Cross-border evidence in Romania: apostille, translations, witnesses

Q: What if documents are electronically signed?

Preserve evidence of the signing process and context, referencing Romanian Law 455/2001 and the EU eIDAS Regulation.

Q: How can a witness located abroad be heard?

Depending on context, you may seek remote taking of evidence where feasible or use formal cooperation/letters rogatory; in EU civil and commercial matters, Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 provides the framework.

Q: Is videoconferencing guaranteed?

No; feasibility depends on legal and technical constraints and may vary by country.

Q: What if there is no authorised translator for a rare language?

Romanian civil procedure includes an alternative mechanism for cases where no authorised translator exists for that language; plan early and ensure a competent, reliable translation under the applicable legal requirements.

Why “foreign evidence” so often becomes a procedural problem

Most disputes with an international element (foreign counterparties, payments abroad, services performed in another country, cross-border supply chains, foreign employees or witnesses) do not fail because the party lacks documents. They fail because the party cannot present them in a form the court can actually rely on without postponements: public documents without apostille/legalisation, key exhibits in another language without proper translation, email excerpts without headers or attachments, or witnesses abroad with no workable plan to hear them.

Romanian civil procedure recognises the usual means of evidence (documents, witnesses, expert evidence, material/technical evidence, etc.) and, as a baseline, evidence is administered before the seized court; where that is not possible, mechanisms such as letters rogatory exist under the Code of Civil Procedure (Romanian Code of Civil Procedure – Portal Legislativ). For EU civil and commercial matters, cross-border taking of evidence between courts is specifically regulated by Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 and the practical guidance on European e-Justice Portal – Taking evidence (recast).

Fast checklist: what a “court-ready” cross-border evidence pack looks like

Evidence map: each key fact → primary exhibit → backup exhibit → a one-line explanation of relevance.
Document sets: contracts/appendices, invoices/payments, correspondence (emails), registers/logs, delivery/acceptance records.
Public documents: confirm whether apostille (Hague 1961) applies or legalisation is needed (see HCCH – Hague Apostille Convention 1961 and the Romanian publication Portal Legislativ – Hague 1961 Convention).
Translations: foreign-language documents submitted with the required form of translation under Romanian civil procedure (see the rule on foreign-language documents in Code of Civil Procedure).
Emails/files: export that preserves headers, threads, attachments; build a timeline and an attachment list.
Witnesses/experts abroad: plan A (remote hearing where feasible) + plan B (letters rogatory/cooperation; in the EU, orientation: Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 and e-Justice – Taking evidence by videoconference).

Foreign documents: apostille, legalisation and when they are needed

Key point: apostille and legalisation are formal authenticity tools for foreign public documents (signature, capacity, seal/stamp). They do not certify the truth of the document’s content. The Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 was designed to abolish consular legalisation between Contracting States by replacing it with a single formality: the apostille (see HCCH – full text and the Romanian publication Portal Legislativ).

Before you spend time and money on formalities, make a quick classification: (1) is this a public document (issued by an authority/notary/court) or a private commercial document? (2) is the issuing country a party to the Hague Apostille Convention? (3) are there EU simplifications that may remove apostille requirements for certain categories of public documents?

Apostille (Hague 1961): what it certifies and how it helps

The Convention provides that an apostille is issued by the competent authority of the State from which the document emanates, and it certifies the authenticity of the signature, the capacity in which the person signing acted and, where appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp (see the Convention as published on Portal Legislativ). This is why apostille is relevant for public documents (certificates, court documents, notarial deeds) used abroad.

For practical orientation on how apostille is applied in Romania (institutional guidance), see public information such as Romanian MFA – Apostille and, as an example of administrative guidance, Prefecture of Bucharest – Apostille.

When you typically do NOT need an apostille

Private/commercial documents: contracts, invoices, bank transfers, emails, internal reports are usually not “public documents” under the Hague Convention; your focus should be on translations, completeness and coherence as evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure, not apostille.
Some EU public documents: for the categories covered by Regulation (EU) 2016/1191, Member States must accept certain public documents without an apostille in intra-EU use; see e-Justice – Public documents.

Legalisation/superlegalisation: what it means in practice

If apostille is not available (for example, the issuing State is not a party to the Hague Convention or the situation is outside its scope), legalisation may require a chain of confirmations. For orientation on procedures, see institutional materials such as Romanian MFA – Legalisations (general guidance), Romanian Ministry of Justice – Superlegalisation procedure and the public administration portal guidance e-guvernare – procedure (orientation).

Practical takeaway: build this into your litigation calendar early. Formalities can take time, and delays can become decisive when your pleading deadlines are close.

Quick table: apostille vs. legalisation (orientation)

Criteria	Apostille (Hague 1961)	Legalisation/superlegalisation
When it applies	Between Contracting States, for public documents under the Convention	Typically when apostille does not apply
What it certifies	Formal authenticity: signature, capacity, seal/stamp	Formal authenticity through a chain of confirmations
Where obtained	Competent authority in the issuing State	Issuing State authorities + (where required) MFA/consular steps
Core references	HCCH, Portal Legislativ	MFA, MoJ

Certified translations and interpreters: what Romanian courts accept and how to avoid exclusions

In cross-border litigation, translation is not a “nice-to-have”. It is often the condition for the court to actually use your exhibit. Romanian civil procedure includes a specific rule for documents drafted in a foreign language: they must be submitted in a certified copy together with a notarised/certified translation by an authorised translator, and for rare languages the text provides an alternative mechanism (see Romanian Code of Civil Procedure – Portal Legislativ).

Practical risk: you can lose months not because your evidence is weak, but because it is unusable or ambiguous. A “partial translation” that omits the annexes referenced by the contract, or an email translation without headers and thread context, is often worse than no translation, because it creates confusion and invites disputes about meaning.

How to decide what to translate (and how)

Contracts and annexes: translate in full, including definitions, appendices, schedules and referenced documents, because obligations are extracted from the whole package.
Invoices and payment documents: translate the relevant fields (issuer, recipient, description, period, amount, currency, reference numbers) and use a correlation table.
Email threads: translate the key messages plus the full header (From/To/Date/Subject) and include 1–2 context emails so the narrative makes sense.
Registers/logs: translate field names/legends and provide a short glossary explaining technical fields (timestamp, user ID, IP, action type).

Translation checklist to reduce delays

Language inventory: list exhibits by language and classify as “core” vs “support”.
Completeness check: every annex referenced is present; every invoice page is included; every “see attached” email has its attachment in the record.
Glossary consistency: the same service, role or product is not translated differently across exhibits.
Identifier integrity: dates, invoice numbers, order IDs, IBANs and other identifiers match the originals.
Submission structure: translation is easy to locate via index and numbering; otherwise, even a correct translation may not help.

Interpreters: planning witness and expert evidence in another language

If your witness or expert cannot testify effectively in Romanian, interpretation becomes part of your evidence plan. In practice you must anticipate language needs early, especially if you aim for remote hearing, because scheduling and technical arrangements may take time.

Emails, digital files, screenshots and logs: turning “data” into usable evidence

Many cross-border commercial disputes are “email disputes”: negotiation points, acceptance, delivery, change requests, approvals, and even admissions exist in email chains. The goal is to present the court with (1) a credible source and (2) a readable story. A screenshot is rarely enough; a full export with headers, thread context and attachments usually is.

For electronic signatures and electronic documents, the core references are Romanian Law no. 455/2001 on electronic signature and, at EU level, Regulation (EU) no. 910/2014 (eIDAS).

Example document set A: contract + invoices + payments (B2B claim)

Scenario (fictional): a Romanian supplier claims unpaid invoices against a foreign client who alleges late delivery or defective performance. Your evidence must connect obligations → performance → invoicing → payment/non-payment.

Main contract + all annexes referenced in the text.
Statements of work / orders (if applicable), cross-referenced to the contract.
Delivery/acceptance evidence: handover reports, emails confirming acceptance, platform receipts.
Invoices + a correlation table.
Payment proof: bank confirmations, statements, transfer orders linked to invoice numbers.
One-page “map”: invoice → deliverable → acceptance → payment status.

Example document set B: emails + attachments + one-page timeline (notice / breach)

Thread export that keeps headers (From/To/Date/Subject).
Attachment register (file name, date, related email, what it proves).
Timeline: date → event → email/exhibit reference → attachment.
Controlled selection: for long threads, submit key parts but keep minimal context so the court can follow the narrative.

Example document set C: platform logs / registers (SaaS access and use)

Official export from the platform (audit log, access log, activity report).
Field legend explaining timestamp, user ID, IP, action type.
Corroboration with emails: invite email → activation email → first login log → usage logs.
Methodology note describing how the report was generated and filtered (time range, accounts, criteria).

Common pitfalls with emails and digital exhibits

Only screenshots, no headers: source/date/recipients are unclear; fix by exporting with full headers.
Incomplete threads: key context is missing; include minimal surrounding messages.
Missing attachments: the email refers to “attached”, but the attachment is absent; fix with an attachment checklist.
Untranslated key segments: even if most is in English, the decisive clause/paragraph may be ambiguous without proper translation; translate what matters most.
No explanation of provenance: if challenged, you should be able to explain where the export comes from and who had access.

Witnesses/experts abroad: letters rogatory and videoconference (orientation)

Important orientation: the practical route depends on the type of case, the country involved, and the cooperation framework (EU vs non-EU). In Romania, the Code of Civil Procedure provides mechanisms for administering evidence outside the locality of the seized court, including letters rogatory (see Code of Civil Procedure). In EU civil and commercial matters, cross-border taking of evidence is addressed by Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 and practical information on e-Justice – Taking evidence (recast).

Letters rogatory: when they are realistic

Letters rogatory tend to be viable when you can define precisely what must be done and why it cannot be done before the seized court: identify the witness, specify the facts, propose questions, and provide all necessary annexes (translated where needed). The more “executable” your request, the higher the chance it works in practice.

Videoconference: when it is worth trying (especially in the EU)

Remote hearings can be efficient when travel would be disproportionate, but feasibility depends on legal and technical constraints. For EU orientation, see e-Justice – Taking evidence by videoconference and the broader framework in Regulation (EU) 2020/1783.

Practical step-by-step plan for an abroad witness (orientation)

Choose witnesses who add direct facts: avoid “background” witnesses.
Define 3–5 facts: keep the scope tight.
Prepare questions: short, factual, non-argumentative.
Prepare the mini-pack: only the exhibits needed for the testimony, properly numbered and translated where necessary.
Plan language support: interpreter availability and format (in-person or remote).
Have a plan B: if videoconference is not feasible, move to formal cooperation/letters rogatory without losing momentum.

Frequent traps (and how to avoid them)

Misclassifying documents: requesting apostille for private emails/invoices; fix by first checking whether the document is “public” under the Hague 1961 Convention.
Translations done too late: key exhibits in a foreign language without the required translation under Romanian civil procedure.
Email evidence without structure: no headers, no attachments, no timeline; fix with exports, registers and a one-page chronology.
Volume without clarity: thousands of pages without an evidence map; fix with fact-based indexing and curated sets.
Witness abroad with no workable route: fix by planning early and using EU tools where relevant (Reg. 2020/1783; e-Justice).
Electronic signature explained poorly: fix by referencing the framework (Law 455/2001; eIDAS) and keeping evidence of the signing process.

For more practical litigation materials, see Blog avocat.

Frequently Asked Questions

1) Do I need an apostille for foreign contracts and invoices used in Romania?

Usually, apostille under the Hague Apostille Convention 1961 targets public documents (issued by authorities), not private commercial documents like contracts, invoices or emails; for the latter, focus on translations and coherent presentation as evidence under the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure.

2) What is the difference between apostille and legalisation?

Apostille is a single formality introduced by the Hague 1961 Convention to replace consular legalisation between Contracting States (see Romanian publication of the Convention), while legalisation/superlegalisation generally involves a chain of confirmations when apostille does not apply (orientation: Romanian MFA; Romanian MoJ).

3) Inside the EU, do public documents still need an apostille?

For certain categories of public documents, Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 removes apostille-like formalities in intra-EU use under its conditions; see e-Justice – Public documents.

4) Will Romanian courts accept English documents without translation?

Romanian civil procedure contains a specific rule for foreign-language documents (see Code of Civil Procedure), and in practice it is prudent to provide the required translation for key exhibits to avoid delays and disputes over meaning.

5) Can I use emails as evidence in a Romanian civil/commercial case?

Yes, emails are commonly used to prove notices, acceptance, instructions or admissions, but they should be presented in a reliable, readable way: full headers, thread context, attachments and a timeline, plus translations where needed, aligned with evidence principles under the Code of Civil Procedure.

6) What if documents are electronically signed?

Preserve evidence of the signing process and the signature’s context, referencing the applicable framework: Romanian Law 455/2001 and EU eIDAS Regulation.

7) How can a witness located abroad be heard?

Depending on the context, you may seek remote taking of evidence where feasible, or use formal cooperation/letters rogatory; in EU civil and commercial matters, the framework is Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 and practical resources on e-Justice.

8) Is videoconferencing guaranteed?

No; it depends on legal and technical constraints and may vary by country, as reflected in practical guidance such as e-Justice – Taking evidence by videoconference.

9) What if there is no authorised translator for a rare language?

The Romanian Code of Civil Procedure includes an alternative mechanism for cases where no authorised translator exists for that language, but you should plan early and ensure the translation is done by competent, reliable persons under the applicable legal requirements.