Why “freezing orders” matter in Romania (and what the Romanian toolbox actually looks like)
Parties litigating or arbitrating abroad sometimes discover that the counterparty’s meaningful assets are in Romania: bank accounts, receivables, real estate, inventory, shares, or other property. In that scenario, the commercial pressure point is not necessarily the foreign merits hearing; it is whether you can preserve assets on Romanian territory long enough for the foreign court or arbitral tribunal to reach a final decision, and then enforce it effectively.
Romanian civil procedure does not use the common-law label “worldwide freezing order,” but it does offer robust interim instruments with similar economic effects. The Romanian Code of Civil Procedure (Codul de procedură civilă) provides (i) conservatory measures that immobilize assets pending the merits (for example, sechestru asigurător and poprire asigurătorie) and (ii) urgent injunction-style relief through the ordonanța președințială procedure, which can order temporary measures to prevent harm caused by delay (CPC, Arts. 952–959, 970–971 and 997–1002).
From a cross-border perspective, the most important distinction is between applying for a Romanian interim measure (a Romanian court orders a Romanian remedy that is enforceable in Romania) and trying to “enforce” a foreign interim order in Romania (which is often legally constrained). This distinction becomes decisive in non-EU contexts because Romanian law prohibits the enforcement of non-EU foreign judgments that order conservatory measures or are provisionally enforceable (CPC, Art. 1.103(2)).
This article is organized around three practical questions: (1) what interim measures and “freezing” tools are available in Romania; (2) what conditions the applicant must satisfy (urgency, risk, prima facie showing and security); and (3) how Romanian courts approach interim measures when the merits are pending abroad, including under EU rules such as the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012).
Types of Interim Measures Available
1) Sechestru asigurător (conservatory attachment over assets)
The most direct Romanian analogue to an “asset freeze” for monetary claims is sechestru asigurător (conservatory attachment). The Code defines it as the immobilization of the debtor’s attachable movable and/or immovable assets (including assets held by a third party) to secure future enforcement once the creditor obtains an enforceable title (CPC, Art. 952).
Procedurally, the measure is authorized by a court and implemented through enforcement mechanics. The decision on the request is made urgently, in chambers, and as a rule without summoning the parties (CPC, Art. 954(2)). The order is enforceable and specifies the maximum amount secured and, where applicable, the security amount and the time limit for posting it (CPC, Art. 954(2)).
For cross-border disputes, conservatory attachment is most valuable when the assets to be immobilized are physically or legally located in Romania (immovable property, vehicles, goods, equipment, shares) and the creditor fears dissipation before a foreign merits decision is rendered. As with any interim measure, the practical effectiveness depends on locating assets and executing swiftly through the mechanisms provided by Romanian law (CPC, Arts. 954–959).
2) Poprire asigurătorie (conservatory garnishment of receivables, including bank accounts)
Poprire asigurătorie (conservatory garnishment) targets receivables and other attachable intangible assets owed to the debtor by a third party. The Code allows it over sums of money, securities, or other intangible movable assets owed to the debtor by a third person, including amounts to be owed in the future under existing relationships, subject to the conditions for conservatory measures (CPC, Art. 970 and Art. 953).
This is often the most operationally useful “bank account freeze” analogue, because banks are usually the relevant third parties and the Code reduces the burden to identify third-party debtors in advance in the case of a bank garnishment request (CPC, Art. 971(2)). Procedurally, the solution, execution, lifting, and related issues follow the conservatory attachment rules by reference (CPC, Art. 971(1) referencing Arts. 954–959).
3) Sechestru judiciar (judicial sequestration of disputed property)
When the dispute concerns a specific asset (ownership, possession, use, or administration), sechestru judiciar (judicial sequestration) can preserve it by immobilizing the property and placing it under the custody of an administrator-sequestrator (CPC, Arts. 972–976).
The Code allows the measure (i) during a pending dispute about a right in rem, possession, or the use/administration of a common property asset, if necessary for preservation, and (ii) even without a pending lawsuit in certain scenarios, for example where there are serious reasons to fear removal, destruction, or deterioration (CPC, Art. 973(1)–(2)).
When judicial sequestration is ordered without an existing lawsuit, the party obtaining it must introduce the main action, initiate steps to constitute an arbitral tribunal, or request enforcement of an enforceable title within 20 days, failing which the measure is lifted by operation of law (CPC, Art. 973(3)–(4)). This statutory deadline is especially relevant for “support” measures, because it forces prompt alignment between Romanian interim relief and the foreign merits route.
4) Ordonanța președințială (urgent injunction-style relief)
The presidential ordinance procedure is Romania’s flexible urgent relief tool. The Code permits temporary measures in urgent cases to preserve a right that would be harmed by delay, to prevent an imminent and irreparable harm, or to remove obstacles arising during enforcement (CPC, Art. 997(1)).
Two features make this remedy attractive for cross-border settings. First, it is not limited to monetary claims: the relief can require or prohibit conduct, set interim factual arrangements, or preserve a status quo. Second, the court may take into account the “appearance of right” (aparența de drept) while still being prohibited from prejudging the merits (CPC, Art. 997(2) and Art. 997(5)).
The procedure is designed for speed. The request is judged urgently and with priority, with short time limits and, in particularly urgent cases, the order can be issued without summoning the parties; the order is enforceable (CPC, Art. 998(1)). The Code also provides an appeal route and accelerated deadlines (CPC, Arts. 999–1000).
5) IP-specific provisional measures
The Code contains a dedicated chapter on provisional measures in intellectual property matters. If the right holder provides credible proof that their IP rights are subject to an unlawful act (actual or imminent) and that this act risks causing hard-to-repair harm, the court may order provisional measures, including provisional cessation, prohibitions, and evidence-preservation steps (CPC, Art. 979(1)–(2)).
These IP provisional measures are processed using the presidential ordinance model (CPC, Art. 979(4)) and are consistent with EU-level enforcement expectations reflected in Directive 2004/48/EC.
The Code also builds in balance and safeguards: the court may order the applicant to post security if the measure could cause harm to the other side, and provisional measures ordered before the merits action will lapse if the claimant does not bring the merits case within the time fixed by the court, but no later than 30 days (CPC, Art. 979(5)–(6)).
6) Evidence-related interim tools: urgent fact-finding and preservation
Not every cross-border “interim” need is about immobilizing assets. In some disputes, the central urgency is to preserve evidence located in Romania (a physical condition, an inventory, an installation, or digital traces). Romanian procedure includes mechanisms to document a factual situation urgently through the court or a bailiff in the scenarios described by the Code (CPC, Arts. 364–365).
These tools can be strategically combined with foreign merits proceedings: the merits may proceed abroad, while Romanian law supplies the procedural pathway to capture the evidence before it changes, in a manner that is documented and can later be presented in the foreign forum subject to its rules of evidence.
7) Interim measures connected to ships and port situations
The Code includes detailed rules on conservatory measures over ships and related urgency scenarios, including the execution of attachment by immobilization and the possibility of urgent measures through the presidential ordinance route for port traffic and safety (CPC, Arts. 961–968).
Two cross-border points stand out. First, ship-related conservatory measures have their own jurisdictional rule, focusing on the location of the ship in Romania (CPC, Art. 962). Second, where a ship attachment is ordered before a merits claim is filed, the creditor must file the merits action or initiate steps to constitute an arbitral tribunal within 20 days (CPC, Art. 961(1)), a mechanism that expressly contemplates arbitration as the merits path.
8) Interim measures in support of arbitration under Romanian procedural law
Romanian procedure explicitly recognizes that interim measures can be ordered in arbitration contexts. The Code provides that before or during arbitral proceedings, parties may request the court to order conservatory and provisional measures, and once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, it may also order such measures within its competence (CPC, Art. 585(1)–(2)).
The Code also addresses enforcement mechanics: arbitral measures are enforced by a bailiff; if enforcement is opposed, the court orders enforcement upon request in a hearing with the parties summoned (CPC, Art. 585(3)–(4)).
Conditions (urgency, risk, prima facie case)
1) Start by choosing the correct procedural vehicle
The conditions you must prove depend on the interim measure you request. Attachment-style measures are built around securing monetary enforcement and generally require a written evidentiary basis plus a litigation anchor (proof of a filed merits claim) and, in some cases, security (CPC, Art. 953). By contrast, presidential-ordinance relief is built around urgency and temporary non-prejudging conduct regulation (CPC, Art. 997).
In practice, the applicant often uses conservatory garnishment or attachment to immobilize assets and, separately, a presidential ordinance to regulate conduct (for example, preventing a transfer of a specific asset, compelling a temporary act to avoid irreparable harm, or maintaining a factual status quo) when those statutory grounds are met (CPC, Art. 997(1)).
2) Urgency and risk: how the Code frames the “need” for interim relief
For the presidential ordinance, urgency is explicit. The Code lists three categories: preserving a right that would be harmed by delay, preventing imminent harm that cannot be repaired, and removing obstacles during enforcement (CPC, Art. 997(1)). These categories can be translated into a practical evidentiary narrative: what will happen in the next days or weeks if the court does not intervene, and why later monetary damages would not be an adequate remedy.
For conservatory attachment and garnishment, the “risk” requirement is framed through statutory scenarios about due and not-yet-due claims. Where the claim is due and evidenced in writing, attachment may be ordered if the creditor proves it has filed the merits action (CPC, Art. 953(1)). Where the claim is not evidenced in writing, attachment remains possible but the creditor must file the merits action and post security set by the court (CPC, Art. 953(2)).
Where the claim is not yet due, the Code still permits attachment if the debtor reduced safeguards, failed to provide promised safeguards, or the creditor proves danger of evasion from enforcement or danger of hiding/dissipating assets (CPC, Art. 953(3)). In cross-border settings, this “danger” limb is often the core of the argument when the debtor is moving assets across borders or restructuring holdings.
3) Prima facie assessment: “appearance of right” without prejudging the merits
Romanian interim relief is designed to be fast. The Code reflects this by allowing courts to reason at a prima facie level rather than conducting a full merits trial. In the presidential ordinance procedure, the court can consider the “appearance of right” while being prohibited from prejudging the merits (CPC, Art. 997(2) and Art. 997(5)).
In conservatory attachment, the statutory structure channels the court toward a documentary assessment: the applicant must show a written claim foundation (where applicable), proof that the claim is due (where applicable), and proof of a filed merits action (CPC, Art. 953(1)–(2)). The “danger” limb for not-yet-due claims similarly invites a plausibility assessment focused on risk indicators (CPC, Art. 953(3)).
4) Security (cauțiune) and the court’s balancing function
Security is one of the main “balance” mechanisms in Romanian interim measures. For conservatory attachment, security may be ordered and is mandatory in certain scenarios depending on the evidentiary basis and whether the claim is due (CPC, Art. 953(1)–(3)).
The order granting attachment sets the security amount and the deadline to pay it where applicable, and the Code provides that failure to pay within the deadline leads to the measure being lifted by operation of law (CPC, Art. 954(2) and Art. 956(3)). For judicial sequestration, security may also be ordered, applying the attachment security rules accordingly (CPC, Art. 975(2)). For IP provisional measures, security may be ordered if the measure could cause harm to the other side (CPC, Art. 979(5)).
From a practical perspective, the security issue should be addressed upfront in cross-border filings: when the applicant seeks to freeze assets on Romanian territory based on foreign merits litigation, the court will often expect a clear explanation of the balance of harms and, where the Code allows it, a concrete security proposal aligned with the risk profile described by the applicant.
5) Ex parte relief and procedural fairness (and why it matters cross-border)
Romanian law allows certain interim measures to be issued without summoning the opposing party at that stage. Conservatory attachment is decided urgently and, as a rule, without summoning the parties (CPC, Art. 954(2)). The presidential ordinance can be issued without notice and hearing, and in urgent cases without summoning the parties, with the order being enforceable (CPC, Art. 997(2) and Art. 998(1)).
In cross-border settings, ex parte character can affect recognition and enforcement under EU rules. The Brussels I Recast Regulation defines “judgment” to include provisional measures ordered by a court with jurisdiction on the substance, but it excludes (from the definition of “judgment” for the regime) provisional measures ordered without the defendant being summoned unless the measure was served on the defendant before enforcement (Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 2(a)).
EU case law under the Brussels regime has also addressed ex parte provisional measures intended to be enforced in another Member State. In Denilauler, Case 125/79, the Court examined provisional measures granted without the other party being summoned, in the context of the recognition and enforcement system under the Brussels Convention, emphasizing safeguards linked to the system’s structure. While the current legal instrument is the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the underlying concern—provisional measures that are both ex parte and intended for cross-border enforcement—remains visible in the Recast definition and service safeguard (Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 2(a)).
Relation with Proceedings Abroad
1) A step-by-step framework for cross-border interim measures in Romania
Because the legal analysis differs depending on the foreign forum and the legal instrument applicable, a structured approach reduces mistakes. Step 1 is to identify whether the foreign merits forum is in the EU and whether the subject matter is within the material scope of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Regulation 1215/2012). Step 2 is to identify the Romanian-law interim measure that fits the goal (asset immobilization, conduct regulation, or evidence preservation) (CPC, Arts. 952–959, 970–971, 997–1002 and 364–365). Step 3 is to identify the jurisdictional gateway for Romanian courts to grant the measure when the merits are abroad (EU Article 35 or Romanian private international civil procedure) (Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 35 and CPC, Art. 1.075).
2) EU litigation: using Article 35 to obtain Romanian interim measures
In EU settings, Article 35 of Brussels I Recast provides that application may be made to the courts of a Member State for provisional, including protective, measures available under that Member State’s law even if the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction as to the substance (Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 35).
Applied to Romania, this means that if the merits will be litigated in another Member State, a party can still request Romanian courts to grant Romanian interim measures that will operate over Romanian assets or persons. The applicant does not “import” a foreign interim remedy; it asks for a Romanian remedy (attachment, garnishment, presidential ordinance), and Article 35 supplies the cross-border jurisdictional bridge (Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 35 and CPC interim measures framework).
The relevance of the asset location is reinforced in EU case law. In Van Uden, Case C-391/95, the Court addressed interim relief in the presence of an arbitration clause and discussed conditions for provisional measures within the Brussels system. That broader line of case law underscores the practical idea that courts of the state where the assets are located are well placed to assess and supervise protective measures (Van Uden, Case C-391/95 and Denilauler, Case 125/79).
3) Non-EU foreign proceedings: Romanian international jurisdiction for urgent interim measures
When EU instruments do not apply (for example, the merits are in a non-EU state), Romanian private international civil procedure becomes the key. The Code expressly provides that, in urgent situations, Romanian courts are competent to order provisional, conservatory, and enforcement measures regarding persons or assets located in Romania at the time of filing, even if Romanian courts would not have jurisdiction over the merits under the international jurisdiction rules (CPC, Art. 1.075).
This provision is the domestic “support” engine: it allows a Romanian court to act protectively over Romanian territory even when the dispute’s center of gravity is abroad. In practical terms, the applicant needs to show (i) urgency, (ii) that the targeted person or assets are in Romania at filing, and (iii) that the requested measure is within the Romanian procedural catalogue (for example, attachment, garnishment, sequestration, presidential ordinance) (CPC, Art. 1.075 and CPC measures in Arts. 952–1002).
4) Foreign arbitration: aligning the arbitration exception with court support
Romanian law’s arbitration framework is important for cross-border interim measures. Under the international jurisdiction chapter, if the parties have concluded an arbitration agreement covering an arbitrable dispute, a Romanian court seised must decline jurisdiction, subject to statutory exceptions (CPC, Art. 1.069). This rule protects the merits jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
At the same time, the Code separately allows interim measures “before or during arbitration” and explicitly contemplates court-ordered conservatory and provisional measures, as well as tribunal-ordered measures after the tribunal is constituted (CPC, Art. 585(1)–(2)). This dual structure supports a practical “two-track” approach: the merits remain in arbitration, but Romanian courts can provide urgent protection for Romanian assets when the legal thresholds are met.
In EU settings involving arbitration clauses, the Court’s analysis in Van Uden, Case C-391/95 is often cited for how provisional measures can still be addressed by courts under the Brussels system even when the merits are referred to arbitration. The detailed applicability depends on the facts and the legal characterization, but the case is a useful reference point for understanding how interim measures and arbitration can interact within the European procedural architecture (Van Uden, Case C-391/95).
5) A recurring pitfall: trying to enforce a foreign interim order in Romania instead of obtaining a Romanian one
The practical temptation in cross-border disputes is to obtain an interim order in the foreign forum and then “enforce” it in Romania. Under Romanian private international civil procedure for non-EU foreign judgments, that path is often blocked: the Code provides that foreign judgments ordering conservatory measures and those given with provisional enforcement cannot be enforced in Romania (CPC, Art. 1.103(2)).
This legal rule explains why, in many non-EU settings, the operationally sound strategy is to apply directly for a Romanian interim measure, using the international jurisdiction gateway for urgent measures over Romanian assets (CPC, Art. 1.075). The Romanian court orders a Romanian remedy that is enforceable under Romanian procedural law, regardless of whether the merits are abroad.
Within the EU, the legal picture is different but still nuanced. The Brussels I Recast Regulation treats certain provisional measures as “judgments” when ordered by a court with jurisdiction on the substance, but it also contains safeguards for measures ordered without the defendant being summoned (service before enforcement) (Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 2(a)). EU case law has also discussed recognition/enforcement issues for ex parte provisional measures in the Brussels system (Denilauler, Case 125/79). For risk management, many applicants still prefer to seek Romanian-law interim measures directly under Article 35 rather than rely on exporting a foreign interim order (Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 35).
6) Coordinating Romanian interim relief with the foreign merits timeline
Romanian interim measures often require a concrete link to a merits track. For conservatory attachment, the creditor typically must prove that it has filed a merits action (CPC, Art. 953(1)–(2)). For judicial sequestration ordered without an existing lawsuit, a strict 20-day deadline applies to start the main action or initiate steps to constitute the arbitral tribunal (CPC, Art. 973(3)). For ship attachments ordered pre-merits, a similar 20-day deadline applies and expressly includes initiating steps to constitute the arbitral tribunal (CPC, Art. 961(1)). For IP provisional measures ordered pre-merits, the court must set a time limit to file the merits case and the measure lapses if the claimant does not file in time, but no later than 30 days (CPC, Art. 979(4)–(6)).
These statutory deadlines are more than formalities: in cross-border disputes they should be integrated into the overall procedural plan. If the merits forum is abroad, the applicant should be prepared to show (and document) that it is genuinely pursuing the merits proceeding and will meet any Romanian statutory start-the-merits deadlines triggered by the interim measure (CPC, Arts. 953, 961, 973 and 979).
7) Practical filing and enforcement checklist for Romania-focused interim measures
Asset mapping: Conservatory measures are only as effective as the asset information you can identify. For bank funds, focus on conservatory garnishment (CPC, Arts. 970–971); for real estate and movables, conservatory attachment and the corresponding publicity/registration effects matter (CPC, Art. 955).
Jurisdiction gateway: In EU cases, articulate the Article 35 logic and the local nature of the Romanian measure (Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 35); in non-EU cases, articulate the CPC Art. 1.075 urgency and Romania-location of assets or persons (CPC, Art. 1.075).
Evidence package: For attachment-style measures, align the evidence package with the statutory structure (writing, due date, danger scenarios, merits filing proof) (CPC, Art. 953); for presidential ordinances, align the evidence with urgency grounds and the temporary nature/non-prejudging rule (CPC, Art. 997(1) and (5)).
Security strategy: Address security early: anticipate whether security is mandatory or likely and be prepared to post it promptly to avoid the automatic lifting consequence (CPC, Arts. 953–956).
Do not overreach: Especially under the presidential ordinance procedure, ensure the requested relief is genuinely temporary and does not decide the merits (CPC, Art. 997(5)).
Consider evidence-preservation tools: If the core problem is transient proof in Romania, consider using the Code’s urgent fact-finding mechanisms alongside any asset measures (CPC, Arts. 364–365).
Conclusion
Romanian law provides a strong procedural toolkit for interim measures that can support foreign litigation or arbitration when the relevant assets or evidence are in Romania. The main “freezing” instruments are conservatory attachment and conservatory garnishment, while the presidential ordinance procedure offers flexible urgent relief for preventing irreparable harm or preserving rights pending the merits (CPC, Arts. 952–959, 970–971 and 997–1002).
Cross-border strategy depends on the legal framework. In EU cases, Brussels I Recast Article 35 allows Romanian courts to grant Romanian interim measures even when another Member State’s courts have jurisdiction over the merits (Regulation 1215/2012, Art. 35). In non-EU cases, Romanian international jurisdiction allows urgent interim measures over persons or assets in Romania even when the merits are outside Romanian jurisdiction (CPC, Art. 1.075). For arbitration, Romanian law supports a dual approach: courts can provide interim relief before or during arbitration while respecting the arbitration agreement for the merits (CPC, Art. 1.069 and Art. 585).
A recurring practical lesson is to prefer a Romanian interim measure over trying to enforce a foreign interim order in Romania, especially for non-EU cases where enforcement of conservatory and provisionally enforceable foreign judgments is barred (CPC, Art. 1.103(2)). Coordinated properly with the foreign merits track and statutory deadlines, Romanian interim measures can create real preservation and negotiation leverage on Romanian territory.
Sources
- Romania: Code of Civil Procedure (Codul de procedură civilă) – Portal Legislativ (official consolidated text)
- Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) – EUR-Lex
- CJEU, Denilauler v Couchet Frères, Case 125/79 – EUR-Lex
- CJEU, Van Uden Maritime BV v Deco-Line, Case C-391/95 – EUR-Lex
- Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights – EUR-Lex