This guide explains how foreign companies can understand, manage and challenge decisions of key Romanian regulators, in particular the:
- Romanian Competition Council (competition law and antitrust);
- National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications (telecoms and electronic communications);
- Financial Supervisory Authority (capital markets, insurance, private pensions, non-banking financial markets);
- National Energy Regulatory Authority (energy and gas);
- and, where relevant, the National Bank of Romania in its supervisory role over credit institutions and payment service providers.
We focus on four key aspects:
- who the main regulators are and what powers they have;
- what types of sanctions foreign companies typically face;
- what administrative and judicial remedies exist (appeals and stays of execution);
- and how Romanian procedures interact with EU law and the European Commission.
The guide is based on Romanian administrative and sectoral legislation, as well as publicly available information on regulators’ websites. It does not replace tailored legal advice but offers a practical roadmap for foreign in-house counsel and compliance teams confronted with an adverse Romanian regulatory decision.
Main Romanian Regulatory Authorities and Their Powers
Romania has a decentralised regulatory landscape. Each sector is supervised by a specialised authority with distinct powers and procedures. Foreign companies must understand which authority they are dealing with, what legal framework applies and what tools that authority can use against them.
1. Romanian Competition Council (Consiliul Concurenței)
The Romanian Competition Council (RCC) is the national competition authority responsible for enforcing Romanian and, in certain cases, EU competition rules. Its powers cover:
- Anticompetitive agreements and cartels – investigation of horizontal and vertical agreements that restrict competition (price-fixing, market sharing, bid rigging, resale price maintenance);
- Abuse of dominant position – practices by dominant companies that exclude competitors or exploit customers (excessive pricing, refusal to supply, discriminatory conditions);
- Merger control – clearance, conditional approval or prohibition of mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures that meet Romanian turnover thresholds;
- State aid – certain competences in relation to monitoring and enforcing EU state-aid rules at national level;
- Sector inquiries and market studies – collecting information and issuing recommendations in sectors with structural competition problems.
The RCC can open investigations on its own initiative, following complaints or based on leniency applications. It has wide investigative powers: dawn raids at company premises, seizure of documents and electronic evidence, interviews, requests for information, and sector-wide data collection. Many of these powers mirror those of the European Commission in EU competition law enforcement.
2. National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications (ANCOM)
The National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications (ANCOM) regulates and supervises electronic communications networks and services, postal services and certain audiovisual distribution and spectrum-related matters. Its core powers include:
- granting and managing rights of use for radio spectrum and numbering;
- designating undertakings with universal service obligations and regulating access and interconnection between operators;
- imposing ex-ante obligations on operators with significant market power (SMP) in relevant markets (price controls, transparency, non-discrimination, access obligations);
- enforcing consumer protection rules in telecoms and ensuring quality of service standards;
- imposing sanctions for breaches of telecoms regulations, licence conditions and regulatory decisions.
ANCOM plays a crucial role for telecom providers, ISPs, MVNOs and other electronic communications players. For foreign groups, Romanian ANCOM decisions can influence regional strategies for spectrum, rollout and retail offers.
3. Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF)
The Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) is the regulator for non-banking financial markets, including:
- capital markets (issuers, intermediaries, markets and trading venues);
- insurance and reinsurance undertakings and intermediaries;
- private pension funds (mandatory and voluntary) and their administrators.
ASF’s powers include authorisation and licensing, ongoing prudential and conduct-of-business supervision, approval of prospectuses and takeover bids, market-abuse surveillance, and sanctioning for regulatory breaches. ASF can impose significant fines on both companies and individuals, withdraw authorisations, restrict activities and issue remedial measures.
For foreign financial groups operating through Romanian subsidiaries or branches (banks, insurers, brokers, asset managers), ASF is a key counterpart in day-to-day compliance.
4. National Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE)
The National Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE) is responsible for regulation in the electricity and natural gas sectors, including aspects of heating where relevant. ANRE’s functions include:
- issuing licences and authorisations for generation, distribution, supply and trading of electricity and gas;
- setting or approving tariffs and methodologies for network services and regulated segments;
- adopting market rules for wholesale and retail markets, including balancing and ancillary services;
- monitoring compliance with licensing conditions, grid codes and market rules;
- imposing sanctions for violations, including fines and, in some cases, suspension or withdrawal of licences.
Energy producers, traders, suppliers and large consumers – including foreign-owned companies – must comply with ANRE’s regulatory framework and are exposed to its enforcement decisions.
5. National Bank of Romania (BNR) – supervisory role in banking and payments
Although not always grouped together with the other regulators, the National Bank of Romania (BNR) is the central bank and the primary supervisory authority for credit institutions, payment institutions and certain other financial entities. BNR:
- authorises and supervises banks and other credit institutions;
- oversees payment systems and payment service providers;
- monitors macro- and micro-prudential risks in the banking sector;
- can impose sanctions ranging from warnings and fines to restrictions on activities and withdrawal of authorisations.
For foreign banking groups and fintech companies, BNR decisions can be as critical as ASF’s, especially regarding capital requirements, governance, internal controls and AML/CTF compliance.
Typical Sanctions (Fines, Licence Withdrawal, Behavioural Remedies)
Regulators in Romania have a broad toolbox of sanctions. From a foreign company’s perspective, it is important to map not only the maximum theoretical penalties but also the typical enforcement patterns and the collateral consequences of sanctions.
1. Administrative fines
Across all sectors, administrative fines are the most common and visible sanction. Their magnitude varies by authority and type of infringement.
a) Competition fines
The Competition Council can impose fines of up to a significant percentage of the infringing company’s total turnover for serious antitrust infringements such as cartels or abuse of dominance. For procedural offences (failure to provide information, obstruction of dawn raids), separate fines may be imposed. In practice, the RCC takes into account factors such as gravity, duration, mitigating and aggravating circumstances and cooperation under leniency or settlement procedures.
b) Telecoms fines (ANCOM)
ANCOM can fine operators for infringements of sector regulations, including failure to respect consumer rights, breach of information obligations, non-compliance with access and interconnection obligations, or failure to meet licence conditions. Fines can reach substantial levels, especially for repeated or serious breaches, and are often accompanied by deadlines to remedy non-compliance.
c) Financial market and insurance fines (ASF)
ASF frequently uses fines to sanction breaches of conduct rules, prudential requirements, reporting duties, market-abuse restrictions or product-governance rules. Fines can be imposed on the entity and on responsible individuals (members of the board, senior management). In serious cases, ASF may also order the removal of managers or directors as part of its supervisory powers.
d) Energy sector fines (ANRE)
ANRE may impose fines on licensees for breaches of licensing conditions, failure to comply with market rules or failure to observe tariff and quality-of-service obligations. For energy companies operating multiple licences (generation, supply, distribution), cumulative exposure can be substantial if the same behaviour breaches several provisions.
2. Licence suspension and withdrawal
While fines are painful, the most severe risk for many foreign companies is the potential suspension or withdrawal of licences, authorisations or registrations needed to operate in Romania. All key regulators – ANRE, ANCOM, ASF and BNR – have powers in this area.
Typical grounds include:
- serious or repeated breaches of licence conditions or regulatory decisions;
- failure to meet prudential or capital requirements (especially in financial services);
- failure to remedy deficiencies within deadlines set by the regulator;
- loss of “fit and proper” status of key managers or controlling shareholders, when not remediated;
- engaging in activities outside the scope of the licence or without proper authorisation.
For example, in the energy sector, ANRE can withdraw the licence of a supplier that repeatedly fails to comply with market rules or settlement obligations. ASF may withdraw the authorisation of an insurer if it fails to meet solvency requirements or to implement a recovery plan. In telecoms, ANCOM can withdraw rights of use over frequencies in extreme cases of non-compliance.
Licence withdrawal is often preceded by a series of less drastic measures: warnings, mandatory remedial plans, temporary restrictions or partial suspensions. From a defensive perspective, foreign companies should treat early warning signs as serious opportunities to remediate issues before escalation.
3. Behavioural and structural remedies
Regulators do not only impose fines. They also shape corporate behaviour through binding remedial measures. These may include:
- Cease-and-desist orders – for example, ordering a company to stop anti-competitive practices, unfair commercial practices, or discriminatory access conditions;
- Price and tariff adjustments – in regulated sectors (energy, telecoms), regulators may require recalculation of tariffs or reimbursement of overcharged amounts;
- Contractual changes – obligations to modify standard terms and conditions, interconnection agreements, access contracts or insurance policies to comply with regulatory requirements;
- Reporting and compliance obligations – orders to implement internal controls, compliance programmes, training and reporting routines;
- Structural remedies – in competition cases, the RCC may require divestments or separation of business units to restore effective competition.
From a foreign company’s perspective, these remedies can be more intrusive than a one-off fine. They may require fundamental changes to business models, product design, distribution strategies or group governance. When challenging a decision, it is therefore essential to address both the monetary and non-monetary elements of the regulator’s order.
4. Publication and reputational impact
Romanian regulators increasingly publish their decisions or at least summaries, press releases and sanction lists on their websites. While confidential information is usually redacted, the identity of the sanctioned entity and the legal basis are often disclosed. This has reputational implications, including:
- media coverage and public perception in Romania;
- questions from group auditors and investors;
- knock-on effects in other jurisdictions where the group operates (for example, foreign regulators asking for explanations).
When planning a challenge, foreign companies should consider communication strategies: what to disclose to the market, how to answer investor questions and how to manage internal communications with staff and group management.
Administrative and Judicial Remedies (Appeals, Stays of Execution)
Most regulatory decisions can be challenged through a combination of administrative and judicial remedies. The exact procedure depends on the authority and the sector, but some common principles apply under Romanian administrative law.
1. Internal (administrative) appeals
In some sectors, the first step is an internal or administrative appeal before the same authority or a supervisory body. For example, certain ANCOM decisions may be contested before an internal review commission prior to going to court. Similarly, in the financial sector, ASF may have internal review mechanisms for some types of measures.
These internal remedies usually have short deadlines (often counted in working days) and require a detailed written submission. They may suspend the enforcement of the decision in whole or in part, depending on the legal framework. Even when not formally mandatory, using internal appeals can be strategically useful to narrow issues and build the record for subsequent litigation.
2. Judicial review before Romanian courts
The primary avenue to challenge regulatory decisions is judicial review before Romanian courts, under the rules of administrative litigation. In many cases, the competent court of first instance is the Bucharest Court of Appeal, especially for decisions of national authorities such as the Competition Council, ANCOM, ASF and ANRE.
Key features of judicial review include:
- Strict deadlines – complaints must be filed within a limited number of days from notification or publication of the decision. Missing the deadline usually means losing the right to challenge.
- Limited or full jurisdiction – in some areas (for example, competition fines), the court has full jurisdiction over both legality and merits, including recalculation of fines. In others, review may be more focused on legality.
- Evidence and expert reports – courts may examine economic, technical and accounting evidence, appoint experts, and hear witnesses, which is particularly relevant in complex competition or financial cases.
- Appeals on points of law – decisions of the Court of Appeal may be further challenged before the High Court of Cassation and Justice on points of law.
Foreign companies should work closely with Romanian litigation counsel to map the relevant deadlines, jurisdiction and standard of review for the specific regulator and type of decision involved.
3. Stays of execution and interim measures
One of the most pressing concerns after an adverse decision is whether it must be complied with immediately or whether its execution can be suspended pending litigation. Romanian law offers several mechanisms:
- Automatic suspensive effect – some administrative appeals or judicial challenges may, by law, suspend certain effects of the decision (for example, payment of certain fees) until the case is resolved.
- Requests for stay (suspension) – under general administrative law, companies can ask the court to suspend the execution of the challenged act if they show a prima facie case and risk of serious harm. Courts assess both legality arguments and urgency.
- Specific sector rules – in certain regulated sectors (telecoms, energy), specific rules apply to the suspensive effect of appeals or the possibility of provisional measures to protect competition or consumers.
From a practical standpoint, foreign companies should consider requesting a stay where immediate execution would cause irreversible damage or make it impossible to continue operations (for example, immediate withdrawal of a key licence or massive fines payable within short deadlines). The decision to seek interim relief must weigh legal prospects, timing and reputational implications.
4. Strategy in regulatory litigation
Challenging a regulator is not only a legal exercise; it is a strategic one. Issues to consider include:
- Scope of challenge – whether to contest the entire decision or focus on specific aspects (for example, level of the fine, certain factual findings, or particular remedies);
- Evidence and expert support – in competition or energy cases, economic expert reports may be critical. In financial cases, actuarial or risk-management expertise can be decisive;
- Settlement and cooperation – some authorities allow settlement or commitments procedures, which can reduce fines or avoid certain findings of infringement. Litigation strategy must take into account whether such options remain available;
- Group-level implications – multinational groups should ensure consistency between positions taken in Romania and in other jurisdictions, especially where the same conduct is under investigation by several authorities.
A carefully crafted strategy can turn litigation from a purely defensive exercise into an opportunity to clarify regulatory expectations and reduce long-term compliance uncertainty.
Interaction with EU Law and the European Commission
Because Romania is an EU Member State, many regulatory decisions are deeply intertwined with EU law. For foreign companies, this means that Romanian procedures cannot be viewed in isolation.
1. Application of EU competition law
The Romanian Competition Council often applies Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in parallel with Romanian competition rules, especially in cases with cross-border effects. This has several consequences:
- the RCC cooperates within the European Competition Network (ECN) and may exchange information with the European Commission and other national authorities;
- the assessment framework is aligned with EU soft law (guidelines, notices), which provides a degree of predictability for companies familiar with EU competition law;
- findings in Romanian cases may be relevant for parallel investigations or private enforcement in other Member States.
When challenging an RCC decision that relies on EU law, foreign companies can invoke not only Romanian administrative law but also EU law principles and ECJ case law. Romanian courts are obliged to interpret national rules in conformity with EU law and may refer preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union where necessary.
2. EU sectoral rules (telecoms, financial, energy)
Telecoms, financial services and energy are heavily harmonised at EU level through directives, regulations and decisions of EU agencies and bodies (such as BEREC in telecoms or ACER in energy). Romanian regulators implement these frameworks and must act consistently with EU law.
As a result:
- ANCOM’s market analyses and SMP obligations are based on EU telecoms legislation and BEREC guidelines;
- ASF and BNR apply EU banking, insurance and capital-market rules, including CRR/CRD, Solvency II, MiFID II, PRIIPs, MAR and related regulations;
- ANRE’s regulation of energy markets is shaped by EU electricity and gas market directives and network codes, as well as ACER guidance.
Foreign companies familiar with EU regulatory regimes can leverage this when challenging Romanian decisions. If an authority’s interpretation of EU rules diverges from established practice in other Member States or from EU-level guidance, this may strengthen arguments in judicial review.
3. Role of the European Commission and EU agencies
In some situations, Romanian regulators’ decisions may attract the attention of EU institutions:
- the European Commission may open its own competition investigation or state-aid procedure, which can complement or override national action;
- BEREC and ACER may issue opinions or recommendations on regulatory issues, which Romanian authorities are expected to consider;
- the European Commission may initiate infringement proceedings against Romania if national regulation is inconsistent with EU law.
While foreign companies cannot normally “appeal” a Romanian regulator’s decision directly to the European Commission, they can raise concerns at EU level (for example, in the context of consultations or complaints) when they believe Romanian practice is inconsistent with EU rules.
4. Preliminary references to the Court of Justice of the EU
If the interpretation of EU law is central to a dispute, Romanian courts may – and in some cases must – make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). This mechanism allows the CJEU to clarify how EU rules should be interpreted, and the Romanian court then applies that interpretation to the case.
For foreign companies, encouraging a preliminary reference can be a powerful tool when national practice diverges from EU-level understanding. It requires careful formulation of legal questions and a clear articulation of why EU law is ambiguous or inconsistently applied.
Final thoughts for foreign companies facing Romanian regulators
Being investigated or sanctioned by a Romanian regulator can feel daunting, especially for foreign companies unfamiliar with local procedures and language. Yet the underlying principles – legality, proportionality, fair hearing and judicial review – are broadly comparable to those in other EU jurisdictions, and Romanian courts are bound by EU law standards.
Foreign businesses should approach Romanian regulatory proceedings with the same seriousness and strategic thinking they would apply in any significant EU jurisdiction:
- engage specialist Romanian counsel early, ideally as soon as an investigation or inspection is announced;
- coordinate local defence with group-wide regulatory strategies to ensure consistency;
- invest in robust evidence and expert support, especially for complex economic or technical issues;
- assess both administrative and judicial remedies, including the possibility of stays of execution;
- consider the EU-law dimension and, where appropriate, the potential role of EU institutions.
Ultimately, challenging a decision is not just about “fighting the regulator”. It is about clarifying the boundaries of lawful business conduct, aligning Romanian practice with EU standards and, where possible, reaching solutions that reconcile regulatory objectives with commercial viability. With informed and proactive management, foreign companies can navigate Romanian regulatory procedures effectively and protect their investments.
Further resources
- Romanian Competition Council – decisions, guidelines and annual reports.
- National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications (ANCOM) – telecoms regulations, decisions and consultation documents.
- Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) – regulations, enforcement reports and market bulletins.
- National Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE) – licences, tariff methodologies and market rules.
- National Bank of Romania (BNR) – banking and payment-system regulations and supervisory reports.
- Romanian Law on Administrative Litigation – general framework for challenging administrative acts before the courts.