Enforcing a foreign court judgment or arbitral award in Romania requires a formal recognition procedure before Romanian courts. Without this step, no foreign decision carries executory force on Romanian territory, regardless of its origin or the sums involved. Romanian law distinguishes sharply between EU judgments - which benefit from streamlined recognition under EU regulations - and non-EU decisions, which follow a more demanding domestic exequatur route. This article covers the legal framework, procedural mechanics, practical timelines, cost levels, and the most common mistakes made by international creditors pursuing recovery in Romania.
Romania operates a dual-track system for recognising foreign decisions. The applicable track depends on whether the judgment or award originates inside or outside the European Union.
For EU judgments, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) is the primary instrument. Under this regulation, a judgment issued by a court of another EU member state is recognised in Romania automatically, without any special procedure being required. Enforcement, however, still requires the creditor to present the judgment together with the certificate issued by the court of origin under Article 53 of the regulation. The Romanian enforcement officer (executor judecătoresc) can then proceed directly.
For non-EU court judgments, the applicable domestic instrument is the Romanian Civil Procedure Code (Codul de procedură civilă), specifically Articles 1095-1109. These provisions govern the conditions under which a foreign court judgment may be recognised and declared enforceable in Romania. The creditor must initiate a separate court action - the exequatur procedure - before the competent Romanian tribunal.
For foreign arbitral awards, Romania is a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Convention applies to awards made in the territory of any other contracting state. Domestic implementation sits in Articles 1124-1133 of the Civil Procedure Code, which set out the procedural steps for obtaining a declaration of enforceability (încuviințarea executării silite) for arbitral awards.
A non-obvious risk is that creditors sometimes conflate the recognition step with the enforcement step. Recognition establishes that the foreign decision is valid and binding in Romania. Enforcement is the subsequent stage at which the executor judecătoresc takes coercive measures against the debtor's assets. Both steps are legally distinct and each carries its own procedural requirements.
Romanian courts apply a checklist of substantive conditions before granting recognition to a non-EU foreign judgment. These conditions are set out in Article 1096 of the Civil Procedure Code and must all be satisfied simultaneously.
The foreign court must have had proper jurisdiction over the dispute. Romanian courts will refuse recognition if the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of Romanian courts under Romanian private international law rules. Exclusive jurisdiction grounds include disputes over immovable property located in Romania, matters of Romanian company law, and certain insolvency proceedings.
The judgment must be final and enforceable in the state of origin. A judgment under appeal or subject to suspension in its home jurisdiction will not satisfy this requirement. The creditor must produce documentary evidence - typically an official certificate from the issuing court - confirming finality.
The defendant must have been duly served and given a proper opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Romanian courts scrutinise this condition carefully when the debtor is a Romanian entity or individual. Defective service in the original proceedings is one of the most frequently invoked grounds for refusal.
The judgment must not conflict with a prior Romanian judgment or a prior foreign judgment already recognised in Romania on the same subject matter between the same parties.
Recognition will be refused if granting it would manifestly violate Romanian public policy (ordre public). This ground is interpreted narrowly by Romanian courts - it is not a general escape clause - but it has been applied to judgments awarding punitive damages at levels entirely disproportionate to any compensatory function, and to judgments obtained through fraud.
A common mistake made by international creditors is to assume that a judgment from a country with which Romania has a bilateral treaty on legal assistance automatically bypasses these conditions. In practice, bilateral treaties typically supplement rather than replace the Civil Procedure Code conditions, and Romanian courts still conduct a substantive review.
To receive a checklist of documentary requirements for recognising a non-EU foreign judgment in Romania, send a request to info@vlolawfirm.com.
The exequatur procedure for non-EU judgments is initiated by filing a recognition application (cerere de recunoaștere și încuviințare a executării silite) with the tribunal (tribunal) of the county where the debtor is domiciled or has its registered seat. If the debtor has no domicile or seat in Romania, the application is filed with Tribunalul București (Bucharest Tribunal).
The application must be accompanied by a certified copy of the foreign judgment, an official certificate of finality from the issuing court, proof of service on the defendant in the original proceedings, and a certified Romanian translation of all documents. The translation must be prepared by a sworn translator (traducător autorizat) authorised in Romania. Failure to provide a compliant translation is a procedural defect that will delay the proceedings.
The Romanian tribunal schedules a hearing at which both parties are summoned. The debtor has the right to oppose recognition on any of the grounds listed in Article 1096 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court does not re-examine the merits of the underlying dispute - this is a fundamental principle of the exequatur procedure - but it does verify compliance with all formal and substantive conditions.
First-instance proceedings typically take between three and eight months, depending on the workload of the tribunal and the complexity of the opposition raised by the debtor. If the debtor contests recognition vigorously and raises multiple procedural objections, the timeline can extend further.
The first-instance decision can be appealed (apel) to the competent Court of Appeal (Curte de Apel). The appeal stage adds a further three to six months in most cases. The Court of Appeal decision is final on the recognition question.
Once recognition is granted, the creditor obtains an executory title (titlu executoriu) and can instruct an executor judecătoresc to commence enforcement measures. These measures include attachment of bank accounts, seizure of movable assets, and forced sale of immovable property.
Costs at the exequatur stage include state court fees, which vary depending on the value of the claim and the nature of the application, and legal representation fees. Lawyers' fees for exequatur proceedings in Romania typically start from the low thousands of EUR for straightforward cases and rise significantly for contested proceedings with multiple hearings and appeals. Translation costs add a further variable expense depending on document volume.
The New York Convention framework makes enforcement of foreign arbitral awards procedurally simpler than enforcement of non-EU court judgments in several respects, but Romanian courts still conduct a substantive review of the grounds for refusal listed in Article V of the Convention.
The creditor files an application for recognition and enforcement with the tribunal of the county where the debtor is domiciled or has its registered seat. The application must be accompanied by the original arbitral award or a duly certified copy, the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy, and certified Romanian translations of both documents.
Romanian courts apply the Article V grounds for refusal strictly. The most commonly invoked grounds in practice are: incapacity of a party to the arbitration agreement; invalidity of the arbitration agreement under the law governing it; lack of proper notice to the party against whom the award is invoked; the award deals with matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; and violation of Romanian public policy.
The public policy ground under the New York Convention is interpreted even more narrowly than in the domestic exequatur context. Romanian courts have consistently held that the mere fact that an award produces an outcome different from what Romanian substantive law would have produced does not constitute a violation of public policy. The violation must be fundamental and manifest.
A practical scenario: a creditor holds an ICC arbitral award against a Romanian company for EUR 2.5 million. The debtor argues that the arbitration clause in the underlying contract was not validly incorporated by reference. The Romanian tribunal will examine the arbitration agreement itself, applying the law designated by the parties or, failing that, the law of the seat of arbitration. If the clause is found valid, the award will be recognised. The debtor's substantive arguments about the merits of the underlying dispute are inadmissible at this stage.
A second scenario: a creditor holds a LCIA award against a Romanian individual who has since transferred significant assets to a Romanian company in which he holds a majority stake. The creditor should consider whether to seek interim measures - including a precautionary attachment (sechestru asigurător) under Article 952 of the Civil Procedure Code - before or simultaneously with the recognition application, to prevent dissipation of assets during the recognition proceedings.
A third scenario: a creditor holds a domestic Romanian arbitral award (issued by a Romanian arbitral institution) against a debtor who has assets in Romania. In this case, the New York Convention does not apply. The creditor proceeds directly under Articles 614-620 of the Civil Procedure Code governing domestic arbitral awards, which provide a faster route to an executory title.
To receive a checklist for enforcing a foreign arbitral award in Romania under the New York Convention, send a request to info@vlolawfirm.com.
A significant practical risk in Romanian enforcement proceedings is asset dissipation. Recognition proceedings take months. A debtor aware of an incoming recognition application has time to restructure its asset base, transfer property, or reduce bank balances. Romanian procedural law provides tools to address this risk, but they require proactive use.
The precautionary attachment (sechestru asigurător) under Article 952 of the Civil Procedure Code allows a creditor to freeze the debtor's movable or immovable assets before or during the recognition proceedings. The creditor must demonstrate a credible claim and the risk that the debtor will dissipate assets. The court may require the creditor to post a security deposit (cauțiune), the amount of which is set by the court at its discretion.
The precautionary sequestration (sechestru judiciar) under Article 972 of the Civil Procedure Code applies specifically to disputed assets - for example, where ownership of a particular asset is itself in dispute alongside the enforcement claim.
For EU creditors, the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 provides a cross-border tool to freeze bank accounts held by the debtor in Romania without prior notice to the debtor. The EAPO is issued by the court of the member state where the creditor obtained or is seeking judgment. It is then transmitted to the Romanian competent authority for execution. This instrument is particularly effective for creditors who already hold an EU judgment or are in the process of obtaining one.
Many underappreciate the importance of conducting a thorough asset search in Romania before initiating recognition proceedings. Romanian law allows creditors to request information from the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF - Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală) about the debtor's registered assets, including real property and registered vehicles. This information shapes the enforcement strategy and determines whether the recognition proceedings are economically viable given the assets available.
The risk of inaction is concrete: if a creditor delays filing for interim measures and the debtor transfers its principal assets within the first few months of the recognition proceedings, the creditor may obtain a valid executory title but find nothing to enforce against. Romanian courts have limited tools to reverse completed asset transfers unless a Paulian action (acțiunea pauliană) under Article 1562 of the Civil Code is pursued separately - a time-consuming and uncertain remedy.
The decision to pursue recognition and enforcement in Romania should be preceded by a realistic assessment of the business economics. The key variables are: the amount of the claim, the debtor's asset position in Romania, the likely duration and cost of proceedings, and the probability of successful enforcement once recognition is obtained.
For claims below EUR 50,000, the cost-benefit analysis is often unfavourable unless the debtor has easily attachable liquid assets in Romania. Legal fees, translation costs, and the time cost of management attention can consume a disproportionate share of the recovery. In such cases, creditors should consider whether negotiated settlement or a debt purchase arrangement offers better value.
For claims above EUR 200,000, the exequatur or New York Convention route is generally viable provided the debtor has identifiable assets in Romania. The procedural burden is manageable with competent local counsel, and the Romanian court system, while not the fastest in the EU, produces predictable outcomes on recognition questions.
A common mistake made by international clients is to instruct counsel only after the recognition application has been filed, at which point procedural defects in the initial filing - incorrect venue, incomplete documentation, non-compliant translations - have already caused delay and additional cost. Engaging Romanian counsel at the pre-filing stage to audit the documentation and confirm the procedural strategy avoids this problem.
The choice between pursuing recognition before Romanian courts and pursuing enforcement in another jurisdiction where the debtor also holds assets is a strategic question that depends on asset location, the relative efficiency of the competing jurisdictions, and the risk of parallel proceedings. Where the debtor holds assets in multiple EU member states, a coordinated multi-jurisdiction enforcement strategy - using Brussels I Recast across the EU - may be more effective than a single-country approach.
A non-obvious risk arises in cases where the debtor is a Romanian company in financial difficulty. If the debtor enters insolvency proceedings under Law No 85/2014 on insolvency procedures (Legea nr. 85/2014 privind procedurile de prevenire a insolvenței și de insolvență), the recognition proceedings are automatically stayed. The creditor must then file its claim in the insolvency procedure before the syndic judge (judecător sindic). The priority of the claim in insolvency depends on its classification - secured, preferential, or unsecured - and the creditor's recovery prospects depend heavily on the debtor's asset coverage ratio. Creditors who delay initiating recognition proceedings risk finding themselves in this position without having secured any interim protection.
The loss caused by an incorrect procedural strategy can be substantial. A creditor who files in the wrong court, fails to attach assets early, or allows the statute of limitations on enforcement to expire may lose the ability to recover entirely, regardless of the validity of the underlying judgment or award.
We can help build a strategy for recognising and enforcing your foreign judgment or arbitral award in Romania. Contact info@vlolawfirm.com to discuss your specific situation.
To receive a checklist for assessing the viability of enforcement against a Romanian debtor, including asset search and interim measures steps, send a request to info@vlolawfirm.com.
What happens if the Romanian debtor challenges the jurisdiction of the foreign court that issued the original judgment?
Romanian courts will examine the jurisdictional basis of the foreign court as part of the exequatur review under Article 1096 of the Civil Procedure Code. If the foreign court assumed jurisdiction over a matter that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Romanian courts - such as disputes over Romanian immovable property - recognition will be refused regardless of the merits of the underlying decision. The creditor should anticipate this challenge and prepare documentation showing the jurisdictional basis of the foreign court, including any contractual choice-of-court clause. Where the parties agreed in writing to the jurisdiction of the foreign court, Romanian courts generally respect that agreement provided it does not override exclusive jurisdiction rules.
How long does the full process take from filing to actual recovery, and what does it cost in broad terms?
The recognition stage alone - from filing to a first-instance decision - typically takes three to eight months for an uncontested application and up to eighteen months or more if the debtor appeals. Once recognition is granted, the enforcement stage through an executor judecătoresc adds further time depending on the nature of the assets being attached. Attaching a bank account can produce results within weeks; forced sale of immovable property takes considerably longer. Total legal costs for a contested recognition proceeding, including translation, court fees, and legal representation, typically start from the low tens of thousands of EUR for complex cases. The business decision should weigh these costs against the realistic recovery amount given the debtor's asset position.
Is it better to pursue recognition of a court judgment or to have the dispute resolved by arbitration in the first place if Romania is the likely enforcement jurisdiction?
For disputes where Romania is the anticipated enforcement jurisdiction, including an arbitration clause with a seat in a well-recognised arbitral centre - such as ICC, LCIA, or the Vienna International Arbitral Centre - provides meaningful advantages. The New York Convention framework is generally more creditor-friendly than the domestic exequatur route for non-EU judgments, and Romanian courts have extensive experience with New York Convention applications. However, if the debtor is a Romanian state entity or a company in a regulated sector, specific rules on arbitrability and sovereign immunity may apply, and the choice of dispute resolution mechanism should be reviewed with those constraints in mind before the contract is signed.
Enforcing foreign court judgments and arbitral awards in Romania is a structured legal process with clear procedural rules, but it requires careful preparation, correct documentation, and proactive asset protection measures. The dual-track system - EU regulations for EU judgments, domestic exequatur for non-EU judgments, and the New York Convention for arbitral awards - means that the applicable procedure depends critically on the origin of the decision. Creditors who engage competent Romanian counsel early, conduct asset searches before filing, and use interim measures where appropriate maximise their chances of effective recovery.
Our law firm VLO Law Firm has experience supporting clients in Romania on recognition and enforcement matters involving foreign court judgments and arbitral awards. We can assist with exequatur applications, New York Convention enforcement filings, interim asset protection measures, and coordinated multi-jurisdiction enforcement strategies. To receive a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com.