Which court hears the challenge to enforcement?

The challenge is heard by the court of enforcement, generally the district court (judecătoria) where the debtor has their domicile or registered office, as provided by Articles 651 and 714 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the case of enforcement over immovable property or forced handover of real estate located in the jurisdiction of another court of appeal, the challenge may also be brought before the district court where the property is located.

What happens if the court admits my challenge to enforcement?

If the challenge is admitted, the court may correct or annul the challenged enforcement act, may order the termination or annulment of the entire enforcement, or may annul or clarify the enforceable title in situations allowed by law, under Article 720 of the Civil Procedure Code. The bailiff must comply with the court’s decision and adapt or cease enforcement accordingly.

What are the risks if my challenge to enforcement is dismissed?

If the challenge is dismissed, enforcement continues. In addition, under Article 720 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, the court may order you to pay damages to the creditor for the delay caused and, if it finds bad faith, may impose a judicial fine between 1,000 and 7,000 RON. Any security deposited for suspension can be used to cover these amounts or the creditor’s claim.

Contesting civil enforcement in Romania: key options

Q: What is a challenge to enforcement in Romanian civil procedure?

A challenge to enforcement (contestația la executare) is a special procedural remedy by which any person interested or injured by enforcement of a civil judgment or other enforceable title may ask the competent court to review the legality of the enforcement itself, of specific enforcement acts, or of the bailiff’s refusal to carry out an enforcement act, under Articles 712–720 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Q: Within what time limit can I lodge a challenge to enforcement?

The general time limit is 15 days. It typically starts from the date on which you became aware of the enforcement act being challenged, from receipt of the notice of garnishment, or from receipt of the enforcement approval order or writ of summons. There are special time limits for certain types of challenges, such as those seeking clarification of the enforceable title or those brought by third parties claiming rights over the enforced asset.

Q: Does lodging a challenge automatically stop enforcement?

No. Filing a challenge to enforcement does not automatically suspend enforcement measures. To temporarily stop enforcement, you must submit a separate application for suspension under Article 719 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the court may require you to pay security (cauțiune). The court will grant suspension only for serious reasons.

Q: Can I use the challenge to enforcement to attack the court judgment itself?

No. When enforcement is based on a court judgment, the challenge to enforcement cannot be used to raise factual or legal grounds that could have been invoked in the main proceedings or by using available remedies such as appeal or recourse. According to Article 713 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, the challenge focuses on the legality of the enforcement and enforcement acts, not on re-examining the merits of the judgment.

Forced execution (executarea silită) is the phase of civil proceedings in which a creditor, armed with an enforceable title, can resort to the coercive power of the state to recover a debt when the debtor fails to comply voluntarily. The Romanian Civil Procedure Code regulates this phase in Book V, Articles 622–913, as the second stage of the civil process, aimed at putting into practice court judgments and other enforceable titles.

At the same time, the law offers debtors, other creditors and third parties a procedural tool to control the legality of enforcement: the challenge to enforcement (contestația la executare). Chapter VI – “Challenge to enforcement” (Articles 712–720 of the Civil Procedure Code) sets out in detail the object of the challenge, admissibility conditions, competent court, time limits, procedure, suspension of enforcement and the effects of the court’s decision on the enforcement proceedings.

The purpose of this article is to explain, in neutral and accessible language, how you can stop or limit enforcement proceedings against you by using a challenge to enforcement: what types of grounds can be invoked, in what time limits, what effects the challenge produces and which are the most important legislative and case law references you should know.

1. Legal framework of the challenge to enforcement

1.1. What is enforcement and why does legality matter?

The Civil Procedure Code defines enforcement as the set of rules governing the means of compelling the debtor to fulfil obligations established in an enforceable title. Article 622 states that enforcement can be carried out only on the basis of an enforceable title and only if the claim is certain, liquid and due, while Article 625 enshrines the principle of legality of enforcement, according to which all enforcement acts must comply with the law.

This principle is essential for the challenge to enforcement: when an enforcement measure or act does not comply with the legal rules, the interested or injured person can ask the court to review the legality and, where appropriate, to annul the acts or bring the enforcement to an end.

1.2. Challenge to enforcement in the Civil Procedure Code (Articles 712–720)

The main legal provisions are contained in Chapter VI “Contestația la executare” of the Civil Procedure Code, Articles 712–720, in the section dedicated to enforcement. You can consult an updated version (in Romanian) on:

In short, the Code regulates:

the object of the challenge – against the enforcement itself, against the bailiff’s orders and against any enforcement act, as well as against the bailiff’s refusal to perform an act, and for clarifying the meaning and scope of the enforceable title (Article 712);
admissibility conditions and persons entitled – persons interested or injured by enforcement, including third parties who claim rights over the enforced object (Article 713);
the competent court – the “court of enforcement” (instanța de executare) and, in special cases, the court that issued the enforceable title (Article 714, correlated with Article 651);
time limits – the general 15-day time limit and special time limits for some situations (Article 715);
formal requirements, procedure, remedies, suspension of enforcement and effects (Articles 716–720).

1.3. Court of enforcement and approval of enforcement

The notion of “court of enforcement” is defined in Article 651 of the Code: as a rule, this is the district court (judecătoria) in whose territorial jurisdiction the debtor’s domicile or registered office is located at the date the enforcement body is seized, unless the law provides otherwise.

The approval of enforcement (încuvințarea executării silite) is governed by Article 666 CPC. After several legislative changes and a constitutional review, the power to grant this approval lies with the court of enforcement, which decides in chambers, without summoning the parties, within a short time limit.

One of the functions of the challenge to enforcement is precisely to allow the debtor to ask the court to review the legality of the approval – for example if the court approved enforcement without the legal conditions being met (absence of an enforceable title, lack of competence, prescription, etc.).

2. Types of challenges and categories of grounds

The law distinguishes several configurations of challenges to enforcement, depending on the object (what is attacked) and the person lodging the challenge. In practice, it is useful to divide the grounds into several main categories.

2.1. Challenge against the enforcement itself

Under Article 712 and Article 715 paragraph (1) CPC, the debtor can challenge the enforcement itself, not only a specific act. Typical grounds include:

non-existence or invalidity of the enforceable title – for example if the document invoked is not enforceable according to the law, if it has ceased to produce effects, is null, or has been annulled in separate proceedings;
prescription of the right to obtain enforcement – enforcement must be carried out within the general limitation period; if this has expired, the debtor can invoke prescription in the challenge;
lack of certainty, liquidity or maturity of the claim, contrary to the conditions laid down in Article 663 CPC;
approval of enforcement in the absence of legal conditions – for example, where the court of enforcement was not competent or did not verify the enforceable nature of the title and the existence of the claim;
lack of debtor capacity – where enforcement is commenced against the wrong person (cases of mistaken identity, enforcement against a third party who did not assume the debt, enforcement incorrectly triggered against a guarantor, etc.);
serious breaches of defence rights – for example, if enforcement was started without the mandatory service of the approval order or the writ of summons (somația), outside the situations permitted by the Code.

When the enforceable title is a court judgment, the grounds that can be invoked are restricted. Article 713 paragraph (1) CPC provides that the debtor cannot use the challenge to enforcement to raise factual or legal grounds that could have been invoked during the trial or by means of remedies (appeal, recourse). In other words, the challenge cannot substitute ordinary or extraordinary appeals against the judgment; it is mainly concerned with the legality of enforcement, not with re-litigation of the merits.

2.2. Challenge against specific enforcement acts (garnishment, summons, seizure, sale)

The challenge may target a particular enforcement act, such as a garnishment (poprire), a writ of summons, a seizure report or an auction report. Some frequent grounds are:

breach of legal limits of enforcement – for example garnishment of income that is legally exempt from enforcement, or seizure of more assets than necessary, contrary to the proportionality principle;
irregularities in auction procedures – failure to comply with publication requirements, non-observance of time limits, defects in the bidding procedure, insufficient notice to the parties;
defective enforcement acts – missing essential elements in the report (identification of parties, description of the asset, dates and signatures), confusion about the assets being seized, manifestly unjustified valuation;
failure of the bailiff to observe the order of enforcement acts or legal obligations, such as serving documents in a legally prescribed sequence or observing special rules for certain categories of assets.

In such cases the challenge usually seeks annulment of the specific act, which may or may not affect the entire enforcement procedure, depending on the seriousness of the defect and the stage of enforcement.

2.3. Challenge against the refusal of the bailiff to act

Article 712, read together with Article 720 CPC, allows an interested party (usually a creditor) to lodge a challenge against the unjustified refusal of the bailiff to register a request for enforcement, to perform an enforcement act, or to take a measure provided by law.

If the court finds that the refusal is unjustified, it can order the bailiff to carry out the requested act, impose a judicial fine on the bailiff and grant damages to the injured party. This mechanism reinforces judicial control over the activity of enforcement agents.

2.4. Challenge to clarify the meaning, scope or application of the enforceable title

Article 712 paragraph (2) CPC allows a challenge whose sole purpose is to clarify the meaning, scope or application of the enforceable title when there is uncertainty or disagreement between the parties, and the special clarification procedure (Article 443 CPC) has not been used or is not available.

In that situation, the challenge is addressed to the court that issued the judgment to be enforced. The decision on clarification is subject to the same remedies as the enforceable judgment.

2.5. Challenge by third parties claiming rights over the enforced asset

The Code expressly recognises the right of third parties to protect their rights in enforcement proceedings. A third party who claims ownership or another real right over an asset subject to enforcement may lodge a separate challenge to enforcement (Article 713 paragraph (4)–(5) and Article 715 paragraph (4)–(5) CPC).

This challenge can be brought at any time during enforcement, but no later than 15 days from the sale or from the date of compulsory handover of the asset. Even if the third party loses this time window, they may still bring a separate action in court (e.g. revendication), but with respect for the rights already acquired by bona fide purchasers.

2.6. Procedural grounds versus substantive grounds

From a practical perspective, it is important to distinguish between two broad categories of grounds:

procedural grounds – lack of jurisdiction of the court of enforcement, failure to respect time limits or formal requirements, failure to serve documents, irregularities in the sequence of enforcement acts, defects in the bailiff’s orders;
substantive grounds – non-existence or extinction of the debt, partial payments, set-off, limitation, unfair contract terms, lack of enforceability of a clause, misinterpretation of the enforceable title.

In the case of enforcement based on court judgments, substantive grounds that attack the underlying debt are strictly limited by Article 713 CPC, precisely to prevent misuse of the challenge as a hidden appeal against the judgment.

3. Time limits for the challenge to enforcement

3.1. The general 15-day time limit

The general rule is laid down in Article 715 CPC: a 15-day time limit applies to challenges against the enforcement itself and against the bailiff’s orders or enforcement acts.

Depending on the situation, the time limit starts running from:

the date the contesting party became aware of the enforcement act being challenged; or
the date of receiving the notification or notice of garnishment (înființarea popririi); for periodic income, the 15 days for the debtor run at the latest from the date of the first withholding; or
the date of receiving the approval order or the writ of summons; where these were not served, from the date of the first enforcement act notified.

The 15-day time limit is a peremptory time limit for exercising the challenge, calculated in calendar days: the day from which the time limit begins is not counted, and if the last day falls on a non-working day, the time limit is extended to the first working day.

3.2. Special time limits: clarification of the title and third-party challenge

There are also special time limits:

for challenges seeking clarification of the enforceable title, Article 715 paragraph (3) allows filing at any time within the limitation period of the right to obtain enforcement (i.e. the general limitation period applicable to enforcement);
for challenges by third parties claiming real rights over the enforced asset, the time limit is 15 days from the sale or from the date of compulsory handover of the asset, with the possibility of separate litigation even afterwards.

3.3. What if you miss the time limit?

Failure to observe the 15-day time limit usually leads to the dismissal of the challenge as time-barred, with all enforcement acts remaining valid. Exceptions are rare and tied to situations where the time limit never properly began (for example, no communication of the act at all or serious defects in service), or where the law expressly recognises another time frame. Mere lack of knowledge of the law or negligence generally cannot justify reinstatement.

4. Competent court and procedure of the challenge

4.1. Court of enforcement (Articles 651 and 714 CPC)

As mentioned, the competence to hear challenges to enforcement lies with the court of enforcement. Article 651 states that, as a rule, this is the district court of the debtor’s domicile or registered office when the bailiff is seized. Article 714 then provides that the challenge is to be filed precisely with this court.

There is an important exception: in cases of enforcement of immovable property (real estate foreclosure) or forced handover of immovables located in the territorial jurisdiction of another court of appeal, the challenge may also be brought before the district court where the property is situated.

In 2021, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ICCJ) clarified, by way of a decision on a recurs în interesul legii (appeal in the interest of the law), certain issues regarding territorial jurisdiction of the court of enforcement, especially in cases involving several debtors domiciled in different territorial areas and the relationship between the court that approved enforcement and the court of enforcement at the debtor’s domicile.

4.2. Formal requirements and content of the challenge

Article 716 CPC requires that challenges to enforcement be drafted in accordance with the formal requirements for a statement of claim. This means that the challenge must contain, in essence:

identification of the parties (name, address, registration data for companies);
identification of the enforcement file (number, bailiff’s office, court of enforcement);
a precise statement of the object of the challenge (e.g. annulment of the enforcement itself, annulment of a specific act, termination of enforcement, clarification of the title, etc.);
factual and legal grounds, with references to relevant provisions (Articles 712–720 CPC, plus the rules governing the type of enforcement measure challenged);
the evidence relied on: documents, audio/video recordings, witness testimony, expert reports, etc.;
if necessary, a request for suspension of enforcement under Article 719 CPC.

The other party (usually the creditor) is required to file a statement of defence (întâmpinare), and the bailiff is invited to send certified copies of the enforcement file and, where appropriate, written explanations.

4.3. How the court examines the challenge

According to Article 717 CPC, challenges to enforcement are heard urgently and with priority, following the rules of first instance proceedings, but without the preliminary regularisation step under Article 200 CPC. The court may consolidate related challenges (for example, several challenges in the same enforcement file) and administer all necessary evidence.

The court’s ruling is, as a rule, a judgment (sentință) that can be appealed. The appeal is heard by the competent tribunal; the final outcome may confirm or modify the first-instance solution.

5. Suspension of enforcement through a challenge (Article 719 CPC)

While lodging a challenge to enforcement does not automatically stop enforcement, the law offers the possibility to obtain a temporary suspension of enforcement, under certain conditions.

5.1. Conditions for suspension

Article 719 CPC provides that, until the challenge to enforcement or another application related to enforcement is decided, the court may suspend enforcement, upon request and for serious reasons. Suspension can be requested together with the challenge or by a separate application.

In practice, to obtain suspension, the applicant usually needs to demonstrate that:

there is a risk of significant and hard-to-repair prejudice if enforcement continues (for example, sale of the debtor’s only home, blocking of all bank accounts, seizure of essential equipment for business operations);
the challenge appears to be based on prima facie reasonable grounds suggesting that the enforcement might be unlawful or excessive;
they are prepared to pay a security (cauțiune), calculated according to Article 719 paragraphs (2)–(3) CPC, based on the value of the disputed claim or, in non-monetary cases, a fixed amount (often around 1,000 RON, depending on the court’s practice).

The Code also provides for situations where suspension is compulsory and no security is required, such as where the title is manifestly unenforceable or has been declared false by a first-instance judgment.

5.2. Duration of suspension and provisional suspension

Case law has underlined that suspension cannot be indefinite. The High Court (ICCJ) has held that, as a rule, suspension granted at first instance is effective until the court decides on the challenge at that level, and a new application for suspension may be made in the appeal proceedings, to cover the duration of the remedy.

Moreover, Article 719 paragraph (7) CPC allows for provisional suspension without summoning the parties, in urgent cases and subject to payment of security, until the court rules on the main suspension application. This constitutes an emergency mechanism to prevent irreversible damage (for example, an auction imminent within days).

6. Effects of the court’s decision on the challenge (Article 720 CPC)

6.1. If the challenge is admitted

Under Article 720 CPC, if the court admits the challenge, it may, depending on the object:

correct or annul the challenged enforcement act (for example, an auction report, a seizure report, a bailiff’s order);
terminate or annul the entire enforcement, if the defects affect enforcement as a whole (for example, absence of an enforceable title, enforcement of a prescribed claim);
annul or clarify the enforceable title, in cases where this is allowed by law (for instance, where the title is not a court judgment, and no other special remedies exist).

If the challenge also included a request to divide co-owned assets (whether joint or on shares), the court may rule on this within the same proceedings, which can be practically important for spouses or co-owners subject to enforcement.

The decision is communicated ex officio to the bailiff, who must adjust or cease enforcement in line with the court’s instructions.

6.2. If the challenge is dismissed

Where the challenge is dismissed, enforcement continues. Furthermore, Article 720 paragraph (3) CPC allows the court, upon request from the interested party (usually the creditor), to order the contesting party to pay:

damages for loss caused by delaying enforcement; and
in case of bad faith, a judicial fine ranging from 1,000 to 7,000 RON.

The security deposited for suspension may be used to cover such amounts or the creditor’s claim, depending on the court’s decision and the circumstances.

6.3. Effects on the bailiff

If the court finds that the bailiff has unjustifiably refused to perform an enforcement act or has acted in breach of the legal procedure, it can sanction the bailiff (as mentioned above) and order them to perform the necessary act. This serves as an additional mechanism to ensure that enforcement is not only effective for the creditor, but also lawful and proportionate for the debtor and third parties.

7. Typical grounds and guidance from case law

7.1. Jurisdiction of the court of enforcement

After a series of changes to Article 651 CPC and divergent case law, ICCJ intervened with a decision in the interest of the law to clarify the territorial jurisdiction of the court of enforcement. The High Court confirmed the rule that the court of enforcement is the district court where the debtor is domiciled, including in situations with multiple debtors located in different districts, and clarified how this interacts with the court that approved enforcement.

In practice, if enforcement is authorised by a court that lacks jurisdiction, this can be a ground to annul the approval and the enforcement acts that followed, or to transfer the case to the competent court, depending on the circumstances.

7.2. Suspension of enforcement and the balance of interests

ICCJ’s case law emphasises that suspension of enforcement is an exceptional measure, granted only when there are serious grounds and security is paid. At the same time, the courts must strike a balance between the debtor’s need for protection and the creditor’s right to timely enforcement. The High Court has underlined that suspension cannot be used as a disguised way to indefinitely block enforcement, especially when the chances of success of the challenge are low.

7.3. Enforcement based on non-judicial titles

Article 713 paragraph (2) CPC allows, in the context of enforcement based on titles that are not court judgments (such as notarised deeds, certain bank contracts, promissory notes, etc.), the possibility to invoke, through a challenge to enforcement, substantive grounds relating to the title, but only if the law does not provide a special procedure to contest or annul that title.

Recent practice has confirmed the use of this mechanism in cases where debtors claim that certain contractual clauses used in banking or consumer contracts are abusive or that the document used as a title is null. However, courts carefully assess whether such claims should be raised through separate actions (e.g. actions to establish nullity or unfair terms) and whether the challenge to enforcement can be used or not for that purpose.

8. Practical recommendations for debtors and other interested parties

While the challenge to enforcement should not be used merely as a delaying tactic, when there are serious doubts about the legality of enforcement it is important to act promptly and in an organised manner. Some practical steps:

Check carefully all documents received from the bailiff: writ of summons, garnishment notifications, seizure reports, auction notices. Note the amounts, the file number, the creditor’s identity and the title invoked.
Write down the dates when you received each document – these dates are crucial for calculating the 15-day time limit.
Identify the grounds you might have: procedural (jurisdiction, service, time limits, irregular acts) and/or substantive (debt partially or fully paid, limitation, set-off, unfair contract terms, etc.).
Evaluate whether to request suspension: if the enforcement measures risk causing serious, potentially irreparable harm, and your grounds are reasonably strong, a suspension application might be justified despite the cost of security.
Gather supporting documents: contracts, correspondence with the creditor, proof of payments, account statements, previous court judgments, expert reports, or any other evidence supporting your grounds.
Consult the Civil Procedure Code in its updated version on the official legislative portal and, where possible, seek legal advice from a lawyer with experience in enforcement matters.

9. FAQ – Frequently asked questions about the challenge to enforcement

Question 1: What is a challenge to enforcement in Romanian civil procedure?

It is a special procedural remedy by which any person interested or injured by enforcement (typically the debtor, but also third parties or other creditors) can ask the competent court to review the legality of enforcement, of specific enforcement acts or of the bailiff’s refusal to act, under Articles 712–720 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Question 2: Within what time limit can I lodge a challenge to enforcement?

The general time limit is 15 days, which usually starts from the date you became aware of the act you challenge, from receiving the notice of garnishment or from receiving the approval order or writ of summons. There are longer time limits in special cases (for example, challenges seeking clarification of the title: until the expiry of the enforcement limitation period; challenges by third parties: within 15 days from the sale or handover of the asset).

Question 3: Which court hears the challenge?

The challenge is lodged with the court of enforcement, normally the district court where the debtor has their domicile or registered office (Article 651 CPC). For enforcement on real estate or forced handover of immovable property located in the jurisdiction of another court of appeal, the challenge may also be brought before the district court where the property is located.

Question 4: Does lodging a challenge automatically stop enforcement?

No. Lodging a challenge does not, by itself, suspend enforcement. To stop or freeze enforcement measures, you must file a suspension application under Article 719 CPC and, usually, pay a security. The court will assess whether there are serious grounds and whether the prejudice justifies suspension.

Question 5: What happens if the court admits my challenge?

If the court admits your challenge, it may annul or correct the challenged enforcement act, terminate or annul the entire enforcement, or annul/clarify the enforceable title in the situations allowed by law. The bailiff must adjust or cease enforcement accordingly. In practice, this can mean cancelling a garnishment, invalidating a public auction, stopping the sale of an asset, or limiting enforcement to certain assets or amounts.

Question 6: What are the risks if my challenge is dismissed?

If the challenge is dismissed, enforcement continues. In addition, the court may order you to pay damages to the creditor for the delay caused and may impose a judicial fine (1,000–7,000 RON) if it finds that you acted in bad faith. The security paid for suspension may be used to cover these amounts or the debt itself.

Question 7: Can I use the challenge to enforcement to attack the court judgment that constitutes the title?

Generally, no. When enforcement is based on a court judgment, you cannot use the challenge to enforcement to raise grounds that could have been invoked in the main proceedings or on appeal/recourse. The challenge is not a substitute for those remedies; its role is to control the legality of enforcement, not to re-open the merits of the case decided by the judgment.