Enforcing a Romanian Child Order Abroad (EU and non‑EU): Recognition, Enforcement, Urgent Steps

Important: This is a practical, source‑linked guide for general information. It does not replace case‑specific legal advice, especially where a child’s safety is at risk.

1) Start with one key distinction: recognition vs enforcement

In cross‑border child cases, people often mix up two different questions:

Recognition means the foreign state accepts the Romanian decision for its legal effects (for example, it is treated as valid and can be relied on in later proceedings).
Enforcement means the foreign state uses its own enforcement tools (courts, bailiffs or equivalent officers, child services, and other lawful mechanisms) to make the order happen in real life (handover, contact schedule, travel‑related measures, etc.).

In the EU lane, Brussels II ter states that a decision given in one Member State must be recognised in the others without any special procedure, and that enforceable parental responsibility decisions must be enforced in other Member States without a declaration of enforceability (“exequatur”). EU e‑Justice (Brussels II ter forms page, recognition/enforcement summary).

Outside the EU, enforcement usually requires a local recognition/enforceability step under treaty (often Hague 1996) or the destination state’s national private international law. HCCH: Hague 1996 (full text).

2) Step zero: identify your legal “lane” (EU Brussels II ter vs non‑EU Hague 1996)

Before you spend weeks gathering documents, identify the correct legal instrument. Choosing the wrong lane is a common cause of significant delays in cross‑border child matters, because authorities may reject or pause the application until it is reframed correctly.

2.1 If the child‑related enforcement is within the EU

Between EU Member States (except Denmark), the main instrument for parental responsibility (custody/contact/residence and related matters) is Regulation (EU) 2019/1111—commonly called Brussels II ter (also referred to as “Brussels IIb” in EU materials). EU e‑Justice (Brussels IIb/2019/1111 page).

Denmark: The EU e‑Justice portal states that the Regulation applies between all EU Member States except Denmark. EU e‑Justice (scope note). The Regulation itself also explains that Denmark does not take part and is not bound (Protocol No 22). EUR‑Lex (Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 intro/recitals).

Very important (time scope): The e‑Justice portal states that Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 replaced the previous Brussels IIa (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) as from 1 August 2022, and that the new Regulation applies only to proceedings instituted on or after 1 August 2022; older proceedings remain under Brussels IIa for the relevant decisions. EU e‑Justice (transitional note, 1 Aug 2022).

2.2 If the enforcement is outside the EU (including the UK post‑Brexit)

Outside the EU, many child‑related measures are handled through the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention (jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement, cooperation). Romania, Italy and the United Kingdom are Contracting Parties (see the HCCH status table). HCCH status table (1996 Convention).

If the destination state is not a party to Hague 1996, you may need to rely on that state’s national private international law rules and procedure. This article focuses on the two most common lanes for Romanian diaspora: EU Brussels II ter and Hague 1996.

3) What “enforcement abroad” can mean in real life

A Romanian decision “regarding the child” can cover very different realities. The enforcement strategy changes depending on what you need abroad:

Contact schedule (access rights): ensuring visits happen, including holiday rules and handovers.
Residence / living arrangements: implementing where the child lives (sometimes linked to a handover order).
Specific protective measures: travel consent rules, restrictions on removal from a territory, communication rules, supervised contact, school/medical decision‑making, etc.
Return‑type outcomes: depending on the facts, the route can be EU return tools, Hague 1980 return proceedings, or a custody/residence enforcement route; the correct classification matters for speed. EU e‑Justice (notes on parental responsibility and international child abduction).

Some outcomes may work with recognition alone (for example, showing a recognised order to a school or a medical provider). Others require coercive enforcement (for example, a handover not happening voluntarily). The goal is to choose the lightest procedure that actually works in your case—without under‑filing (which causes refusal/delays) or over‑filing (which wastes time).

4) EU route: enforcing a Romanian child order in another EU Member State under Brussels II ter

Within the EU (except Denmark), Brussels II ter is designed to make cross‑border enforcement workable: (1) recognition without a special procedure, and (2) enforcement without a separate declaration of enforceability (“exequatur”) for parental responsibility decisions that are enforceable in the state of origin. This is stated both in the Regulation’s operative provisions and in the EU e‑Justice summary. EUR‑Lex (Regulation (EU) 2019/1111) EU e‑Justice (recognition/enforcement summary).

4.1 The legal core in one line (EU)

In the Regulation itself: a decision “shall be recognised” in the other Member States without any special procedure (Article 30(1)); and an enforceable decision is enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability (Article 34(1)). Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Articles 30 and 34.

4.2 What you still must do: build the document pack (copy + certificate + translation if required)

Even with “no exequatur”, enforcement abroad is not a one‑page email. Article 36 lists what the authority in the enforcement state can require from you.

Article 36(1) provides the document pack for enforcement: (a) a copy of the decision that satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; (b) the relevant certificate; and (c) if required, a translation or transliteration of the free text fields of the certificate. The authority may require translation. Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Article 36(1).

Article 36 also contains an easy‑to‑miss limitation: for enforcement purposes, the definition of “decision” excludes provisional, including protective, measures ordered without the person against whom they are invoked having been served with the document instituting the proceedings (or an equivalent document) prior to enforcement. Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Article 36(1) (definition of “decision” for enforcement).

Certificates are completed and issued in the language of the decision; they may also be issued in another EU official language requested by the party, but the court is not obliged to translate free text. Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Article 36(2).

4.3 The practical sequence (EU)

Think of EU enforcement as a project with stages. A realistic sequence often looks like this:

Confirm the regime: Brussels II ter (proceedings instituted on or after 1 Aug 2022) vs Brussels IIa for older proceedings. EU e‑Justice (transitional note).
Get an authentic copy of the Romanian decision: it must satisfy authenticity conditions (Article 36(1)(a)). Brussels II ter, Article 36(1)(a).
Obtain the correct Brussels II ter certificate from the Romanian court of origin: the certificate is part of the enforcement pack (Article 36(1)(b)). Brussels II ter, Article 36(1)(b).
Prepare translation if required: especially the free text fields of the certificate, because the enforcing authority may require it (Article 36(1)(c)). Brussels II ter, Article 36(1)(c).
Identify the enforcement “entry point” in the destination state: enforcement is carried out under the destination state’s procedural system; local counsel typically identifies the correct authority and filing steps fastest.
File for enforcement and request targeted local measures: for example, a clear handover protocol or a compliance framework that fits the destination state’s enforcement tools (always lawfully and proportionately).

The key idea is that Brussels II ter removes one major barrier (exequatur), but it does not replace the destination state’s enforcement mechanics. You still “execute locally”; you just do it using an EU‑recognised title. Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Article 34(1).

4.4 Central Authorities: when they can reduce friction (and what to expect)

In many cases, the central authority channel is a practical accelerant: not because central authorities enforce orders directly, but because they can facilitate cross‑border cooperation and procedural navigation (especially for access rights and cross‑border coordination). Brussels II ter requires each Member State to designate at least one Central Authority to assist with the Regulation’s application. EU e‑Justice (Central Authority note).

Brussels II ter assigns tasks to central authorities, including assisting holders of parental responsibility who seek recognition and enforcement in another Member State (Article 79(c)). Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Article 79(c).

For certain information requests, the Regulation also sets an expectation of timing: the requested central authority should provide the information “no later than 3 months” after receiving the request, unless exceptional circumstances make it impossible (Article 80(4)). Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Article 80(4).

This 3‑month reference is not a guarantee of “case resolution in 3 months”. It is a cooperation benchmark; actual enforcement timelines depend heavily on local court calendars, the clarity of the Romanian order, and whether enforcement is contested.

4.5 Urgent situations in the EU: provisional measures where the child is present

When there is urgency, you often need “bridge measures” to prevent irreversible changes (for example, an immediate relocation, a safety risk, or the sudden collapse of contact) before full enforcement is achieved.

Brussels II ter allows courts of a Member State to take provisional, including protective, measures in urgent cases even if the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction as to the substance (Article 15(1)). Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Article 15.

These measures are typically short‑term and territory‑linked. They are not a substitute for deciding long‑term parental responsibility issues, but they can stabilise the situation while the enforcement “engine” starts running.

4.6 “No exequatur” does not mean “no defences”: the main refusal risks (EU)

The Regulation limits the grounds on which recognition or enforcement can be refused, and it forbids the foreign court from reviewing the merits. Under Article 71, “under no circumstances may a decision given in another Member State be reviewed as to its substance.” Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Article 71.

However, refusal is still possible on specific grounds. For parental responsibility decisions, Article 39 lists the core grounds for refusal of recognition, including (among others): public policy taking into account the child’s best interests; lack of proper service in default cases; lack of opportunity to be heard for a person claiming infringement of parental responsibility; irreconcilability with later decisions; and, in certain circumstances, issues around the child’s opportunity to express views. Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Article 39.

Article 41 links enforcement refusal to these grounds: enforcement “shall be refused” if a ground for refusal of recognition under Article 39 exists. Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Article 41.

Practically, this means you should prepare the enforcement file as if you expect a challenge. The fastest enforcement is the one where the other parent has no credible procedural angle to exploit.

5) Non‑EU route: enforcing a Romanian child order abroad under the Hague 1996 Convention

For many non‑EU destinations, Hague 1996 is the closest thing to a standard platform for recognition, enforcement and central authority cooperation in child protection matters. You can verify treaty coverage and entry into force per country on the HCCH status table. HCCH status table (1996 Convention).

5.1 The core rules (Hague 1996) in plain English

Four provisions give you a practical roadmap:

Recognition by operation of law: measures taken by a Contracting State “shall be recognised by operation of law” in other Contracting States (Article 23(1)). Hague 1996, Article 23.
Enforcement requires a local procedure: if measures are enforceable in the state of origin, they “shall be declared enforceable or registered for the purpose of enforcement” in another Contracting State, according to the requested state’s procedure (Article 26(1)), and the procedure should be “simple and rapid” (Article 26(2)). Hague 1996, Article 26.
No review of merits: the authorities of the requested state may not review the merits of the measures taken (Article 27). Hague 1996, Article 27.
Document formalities are reduced: documents forwarded or delivered under the Convention are exempt from legalisation or analogous formality (Article 43). Hague 1996, Article 43.

So Hague 1996 is not “no procedure at all”. It is a treaty‑based, streamlined way to get recognition and then obtain enforceability under the destination state’s procedure, without re‑litigating the case.

5.2 Central Authorities under Hague 1996

Hague 1996 is also a cooperation convention. Each Contracting State must designate a Central Authority to discharge the duties imposed by the Convention (Article 29), and central authorities must cooperate and promote cooperation between competent authorities (Article 30). Hague 1996, Articles 29–30.

In practical terms, central authority involvement can help when you need cross‑border assistance (for example, locating the child, transmitting information, or coordinating protective measures), but you should still expect to need local counsel for the enforcement procedure in the destination state.

5.3 Certificates under Hague 1996 (useful in practice)

If a person responsible for the child’s person or property applies, the authorities of the child’s habitual residence may deliver a certificate indicating that person’s capacity and powers (Article 40). This is practically useful when dealing with schools, banks, medical providers, or local authorities abroad. Hague 1996, Article 40.

5.4 The UK example in one sentence

The UK is not in the Brussels II ter system, but it is a Contracting Party to Hague 1996 (see the HCCH status table), so Hague 1996 is often the primary treaty lane for recognising/enforcing Romanian child protection measures there. HCCH status table (United Kingdom).

6) Two mini‑scenarios: RO→Italy (EU) and RO→UK (non‑EU)

These are simplified scenario maps to show sequencing and typical friction points. Real cases can involve additional layers (ongoing proceedings abroad, protective measures, or parallel mediation).

Scenario A: Enforcing a Romanian contact and handover order in Italy (EU)

Facts (example): A Romanian court issues an enforceable order setting a detailed contact schedule and ordering the child’s handover for certain holiday periods. The other parent lives with the child in Italy and does not comply voluntarily.

Legal lane: EU (Romania–Italy) → Brussels II ter applies, subject to the transitional date check (1 Aug 2022). EU e‑Justice (transitional note).

Legal effect in one line: recognition without a special procedure (Article 30(1)) and enforcement without a declaration of enforceability (Article 34(1)), provided the decision is enforceable in Romania. Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, Articles 30 and 34.

Action map:

Romania: obtain an authentic copy of the decision and the relevant Brussels II ter certificate (Article 36(1)(a)–(b)). Article 36.
Translation: prepare the translation that the Italian authority is likely to require (at minimum, free text fields of the certificate if requested under Article 36(1)(c), and in practice usually the operative part). Article 36(1)(c).
Italy: file for enforcement through the local route (court/bailiff or equivalent), using the EU document pack; request a concrete implementation protocol if needed (handover place, time windows, holiday calendar).
Neutralise refusal risks: anticipate objections linked to Article 39 (service and right to be heard; child’s opportunity to express views; irreconcilability with later decisions). Article 39.
Use Central Authorities where helpful: especially if cross‑border coordination is stuck; central authorities can assist with recognition/enforcement support (Article 79(c)). Article 79(c).

Urgency layer: if there is an urgent risk (for example, immediate secondary relocation), explore provisional protective measures where the child is present (Article 15(1)). Article 15.

Scenario B: Enforcing a Romanian residence/contact order in the UK (non‑EU)

Facts (example): A Romanian court issues an enforceable order on the child’s living arrangements and contact. The child is in England, and one parent wants to make the Romanian order effective in the UK.

Legal lane: UK post‑Brexit → Hague 1996 is often the primary treaty foundation for recognition/enforcement of child protection measures where applicable; the UK is listed as a Contracting Party in the HCCH status table. HCCH status table (United Kingdom).

Legal effect in one line: recognition by operation of law (Article 23), but enforcement usually requires a local declaration of enforceability or registration (Article 26), through a “simple and rapid” procedure (Article 26(2)), with no merits review (Article 27). Hague 1996, Articles 23, 26, 27.

Action map:

Confirm Hague 1996 coverage: verify the destination is a Contracting Party and that the Romanian order is a “measure” within the Convention’s scope. HCCH status table.
Prepare the Romanian decision pack: certified copy, evidence of enforceability where required by local procedure, and high‑quality translation for UK use; treaty documents are exempt from legalisation (Article 43), but translation is still a practical necessity. Hague 1996, Article 43.
UK filing for enforceability/registration: follow the local procedure required by Article 26(1) to obtain enforcement effect in the UK. Hague 1996, Article 26.
Use central authority cooperation where appropriate: Hague 1996 requires Central Authorities and cooperation duties (Articles 29–30). Hague 1996, Articles 29–30.

Urgency layer: if there is a genuine safety risk, you may need immediate protective action in the state where the child is present. Hague 1996 supports cooperation, but emergency child protection often relies on the destination state’s domestic protective measures, alongside treaty coordination. Hague 1996 (cooperation framework).

7) How to reduce predictable delays (lawfully)

Cross‑border enforcement drags for reasons that are surprisingly repeatable. Below are common bottlenecks and lawful ways to reduce them.

7.1 Clarity problems: vague orders are expensive abroad

Foreign enforcement authorities need operational clarity. “Reasonable contact” or “holidays by agreement” can be impossible to enforce in practice. The clearer the Romanian operative part (dates, times, locations, handover rules, communication, contingencies), the fewer interpretation fights you will fund abroad.

7.2 Procedural hygiene: service, right to be heard, and the child’s voice

In the EU lane, the most effective delay tactics often target procedural weaknesses because merits review is prohibited (Article 71), but refusal grounds still exist (Article 39). Brussels II ter, Articles 39 and 71.

Article 39 explicitly references service in default cases and the opportunity to be heard as potential refusal grounds. It also addresses (in certain circumstances) whether a child capable of forming views was given an opportunity to express those views, subject to exceptions. Brussels II ter, Article 39.

Practical takeaway: if you know enforcement abroad is likely, build a clean Romanian procedure record that anticipates these objections. That is legitimate procedural planning, not abuse.

7.3 Certificate mistakes: the hidden cause of multi‑month delays

Brussels II ter is certificate‑driven. Article 36 makes the certificate part of the enforcement document pack. Brussels II ter, Article 36. If the certificate is incomplete, inconsistent with the decision, or simply the wrong form, the enforcement state may pause the case until it is corrected.

The Regulation provides for rectification of the certificate where there is a material error or omission (Article 37). Brussels II ter, Article 37. In practice, it is faster to prevent certificate errors than to repair them under time pressure.

7.4 Translation strategy: translate what the decision actually needs to do

Translation is often treated as an afterthought, but it determines speed. Under Brussels II ter, translation may be required for the free text fields of the certificate (Article 36(1)(c)). Brussels II ter, Article 36(1)(c). Under Hague 1996, translation is not centralised in the Convention text, but it is practically unavoidable for local courts and enforcement authorities.

A practical approach is to translate (1) the operative part that must be executed, (2) the certificate (including free text), and (3) the minimum supporting pieces needed to pre‑empt procedural objections (service proof and hearing‑related key documents). Over‑translating the entire file can waste weeks without adding enforceability.

8) Checklist: what to give your lawyer to avoid losing months

This checklist is intentionally document‑heavy because enforcement delays are usually document‑caused.

The Romanian decision (latest enforceable version) plus any proof of enforceability/finality required by the relevant lane (EU or Hague 1996 procedure). EU e‑Justice (scope/transitional notes).
Proof of proper service and basic procedural steps (especially if the other parent was absent or abroad during proceedings), to reduce refusal risks (EU Article 39). Brussels II ter, Article 39.
Brussels II ter certificate (EU lane) issued by the Romanian court of origin (Article 36) and checked for consistency. Brussels II ter, Article 36.
Translations tailored to destination‑state needs (certificate free text where required; operative part; key procedural proofs). Brussels II ter, Article 36(1)(c).
Destination‑state facts bundle: child’s current address, school/nursery details, routine schedule, travel patterns, and any known compliance history.
Risk and urgency facts (verified facts only): imminent relocation risk, safety concerns, previous disappearances, threats—used to support lawful urgent/provisional measures where appropriate (EU Article 15). Brussels II ter, Article 15.
Parallel proceedings in the destination state (if any), including case numbers and court details; conflicts can complicate recognition/enforcement timing.

9) Common misconceptions (and what to do instead)

These assumptions cause delays or strategic mistakes:

“EU means automatic enforcement, so I can just show the Romanian order to anyone.” Recognition is without special procedure (Article 30(1)), but coercive enforcement still needs the document pack (Article 36) and local steps. Brussels II ter, Articles 30 and 36.
“Foreign judges can refuse because they disagree with the Romanian judge.” In the EU lane, merits review is prohibited (Article 71). Brussels II ter, Article 71.
“Non‑EU means nothing can be done.” If the destination is a party to Hague 1996, you have a treaty route with recognition (Article 23) and enforcement procedure (Article 26) and no merits review (Article 27). Hague 1996, Articles 23, 26, 27.
“Urgency means I should improvise.” Urgency should push you toward lawful provisional/protective measures and proper procedure, not shortcuts. In the EU lane, see Article 15. Brussels II ter, Article 15.

10) Complementary reading (international child abduction and blocked contact)

If your situation involves a wrongful removal/retention or severely blocked contact, the legal lane may shift to Hague 1980 return proceedings and EU cooperation tools. For a dedicated rapid guide, see this complementary reading: Răpire internațională de copii (RO) and International child abduction (EN).

11) Conclusions: a realistic strategy for getting real‑world compliance abroad

To enforce abroad a Romanian decision about a child, treat it as a cross‑border enforcement project:

Pick the correct lane early: EU Brussels II ter vs non‑EU Hague 1996 (or national law where no treaty applies). EU e‑Justice (scope/transitional notes) HCCH status table.
Build a defence‑resistant file: anticipate refusal grounds (service, hearing rights, child’s voice) within the limited refusal framework. Brussels II ter, Article 39.
Invest in operational clarity: orders that are vague on dates and handover mechanics become slow abroad.
Use urgency lawfully: bridge measures can preserve the situation until enforcement catches up (EU Article 15). Brussels II ter, Article 15.

Sources

CTA

If you need to enforce abroad a Romanian custody/contact/residence order (EU or non‑EU), a good first step is a fast case‑mapping call: which instrument applies, what certificate/document pack is needed, where the enforcement entry point is in the destination state, and what refusal risks should be neutralised. For contact details, see Contact lawyer in Bucharest – Alexandru Măglaș.