subsidy Account of the International Monetary Fund’s Pove rty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) (hereinafter 
the ‘draft law’). 
The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is ba sed on Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and the third in dent of Article 2(1) of Council Decision 98/415/EC
1, as 
the draft law relates to BNR. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of 
Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion. 
1. Purpose of the draft law  
In February and September 2012, the Executive Board of the In ternational Monetary Fund (IMF) 
approved the distribution of 700 million special drawing rights (SDRs) and 1.75 billion SDRs, respectively. 
This approval was the result of windfall profits from IMF gold sales and profits were distributed to IMF 
member countries in proportion to their quota shares2. Distributions were subject to satisfactory 
assurances by IMF members that an amount equivalent  to at least 90% of the distributions would be 
made available to the PRGT. The IMF thereby envisaged  that further subsidy resources would be raised 
for the PRGT3. 
Accordingly, the Romanian authorities decided to contribute Romania’s share of the September 2012 
distribution to support the PRGT. Pursuant to the Statute of BNR4, BNR has the power to exercise the 
rights and fulfil the obligations of Romania as a member of the IMF. Consequently, the draft law 
authorises BNR to transfer 7,571,246 SDRs from t he IMF Interim Administered Account to the General 
Subsidy Account of the PRGT on behalf of Romania. 
                                                 
1  Council Decision 98/415/EC of 29 June 1998 on the consultati on of the European Central Bank by national authorities 
regarding draft legislative provisio ns (OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42). 
2  See IMF Press Release No 12/368, 28 September 2012. 
3  See Opinion CON/2010/22 for more information regarding the establishment and funding of the PRGT; all ECB opinions are 
published on the ECB’s website at www.ecb.europa.eu. 
4  Law 312/2004 on the Statute of Banca Na ţională a României, Monitorul Oficial al României , Part I No 582, 30 June 2004. 
ECB-PUBLIC  
2 2. Monetary financing prohibition  
2.1  The tasks performed by a national central bank must comply with the monetary financing 
prohibition under Article 123 of the Treaty and Council Regulation (EC) No 3603/935, which 
provisions are subject to certain exemptions detaile d therein. In particular, Article 7 of Regulation 
(EC) No 3603/93 provides that the financing by  national central banks of obligations falling upon 
the public sector vis-à-vis the IMF shall not be rega rded as a credit facility within the meaning of 
Article 123 of the Treaty6.  
2.2 The transfer by BNR of Romania’s contribution to the PRGT, as set out in the draft law, falls under 
the Article 7 exemption in Regulation (EC) No 3603/93 and therefore should not be regarded as a form of monetary financing prohibited by Article 123(1)  of the Treaty. In this regard, the draft law is 
similar to the Austrian legislation on the Oesterre ichische Nationalbank’s contribution of windfall 
profits from IMF gold sales to the PRGT
7. 
 This opinion will be published on the ECB’s website.   Done at Frankfurt am Main, 29 December 2014. 
 
[signed]  
 
The President of the ECB 
Mario DRAGHI 
                                                 
5  Council Regulation (EC) No 3603/93 of 13 December 1993 spec ifying definitions for the app lication of the prohibitions 
referred to in Articles 104 and 104b(1) of the Treaty (OJ L 332, 31.12.1993, p. 1). 
6  For examples, see Opinions CON/2010/22, CON/2011/102, and CON/2013/16. 
7  In particular, see paragraph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2013/16. See also paragraph 2.2 of Opinion CON/2010/22.