Freezing Orders, Seizures and Garnishments in Romania Affecting Non-Residents

• what kinds of enforcement and precautionary measures exist in civil, tax and criminal proceedings;
• how a debtor living abroad typically finds out that Romanian assets have been frozen;
• what remedies are available (including contesting enforcement and seeking suspension);
• how cross-border rules allow foreign judgments to be enforced in Romania and Romanian judgments to be enforced abroad.

The main legal frameworks are the Romanian Civil Procedure Code (Codul de procedură civilă), the Fiscal Procedure Code (Codul de procedură fiscală), and the Criminal Procedure Code (Codul de procedură penală), together with EU instruments on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and cross-border preservation measures.

Types of Enforcement Measures in Romanian Law

1. Civil enforcement: seizures, garnishments and freezing measures

Civil enforcement (executare silită) is the procedure through which a creditor uses the court and a court bailiff (executor judecătoresc) to force a debtor to comply with an enforceable title. The civil framework is regulated mainly by the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that enforcement aims to realise the obligations contained in enforceable titles when the debtor does not voluntarily comply. The Code’s enforcement provisions cover all standard forms of enforcement, including attachment of movable and immovable assets, garnishment, and precautionary seals or seizures on assets as guarantees.

An enforceable title can be a final court judgment, a domestic or foreign arbitral award, a notarised deed, a certain administrative act, or other instruments expressly declared enforceable by law. Once the creditor has such a title, they may obtain an enforcement order from the competent court (instanța de executare) and then instruct a bailiff to start enforcement. For non-residents, this often means a Romanian bailiff acts against assets located in Romania—even if the debtor lives abroad.

Common civil enforcement measures affecting non-residents include:

• Garnishment of bank accounts (poprire pe conturi bancare) – a classic method used to freeze and ultimately collect amounts from Romanian bank accounts. The bailiff sends a garnishment notice (adresă de înființare a popririi) to the bank, which must immediately block the funds up to the amount stated and notify both debtor and creditor. Romanian law treats garnishment as a form of enforcement directed at a third party (the bank) who holds the debtor’s funds.
• Garnishment of wages and similar periodic income – if the debtor receives a salary, pension or other periodic earnings from a payer in Romania, the bailiff can order that payer to withhold a portion of those sums within the legal limits (for example, only a part of a salary can be garnished, depending on the number and type of debts).
• Attachment and sale of movable assets – vehicles, equipment, goods or other movables located in Romania can be seized and sold by public auction.
• Enforced sale of real estate – real property located in Romania can be subject to a forced sale via auction after being listed in enforcement proceedings and annotated in the land book (cartea funciară), making third parties aware that the property is under enforcement.
• Civil precautionary measures (sechestru asigurător) – before there is a final judgment or even during litigation, a creditor may ask the court to impose a provisional seizure over assets (for example, a Romanian apartment or bank account) to ensure that the debtor does not dissipate them. These measures are regulated by the Civil Procedure Code’s provisions on precautionary measures and require a plausible claim and risk of non-recovery.

For a non-resident, the key point is that civil enforcement is asset-based: if assets are located in Romania, they can be targeted even if the debtor lives and works elsewhere. This also means civil enforcement can be combined with foreign enforcement efforts in the debtor’s state of residence, depending on cross-border rules.

2. Tax enforcement under the Fiscal Procedure Code

Tax enforcement (executare silită fiscală) is handled by the tax authorities (in particular ANAF – Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală) under the Fiscal Procedure Code. Unlike civil enforcement, tax enforcement is triggered not by a court judgment but by a fiscal administrative act (for example, a tax assessment decision) that becomes enforceable once deadlines for payment have expired and any domestic administrative remedies have been exhausted or not used.

The Fiscal Procedure Code allows the tax authority to use similar tools to those of civil enforcement: garnishment of bank accounts, garnishment of wages, seizure and sale of movable and immovable assets, and other measures necessary to secure payment of tax debts. The Code explicitly regulates tax garnishment and the powers of the tax authority to address banks, employers and other third parties. ANAF also uses a centralised electronic system to communicate with banks in Romania, streamlining the process of identifying and freezing debtors’ accounts.

Tax enforcement has some important specificities:

• The tax authority acts directly based on its own enforceable instruments (title executoriu fiscal), without needing an enforcement order from a civil court.
• For EU-based non-residents, tax debts may be enforced in other Member States based on the EU mutual assistance framework on tax recovery (for example, Directive 2010/24/EU on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes and duties, implemented in Romania via the Fiscal Procedure Code and related regulations). This allows a tax claim arising in Romania to be recovered in another EU state and vice versa.
• The Fiscal Procedure Code provides its own rules on challenging tax enforcement acts and on suspending tax enforcement when a guarantee is provided (for example, via a bank guarantee letter or insurance policy at the level of the contested tax liability).

For a non-resident debtor, tax enforcement often appears suddenly as a bank freeze by ANAF, following a period during which tax notices were sent (sometimes only to a Romanian address or through electronic channels that the debtor may not have checked). Because tax debts can also be enforced abroad through mutual assistance, the fact that assets are outside Romania does not necessarily shield them from enforcement once cooperation procedures are triggered.

3. Criminal precautionary measures (masuri asiguratorii penale)

In criminal proceedings, the Criminal Procedure Code allows investigators and courts to impose precautionary measures on assets in order to secure confiscation, fines, court costs or civil claims of victims (for example, damages claimed by an injured party). These measures, regulated in particular by Article 249 and following provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, include:

• Sequestration (sechestru asigurător) over movable and immovable property, including real estate, vehicles and other assets located in Romania, regardless of whether the owner is resident or non-resident.
• Garnishment of bank accounts or other receivables (poprire asigurătorie), including bank accounts held with Romanian banks and receivables such as salaries paid in Romania.
• The possibility to target assets belonging not only to suspects or defendants, but also to third parties in specific circumstances (for example, where assets may be subject to extended confiscation or are suspected of being derived from criminal activity).

Unlike civil and tax enforcement, criminal precautionary measures do not immediately result in payment to a creditor. They are mainly freezing tools: they immobilise assets to ensure they remain available until the criminal case is resolved. Only after a final criminal judgment may the court order confiscation or enforce civil claims, leading to actual transfer of value. However, from the debtor’s day-to-day perspective, the effect is similar to enforcement: accounts are blocked, property cannot be sold, and significant restrictions are imposed.

Non-residents are frequently affected where criminal proceedings in Romania concern alleged tax offences, fraud, money laundering or corruption involving cross-border elements. A foreign-based individual may have his or her Romanian bank accounts or properties frozen even if they are not physically present in the country.

4. How civil, tax and criminal measures overlap

It is possible for the same debtor and the same Romanian asset to be targeted by several legal regimes at once. For example, a non-resident shareholder of a Romanian company may be involved in civil litigation with a private creditor, face tax audits and assessments, and also be under criminal investigation. Romanian law allows each regime to impose its own measures, but certain rules govern priority:

• In practice, criminal precautionary measures often take precedence in order to safeguard confiscation and compensation of victims, especially in serious offences.
• Tax claims may enjoy privileges or priority in distribution of proceeds, depending on the nature of the claim and the type of asset.
• Civil creditors typically share in the proceeds according to the general ranking of claims, subject to privileges and security interests (e.g., mortgages, pledges).

When multiple measures overlap, the non-resident debtor must first identify which authority ordered which measure (bailiff, tax authority, prosecutor, criminal court) and under which legal framework, because the available remedies and deadlines differ substantially.

How a Foreign-Based Debtor Learns About Romanian Seizures

1. Typical notification channels

Romanian law requires that enforcement and precautionary measures be communicated to the parties. However, for non-residents, communication can be imperfect in practice. The main channels are:

• Written notices from the bailiff – In civil enforcement, the bailiff must send an enforcement summons (somație) and inform the debtor of specific enforcement acts (for example, garnishment or scheduling of an auction). If the debtor’s last known address is in Romania, documents are usually delivered there. If the address is abroad, service is done through international channels (for example, via postal service, diplomatic channels, or according to EU regulations on service of documents in civil and commercial matters), which can take time.
• Bank notifications – Banks receiving a garnishment notice must freeze the accounts and inform both the debtor and the creditor within short statutory deadlines. Non-residents often first notice the issue when a card transaction is refused, then receive an email, SMS or online banking message informing them that funds are blocked pursuant to an enforcement or precautionary measure.
• Notifications from employers or payers – For wage garnishments, the Romanian employer (or other payer of income) is required to withhold part of the salary and inform the employee that this is being done due to an enforcement measure. For non-residents working remotely for a Romanian employer or receiving a Romanian pension, this may be the first explicit notice they receive.
• Notices from ANAF and other authorities – In tax enforcement, the Fiscal Procedure Code requires ANAF to send enforcement documents (somație, notification of garnishment, etc.) to the taxpayer. These can be delivered to the registered fiscal domicile in Romania, via registered mail or via the electronic tax portal (Spațiul Privat Virtual). EU mutual assistance procedures may also involve the tax authority of the debtor’s state of residence, which can forward or serve documents locally.
• Notifications in criminal proceedings – In criminal cases, measures such as seizure or garnishment are ordered by the prosecutor or court, and the affected person should be informed through official communications. If the person resides abroad, service may be conducted or facilitated through international cooperation mechanisms and, in EU contexts, via the instruments on mutual legal assistance and cooperation.

2. Why non-residents often find out late

In reality, many foreign-based debtors find out about Romanian enforcement or freezing measures only after they are already in effect. Common reasons include:

• Outdated contact information – The creditor or authority may only have an old Romanian address (for example, one listed in an old contract, a former rental, or in the Romanian population registry). Documents are served there and deemed legally communicated, even though the debtor no longer lives at that address.
• Failure to use Romanian electronic portals – Non-residents may not be actively using Romanian government portals or may not have created accounts, so electronic communications (like ANAF messages) go unread.
• Service abroad taking time or failing – Cross-border service may be delayed or complicated by translation requirements or address issues. In some cases documents are returned as undeliverable, but enforcement proceeds based on domestic rules allowing continuation after attempts at service.
• Surprise effect of certain measures – Both national law and EU instruments like the European Account Preservation Order contemplate ex parte measures that are adopted without prior notice to the debtor precisely to ensure a surprise effect. This is particularly relevant for bank account freezing in cross-border cases.

As a result, non-resident debtors often first discover that something is wrong when they attempt an ATM withdrawal, a card payment, or a property transaction and find that the asset is blocked.

3. What to do immediately if you discover a freeze

If you are abroad and discover that a Romanian account or asset is frozen, you should try to obtain the following information as quickly as possible:

• Which authority ordered the measure? Ask the bank, employer or relevant third party for a copy of the garnishment or seizure order, including the file number and the name of the bailiff, prosecutor or tax authority.
• Who is the creditor or claimant? Identify whether this relates to a bank loan, a commercial debt, a tax liability, a maintenance claim, criminal proceedings, etc.
• Is the measure civil, fiscal or criminal? The type of measure determines the procedural deadlines and the court or authority competent to hear a challenge.
• What amount is claimed? Check whether the frozen amount exceeds the claim or whether multiple measures exist over the same account (civil and tax, for example).

Once the basic information is clear, you can assess the available remedies and their time limits. This usually requires appointing a Romanian lawyer with a power of attorney who can access the enforcement or criminal file, obtain copies of the underlying titles, and lodge the appropriate challenges in time.

Rights and Remedies: Contesting Enforcement, Challenging the Underlying Decision, Suspension

1. Contesting civil enforcement (contestație la executare)

In civil matters, the main remedy against enforcement is the contestație la executare (challenge to enforcement). The Civil Procedure Code devotes an entire chapter to this remedy. In short:

• Any interested person (the debtor, a third party whose assets are affected, sometimes even the creditor) may file a challenge against the legality of enforcement itself, individual enforcement acts (such as garnishment, seizure, auction, distribution of proceeds), or the refusal of the bailiff to conduct an act.
• The challenge is filed with the enforcement court (typically the district court – judecătoria – determined by the rules on enforcement jurisdiction, which often look to the place where enforcement takes place or the debtor’s domicile).
• The time limit is generally 15 days from the date the contesting party became aware of the enforcement act being challenged. For garnishment, the 15-day term typically runs from receipt of the garnishment notice or, where garnishment affects periodic income, from the first withholding. The Code provides detailed rules on how this term runs and allows certain challenges (for example, those concerning clarification of the meaning or scope of the enforceable title) to be brought within the limitation period for enforcement, not only within 15 days.
• The challenge can, in certain cases, also attack the enforceable title itself, especially where it is not a court judgment (for example, a contractual or notarial title) and there is no other specific procedure to dispute the underlying obligation.

A successful challenge can result in the annulment of the enforcement in whole or in part, the annulment of specific acts (for example, a garnishment that exceeds legal limits), the correction of mistakes, or the clarification of the title. For non-residents, it is essential to respect the 15-day deadline counted from the date they actually learn of the measure, especially where service at an old address was used; Romanian courts will examine when the debtor effectively became aware, but they may also rely on the legal presumption of service at the address indicated.

2. Suspension of civil enforcement

Filing a challenge does not automatically suspend enforcement. To prevent irreparable harm (for example, sale of a property or full withdrawal of funds), the debtor can request suspension of enforcement under Article 719 of the Civil Procedure Code. Key features include:

• The enforcement court may suspend enforcement until the challenge is decided, at the request of an interested party and for serious reasons (motive temeinice). Serious reasons can include the risk of irreversible damage if enforcement continues and a reasonable appearance that the challenge may be well-founded.
• As a rule, the party seeking suspension must deposit a security (cauțiune) calculated as a percentage of the contested amount, according to a legal formula that scales with the value in dispute.
• The Code also allows for provisional suspension in urgent cases, sometimes even without hearing the other side in advance, especially when the debtor risks immediate loss of essential assets (for example, a family home or funds necessary for subsistence).
• Recent case law and EU consumer protection jurisprudence have influenced the way Romanian courts apply security requirements, particularly where enforcement involves consumer contracts with potentially abusive clauses. In some situations, courts may reduce or eliminate the security to ensure effective protection, especially for low-income debtors.

For a non-resident debtor, suspension is often the most urgent remedy: even if the final challenge succeeds, it may be impossible to recover funds already paid out to creditors or third parties. Therefore, a typical strategy is to file both the challenge to enforcement and the suspension request at the same time.

3. Challenging tax enforcement

Tax enforcement has its own remedy structure under the Fiscal Procedure Code. Key points are:

• Tax debts are generally established through administrative acts (decisions on tax obligations, enforcement titles) that can be contested first through an administrative appeal within the tax system and then, if necessary, before the administrative courts.
• Enforcement acts (such as garnishments and seizures) can be challenged via a form of tax enforcement challenge, regulated specifically under the Fiscal Procedure Code. The Code provides that any interested person may challenge any enforcement act carried out by tax enforcement bodies, as well as the refusal of those bodies to carry out an enforcement act in the conditions of the law.
• Similar to civil enforcement, tax enforcement challenges are usually subject to short deadlines (often 15 days from communication or awareness of the act), although specific rules and exceptions apply depending on the situation.
• Article 233 of the Fiscal Procedure Code and related provisions regulate the suspension of tax enforcement. One important mechanism, detailed in Article 235, allows suspension (or non-commencement) of enforcement if the debtor provides a guarantee (such as a bank guarantee letter or insurance policy) at the level of the contested tax obligations. In practice, this is frequently used by companies and sometimes by individuals to protect cashflow pending resolution of tax disputes.

For non-residents who are not deeply familiar with Romanian tax procedures, the main risks are missing deadlines and not using the guarantee-based suspension mechanism in time. If a tax assessment is contested in court but no guarantee is provided, enforcement may move forward even while the litigation is pending.

4. Challenging criminal precautionary measures

In criminal proceedings, the Criminal Procedure Code allows the person affected by a precautionary measure to challenge it before the competent court. The procedure typically involves:

• Filing a challenge (contestație) against the order imposing seizure or garnishment, usually within a short statutory deadline after communication of the order (for example, 3 days in some situations, depending on the nature of the measure and the procedural stage).
• Arguing that the legal conditions for the measure are not met (for example, lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the offence, disproportionate nature of the measure, absence of a real risk of dissipation, or erroneous identification of assets as proceeds of crime).
• Requesting either the lifting of the measure or its replacement with a less intrusive measure (for example, a limited freeze or substitution with another asset).

Because criminal measures are closely linked to the merits of the criminal case, they often require a substantive defence strategy. For non-residents, practical difficulties include appointing defence counsel in Romania, ensuring proper translation of documents, and coordinating defence in parallel proceedings in other countries where similar measures may exist.

5. Challenging the underlying decision

Beyond attacking enforcement or precautionary measures, a debtor may also need to tackle the underlying title that gave rise to enforcement:

• In civil matters, this means appealing or seeking extraordinary review of the judgment (where deadlines permit), or challenging the validity of a non-judicial enforceable title (for example, a notarial deed or a bank contract with allegedly abusive clauses).
• In tax matters, it involves contesting the tax assessment or other administrative acts in the administrative and administrative-litigation stages, arguing errors of law or fact (for example, statute of limitation, misinterpretation of tax rules, double taxation).
• In criminal matters, it involves defending the case on the merits and, if necessary, appealing a conviction that orders confiscation or upholds civil claims.

For non-residents, it is crucial to understand that enforcement remedies and remedies on the merits are separate and complementary. Successfully challenging enforcement may stop or limit immediate measures, but if the underlying title remains in force, the creditor may resume enforcement later. Conversely, even if the underlying title is eventually overturned, there may be significant damage if enforcement was not suspended in time.

Cross-Border Aspects: Enforcement of Foreign Titles in Romania and Vice Versa

1. EU framework for civil and commercial judgments

In civil and commercial matters between EU Member States, the main instrument is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis), which replaced the earlier Brussels I Regulation. Among other things, it provides:

• rules on jurisdiction of courts in civil and commercial matters;
• principles for recognition of judgments in other Member States;
• a simplified regime for enforcement, under which most judgments are enforceable in another Member State without a separate exequatur procedure (the former declaration of enforceability).

For a non-resident debtor, this means that a judgment delivered by a court in another EU Member State can be enforced in Romania using Brussels I bis, and conversely, a Romanian judgment can be enforced in another Member State under the same Regulation. Once a foreign judgment is recognised under Brussels I bis, Romanian enforcement law applies to the concrete measures: a Romanian bailiff can then garnish Romanian bank accounts, seize property, etc.

2. European Account Preservation Order (EAPO)

Another crucial EU instrument for cross-border enforcement is Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, which established the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO). This Regulation allows a creditor to obtain, in one Member State, a single order to freeze bank accounts located in other Member States on a provisional basis, without prior notice to the debtor, provided certain cross-border conditions are met.

Key features relevant to non-residents include:

• The EAPO applies in civil and commercial matters with a cross-border element, excluding certain fields such as insolvency, social security, and arbitration.
• The order can be requested before, during or after proceedings on the merits, but is purely protective: it does not by itself transfer funds to the creditor; it merely freezes them.
• The Regulation applies in Romania as an EU Member State (with some Member States opting out), so Romanian courts and banks can issue and implement EAPOs.
• Debtors have a set of procedural rights and remedies (for example, to challenge the order, to request its modification, or to seek its revocation in the Member State of origin or enforcement).

For a non-resident with Romanian bank accounts, an EAPO obtained in another EU country can result in those Romanian accounts being frozen even before any domestic enforcement procedure is visible. Conversely, a creditor with a Romanian judgment can seek an EAPO to freeze accounts you hold in other EU Member States, again without advance notice.

3. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Romania (non-EU and mixed situations)

Outside the Brussels I bis and EAPO regimes, foreign judgments are recognised and enforced in Romania based on a combination of:

• Romanian domestic private international law (including the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments);
• international treaties to which Romania is a party (including bilateral treaties and, more recently, the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, which has entered into force for the EU and Ukraine);
• EU instruments covering specific matters (such as family law or maintenance obligations), where applicable.

The usual path is an exequatur procedure before a Romanian court, during which the court verifies whether certain conditions are met (for example, that the foreign court had jurisdiction, that the judgment is final in the state of origin, that it is not contrary to Romanian public policy, and that there is reciprocity if required). Once recognition is granted, the foreign judgment is treated much like a Romanian judgment and can be enforced by Romanian bailiffs using standard enforcement tools, including bank garnishment and seizures.

For non-residents, this means that judgments obtained against them in other states (for example, their home country) can be brought to Romania for enforcement against Romanian assets, subject to the exequatur conditions. It also means they can use Romanian courts to enforce foreign judgments in their favour against assets located in Romania.

4. Recognition and enforcement of Romanian judgments abroad

The cross-border story works both ways. If a creditor obtains a judgment in Romania against a non-resident debtor who has most assets abroad, the creditor can seek to enforce the Romanian judgment in the debtor’s state of residence. Depending on the jurisdiction, mechanisms include:

• direct application of Brussels I bis for EU-based assets, allowing relatively straightforward enforcement in other Member States;
• use of EU instruments specific to the claim type (for example, the European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims under Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, or the European order for payment under Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006);
• reliance on the Hague Judgments Convention and national private international law rules, where applicable, for non-EU countries or special categories of judgments.

In practice, if your Romanian bank account is frozen, that may only be one piece of a broader enforcement strategy targeting assets in multiple jurisdictions. It is therefore important to coordinate defence not only in Romania but also in the countries where you hold significant assets.

5. Cross-border tax recovery

Tax debts are subject to a separate EU framework for mutual assistance in recovery, embodied in Directive 2010/24/EU and its implementing measures. This framework allows tax authorities in one Member State to request assistance from counterparts in another Member State to recover tax claims, including:

• exchanging information relevant for tax recovery;
• serving documents relating to tax claims;
• taking recovery and precautionary measures in the requested state based on instruments issued in the applicant state.

For a non-resident with Romanian tax debts, this means:

• Romania can request the tax authority in your state of residence to enforce Romanian tax debts against your local assets, following the requested state’s enforcement procedures but based on Romanian claims;
• conversely, your state of residence can request Romanian authorities to enforce foreign tax claims against assets you hold in Romania.

This system reduces the effectiveness of “moving abroad” as a strategy to escape tax enforcement. It also means that tax disputes should be taken seriously early, before they lead to cross-border enforcement that is harder to unwind.

Practical Illustrations and Strategic Considerations for Non-Residents

1. Example: Civil loan dispute and Romanian bank account freezing

Imagine an Italian resident who, while living in Bucharest, took out a loan from a Romanian bank and later moved back to Italy without fully repaying. The bank sues in Romania, obtains a judgment, and instructs a bailiff to enforce it. The bailiff discovers that the debtor still has a Romanian bank account and a small apartment in Romania.

The bailiff obtains an enforcement order, sends a garnishment notice to the Romanian bank, and starts procedures to seize and auction the apartment. The debtor, living in Italy, first notices that the Romanian bank card no longer works. Upon contacting the bank, he learns that his account is frozen and that enforcement proceedings are ongoing. When he appoints a Romanian lawyer and obtains the enforcement file, he discovers potential procedural irregularities (such as failure to properly serve the original lawsuit).

The strategic options include:

• filing a challenge to enforcement (contestație la executare) within 15 days from learning of the enforcement acts, invoking improper service and other procedural defects;
• simultaneously requesting suspension of enforcement, arguing serious reasons (risk of irreparable damage if the apartment is sold), and depositing security if required;
• where deadlines still permit, attacking the underlying judgment (for example, with an appeal or extraordinary remedies), especially if he truly never had a fair opportunity to defend himself.

If the challenge is successful, enforcement may be annulled, the garnishment lifted, and the apartment recovered, though costs and time must be factored in. If it fails, the debtor will likely face continued enforcement in Romania and potentially in Italy under Brussels I bis.

2. Example: Tax debt arising after emigration

A Romanian citizen moves to Germany and remains registered as a shareholder in a Romanian company that later accumulates tax debts. ANAF issues tax assessment decisions and enforcement titles against the company and, in certain situations, against the individual as a responsible person. Notices are sent to the old Romanian address and to the company’s registered office. After some time, ANAF initiates enforcement and garnishes a Romanian bank account where the individual still receives occasional transfers from clients.

The individual discovers the situation when a transfer fails. Upon investigation, she learns that the tax assessments became final because no administrative appeal was filed in time. At this point, her options are limited but may include:

• challenging specific tax enforcement acts (for example, arguing that certain assets do not belong to her personally, or that enforcement exceeds legal limits);
• where possible, seeking exceptional remedies against the underlying tax decisions (for example, where serious procedural defects occurred);
• negotiating payment arrangements or rescheduling, especially if ANAF has already made use of EU mutual assistance mechanisms to seek recovery in Germany.

Additionally, if she decides to challenge the tax assessments in court, she could explore suspension of tax enforcement by providing a guarantee at the level of the contested amounts. This may unfreeze certain assets while the dispute is resolved, though the cost of obtaining the guarantee must be carefully evaluated.

3. Example: Criminal investigation and freezing of Romanian property

A non-resident entrepreneur is under investigation in Romania for alleged VAT fraud involving cross-border trade. The prosecutor orders precautionary seizure of several assets, including a Romanian apartment and bank accounts held in Romania, arguing the need to secure potential confiscation and damages to the state budget.

The entrepreneur lives in another EU country and learns of the measures only when a planned sale of the apartment falls through due to land book annotations showing seizure. The bank also reports that the accounts are blocked. In response, his defence team can:

• file challenges against the precautionary measures, arguing disproportion, lack of sufficient evidence linking the assets to the alleged offences, or that the value of the seized assets vastly exceeds any realistic claim;
• request modification of the measures (for example, partial lifting to allow sale of the apartment with the price being frozen, or substitution with other guarantees);
• coordinate with defence in other countries, where related investigations or measures (such as EAPOs or domestic freezing orders) may be in place.

Given the complexity and potential for parallel proceedings in multiple jurisdictions, early coordination and comprehensive strategy are essential.

4. Concrete steps if your Romanian assets are frozen and you are abroad

For non-residents facing freezing orders, seizures or garnishments in Romania, a practical roadmap often includes:

1. Obtain full documentation – Ask the bank, employer, notary or any involved third party to provide copies of all notices received (garnishment orders, seizure orders, letters from bailiffs or authorities). Your Romanian lawyer should also request the enforcement or criminal file to see the entire picture.
2. Identify the legal regime – Determine whether you are dealing with civil enforcement, tax enforcement, criminal precautionary measures, or a combination. The legal basis will usually be indicated on the documents (references to the Civil Procedure Code, Fiscal Procedure Code or Criminal Procedure Code).
3. Calculate and respect deadlines – Note the date on which you became aware of each measure and the statutory deadlines for challenges (often 15 days in civil and fiscal enforcement, shorter in some criminal contexts). Missing a deadline can drastically reduce your options.
4. Assess the possibility of suspension – Explore immediate suspension of enforcement in civil or tax cases or modification of precautionary measures in criminal cases to avoid irreversible harm.
5. Review the underlying claim – Evaluate whether the underlying judgment, tax decision or criminal allegations can be challenged domestically or whether cross-border aspects (for example, jurisdiction or public policy) offer additional arguments.
6. Consider cross-border implications – If you have assets in other EU states, anticipate the use of Brussels I bis, EAPO or tax mutual assistance instruments. Likewise, consider whether you may be able to use those instruments yourself to enforce your own claims abroad.
7. Ensure proper representation – Appoint a Romanian lawyer and, where necessary, lawyers in other involved jurisdictions. Provide them with full information on your assets, income, and prior proceedings to allow a coherent strategy.

Ultimately, the fact that you are a non-resident does not prevent Romanian authorities, courts and creditors from acting against your Romanian assets. But you are not without protections: Romanian law and EU instruments provide a dense network of rights and remedies that can be used effectively, provided you act promptly and with informed legal assistance.