APM Constanța seeks to acquire Giurgiulești Port, but the deal may be challenged by a minority shareholder

Romania’s Administratia Porturilor Maritime SA Constanța (APM), 80% owned by the state, has made a binding offer to purchase Moldova’s Giurgiulești International Free Port (GIFP) from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) for USD 62 million.

However, the process may be blocked by APM’s minority shareholder, the Fondul Proprietatea (FP), which has filed a lawsuit contesting the decision of APM’s General Assembly of Shareholders of 19 June to approve the acquisition. FP argues that the price is inflated, being based on overly optimistic projections by ICS Danube Logistics (the EBRD-controlled operator of the port) without an independent PwC validation.

The Romanian government has reaffirmed its intention to move forward with the acquisition, noting that negotiations with the EBRD are ongoing as part of an international tender. Bulgaria’s MBF Port Burgas also expressed interest in acquiring the port.

The Giurgiulești International Free Port, Moldova’s only seaport with access to the Black Sea, was created in 2006 following Ukraine’s transfer of 430 meters of Danube riverbank. Today, the port handles over 70% of Moldova’s waterborne trade and features an oil terminal (63,000 tons), two grain terminals, a general cargo terminal, and a business park.

Comment from the Institute of Danube Research

The potential transfer of Giurgiulești Port under the control of Romania’s state-owned operator could bring three key implications:

For Moldova: Integration of GIFP with Constanța Port would increase the country’s reliance on Romania and the EU for logistics. This could enhance investment appeal but reduce Moldova’s ability to pursue an independent port policy.

For Ukraine: Competition with the ports of Izmail, Reni, and Kiliya may intensify. If APM creates a joint “Giurgiulești–Constanța” logistics system, part of the cargo flows could shift, challenging Ukraine’s Danube ports, but also opening the door for tariff and infrastructure coordination.

For the EU and the region: The transaction fits into the strategy of strengthening the Danube–Black Sea transport corridor, which is vital for Ukraine’s recovery and regional integration into the EU single market. However, the legal disputes within Romania highlight the difficulty of achieving consensus even within a state-owned structure.

Conclusion: The fate of this deal will be a test case for the entire Danube transport system, showing whether the region can ensure coordinated management of strategic infrastructure or whether national and corporate interests will continue to block collective opportunities.