Enforcing foreign judgments in Romania: EU vs non‑EU vs UK post‑Brexit vs arbitration (NY/ICSID)

SEO title: Enforcing foreign judgments in Romania: EU vs non‑EU vs UK post‑Brexit vs arbitration (NY/ICSID)
Meta description: A comparative, citation‑ready guide to enforcing foreign judgments in Romania: EU judgments under Brussels I Recast, non‑EU judgments under Romanian exequatur rules, UK post‑Brexit routes (Withdrawal Agreement / Hague 2005 & 2019 / domestic law), commercial arbitral awards under the New York Convention, and ICSID awards. Includes a comparative matrix, text flowcharts, refusal grounds explained, a preparation checklist, and when to use local counsel + a bailiff.
Slug: recognition-and-enforcement-in-romania-eu-non-eu-uk-post-brexit-arbitration-new-york-icsid-comparative-guide

Disclaimer: General information only (not legal advice). The applicable regime depends on the type of decision, subject matter, timing (especially for UK), and whether an international instrument applies. Primary texts: Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast), Romanian Civil Procedure Code – Book VII (Portal Legislativ), New York Convention (UNCITRAL), ICSID Convention – Recognition & Enforcement.

1) Key concepts: recognition vs enforcement (Romania)

Recognition means the foreign decision is accepted in Romania for its legal effects (e.g., res judicata). Enforcement means using Romanian enforcement measures (typically via a bailiff) to actually collect money or compel performance. Domestic baseline rules for foreign decisions sit in Book VII of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code.

2) Comparative matrix: EU vs non‑EU vs UK post‑Brexit vs commercial arbitration vs ICSID

This matrix is meant as a practical routing tool. It highlights (i) the legal basis, (ii) the typical sequence of steps, (iii) the core document set, (iv) refusal grounds, and (v) how the “time risk” is usually driven (not by fixed numbers, but by procedural steps and likely objections).

Category	Legal basis	Typical steps	Common documents	Refusal / defence grounds (headline)	Indicative time drivers
EU court judgment (civil & commercial) – Brussels I Recast	Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012: EUR‑Lex.	1) Obtain an enforceable copy of the judgment + the standard certificate from the court of origin; 2) Prepare translations if requested; 3) Start enforcement in Romania (bailiff) using judgment + certificate; 4) Debtor may invoke limited defences in specific proceedings.	Judgment; Brussels I Recast certificate (issued in the Member State of origin); translations (if requested); debtor/asset identification for Romania.	Limited refusal grounds under Brussels I Recast (e.g., public policy; irreconcilability with an earlier judgment; certain default‑judgment/due‑service scenarios).	No general exequatur step; fewer court steps than many non‑EU routes, but timelines still vary with objections and asset tracing.
Non‑EU court judgment (default: no applicable treaty route)	Romanian domestic exequatur rules: Book VII CPC (Portal Legislativ).	1) Court recognition / declaration of enforceability (exequatur) in Romania under Book VII CPC; 2) Romanian decision granting recognition/enforceability; 3) Enforcement through a Romanian bailiff; 4) Possible appeals/incidents under the CPC.	Foreign judgment (final/enforceable) + proof of enforceability; proof of service/notice; legalisation/apostille depending on state; certified translations.	Typical: public policy; lack of proper service / inability to defend; irreconcilability with Romanian or earlier recognised decisions; other CPC conditions.	Usually includes an additional court phase (exequatur), which often increases procedural time risk; there is no single “standard duration”.
UK post‑Brexit court judgment (after 1 Jan 2021): instrument‑dependent	Transitional cases may be covered by the Withdrawal Agreement (Article 67): legislation.gov.uk. For newer cases, consider the Hague 2005 Choice of Court Convention (EU approval: EU Decision 2014/887; status: HCCH table) and Hague 2019 Judgments Convention (EU accession: EU Decision 2022/1206; UK EIF: UK MoJ statement; status: HCCH table). Otherwise, domestic exequatur (Book VII CPC).	1) Triage timing: transitional (Withdrawal Agreement) vs post‑Brexit; 2) If based on an exclusive choice‑of‑court clause, assess Hague 2005 applicability; 3) Assess Hague 2019 applicability for the type of judgment and timing; 4) If no instrument fits, proceed under Book VII CPC exequatur.	Judgment + evidence of service; documents required by the applicable Hague instrument (if any) or, failing that, the CPC document set; certified translations; legalisation/apostille depending on route.	Refusal grounds depend on the applicable instrument (Hague vs CPC). Common themes: scope exclusions; non‑qualifying jurisdiction clause (Hague 2005 requires an exclusive choice‑of‑court agreement); public policy; due‑process/service issues; irreconcilability.	Timelines are driven by (i) instrument fit (clear Hague route vs CPC exequatur), (ii) document completeness, and (iii) objections; there is no single fixed timeframe.
Commercial arbitral award – New York Convention + Romanian procedure	New York Convention (official text): UNCITRAL; Romania’s accession decree: Decree No. 186/1961 (Portal Legislativ); domestic procedure: CPC.	1) Apply for recognition/enforcement of the foreign award in Romania (court); 2) The court checks the limited New York Convention defences; 3) Romanian decision allowing enforcement; 4) Bailiff enforcement.	Original/certified copy of the award; original/certified copy of the arbitration agreement; certified translations; any evidence the award is binding (as required).	Article V NY defences: invalid arbitration agreement/incapacity; lack of proper notice; excess of mandate; procedural irregularities; award not yet binding or set aside/suspended at the seat; non‑arbitrability; public policy.	Time risk is driven by objections under Article V and any set‑aside proceedings at the seat; there is no fixed universal duration.
ICSID award (investment arbitration) – distinct enforcement regime	Romania’s ratification: Decree No. 62/1975 (Portal Legislativ); ICSID enforcement framework (Art. 54–55): ICSID (official).	1) Obtain the certified ICSID award copy from the ICSID Secretariat; 2) Seek recognition/enforcement of the pecuniary obligations as required by the ICSID Convention; 3) Proceed to enforcement measures under Romanian enforcement law, noting that immunity from execution is addressed separately (Art. 55).	Certified ICSID award; translations as required; debtor/asset identification; documents required for Romanian enforcement steps.	ICSID does not apply New York Convention Article V. Disputes typically focus on domestic enforcement mechanics and, where relevant, immunity from execution (Art. 55).	Time risk is driven by enforcement mechanics and asset/immunity issues; there is no single fixed duration.

3) Three text flowcharts (step‑by‑step)

These flowcharts are intentionally pragmatic: what you do, in which order, and where the typical bottlenecks appear.

Flowchart 1: EU judgment (Brussels I Recast)

Confirm the decision falls within the civil & commercial scope of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (and is not excluded).
Obtain: (a) enforceable copy of the judgment, and (b) the Brussels I Recast certificate from the court of origin.
Prepare certified translations if requested and build an “asset map” for Romania (accounts, receivables, real estate, vehicles, etc.).
Instruct a Romanian bailiff and file for enforcement using the judgment + certificate.
If the debtor challenges enforcement, respond within the relevant procedural channel with the Brussels I Recast limited grounds framework (public policy, irreconcilability, certain service/default scenarios).

Flowchart 2: non‑EU judgment or UK post‑Brexit judgment (when no EU instrument applies)

Triage UK timing: if proceedings were started before the end of transition, check Withdrawal Agreement Article 67.
Check whether a treaty/instrument route applies: Hague 2005 (status: HCCH table) and Hague 2019 (status: HCCH table; UK EIF statement: UK MoJ).
If no applicable instrument fits, prepare a Romanian exequatur application under Book VII CPC.
After a Romanian decision granting recognition/enforceability, instruct a bailiff to start enforcement.
Expect objections focused on service/due process, scope, public policy and irreconcilability; ensure your evidence pack anticipates these.

Flowchart 3: arbitration (New York) vs ICSID

Commercial arbitration (New York): build the minimum pack (award + arbitration agreement + translations) and file for recognition/enforcement in Romania. Reference: New York Convention (UNCITRAL); Romania’s accession: Decree No. 186/1961.
Prepare to address Article V defences (valid arbitration agreement, notice/due process, scope, procedure, seat set‑aside, non‑arbitrability, public policy).
ICSID: obtain the certified ICSID award copy and pursue recognition/enforcement of pecuniary obligations under the ICSID Convention’s regime. Reference: ICSID Recognition & Enforcement (Art. 54–55); Romania’s ratification: Decree No. 62/1975.
For both routes, move quickly to enforcement planning: identify assets, choose measures (garnishment, seizure, etc.), and coordinate court/bailiff steps.

4) “Refusal grounds” explained in client‑friendly language

“Refusal grounds” (or “defences”) are the legal reasons a debtor may use to block or delay recognition/enforcement. They differ by route. Below is a plain‑English translation of the themes you will encounter most often.

A) EU judgments (Brussels I Recast): narrow, exceptional defences

Public policy: only for truly exceptional cases (serious incompatibility with fundamental principles).
Conflicting judgments: the EU judgment cannot coexist with an earlier Romanian or recognised judgment between the same parties on the same matter.
Default judgment + service issues: the debtor was not properly informed in time to defend.
Scope/exclusions: certain matters are outside the Regulation’s scope; verify the decision type.
Primary text: Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.

B) Non‑EU / domestic exequatur (Book VII CPC): the Romanian court checks more “gatekeeping” conditions

Due process / service: the debtor argues they were not properly served or had no real opportunity to defend.
Public policy: enforcement would offend fundamental Romanian legal principles.
Conflicts: the foreign decision conflicts with Romanian judgments or earlier recognised decisions.
Final/enforceable status: the decision is not final or not enforceable in the state of origin (or proof is missing).
Primary text: Romanian CPC – Book VII.

C) New York Convention arbitration: closed list of defences (Article V)

No valid arbitration agreement / incapacity: the arbitration clause was not valid or a party lacked capacity.
No proper notice / inability to present the case: due process was violated.
Excess of mandate: the tribunal decided issues outside the arbitration agreement.
Procedure/tribunal not as agreed: composition or procedure violated the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat.
Award not binding or set aside: the award is not yet binding, or has been annulled/suspended at the seat.
Non‑arbitrability / public policy: the subject matter cannot be arbitrated or enforcement violates public policy.
Primary text: New York Convention (UNCITRAL).

D) ICSID awards: different logic (Art. 54–55)

Not the New York Convention: Article V defences do not apply to ICSID awards.
Focus shifts to execution: asset identification, execution measures, and (where relevant) immunity from execution (Art. 55).
Primary text: ICSID – Recognition & Enforcement; Romania’s ratification: Decree No. 62/1975.

5) Preparation checklist (before you start enforcement in Romania)

Classify the title: EU judgment (Brussels I) vs non‑EU judgment (Book VII CPC) vs UK (transitional/Hague/CPC) vs New York arbitration vs ICSID.
Confirm scope: civil/commercial subject matter, exclusions, and whether the instrument applies.
Collect the core documents: enforceable/certified copy of the judgment/award; certificate if EU; arbitration agreement if NY; certified ICSID copy if ICSID.
Proof of service and due process: keep the full trail (service certificates, courier proofs, email headers if relevant, hearing notices).
Translations: prepare certified Romanian translations of key documents (judgment/award, certificate, arbitration agreement, service proof) to avoid delays.
Finality/enforceability proof: for non‑EU routes, ensure you can demonstrate the decision is final/enforceable in the origin state (as required).
Asset mapping in Romania: identify accounts, receivables, real estate, vehicles, shares, and debtor’s local counterparties; this often drives the real‑world outcome.
Enforcement plan: choose measures (garnishment, seizure, auctions) and sequence them to reduce asset flight risk.
Budget & proportionality: align enforcement intensity with expected recovery and debtor’s solvency.

6) When it’s worth using a Romanian lawyer + a bailiff (practical triggers)

Even where enforcement looks “document‑driven”, the usual failure points are incomplete document sets, translation gaps, asset tracing, and debtor objections. Local counsel + a strong bailiff are most valuable when speed and procedural discipline matter.

High objection risk: the debtor signals a challenge (public policy, service/due process, jurisdiction, scope).
Complex assets: multiple bank accounts, receivables from Romanian counterparties, real estate, or assets spread across regions.
UK post‑Brexit uncertainty: you need a route analysis (Withdrawal Agreement vs Hague 2005/2019 vs Book VII CPC).
Arbitration / ICSID: technical defences (New York Article V) or execution‑focused strategy (ICSID + possible immunity topics).
Need for speed: coordinated steps to avoid asset dissipation (garnishments/seizures timed with filings).
Cross‑border coordination: parallel steps in the origin state (certificates, seat proceedings) must be synced with Romanian filings.

7) Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

1) What is the practical difference between “recognition” and “enforcement” in Romania?
Recognition is the acceptance of the foreign decision’s effects in Romania (e.g., res judicata). Enforcement is the use of Romanian enforcement measures (bailiff actions) to obtain payment or performance. The baseline domestic framework for foreign decisions is found in Book VII of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code: https://legislatie.just.ro/public/detaliidocument/140271.

2) Do EU civil/commercial judgments still need exequatur in Romania?
For many civil and commercial matters, Brussels I Recast removed the general requirement of a declaration of enforceability (exequatur) between EU Member States; enforcement is based on the judgment plus the standard certificate. Legal basis: Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1215/oj/eng.

3) What documents are usually needed to enforce an EU judgment in Romania?
Typically: a copy of the judgment and the Brussels I Recast certificate (issued by the court of origin), plus translations if requested and debtor/asset identification for Romania. See Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (certificate framework).

4) How are non‑EU court judgments enforced in Romania (as a default)?
As a default, Romania applies domestic rules requiring a court recognition step (exequatur) before enforcement, subject to conditions and refusal grounds under Book VII CPC: https://legislatie.just.ro/public/detaliidocument/140271.

5) How do UK judgments work after Brexit?
It depends on timing and the applicable instrument. Some proceedings started before the end of the transition period can fall under transitional rules in the EU‑UK Withdrawal Agreement (Article 67): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/withdrawal-agreement/article/67. For newer cases, the Hague 2005 Choice of Court Convention and Hague 2019 Judgments Convention may be relevant (status: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=98 and https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=137), otherwise domestic exequatur rules may apply.

6) What are the main refusal grounds for enforcing a foreign arbitral award in Romania?
Under the New York Convention, refusal grounds are limited (Article V), including lack of valid arbitration agreement, due process issues, excess of mandate, procedural irregularities, award not binding/annulled at the seat, non‑arbitrability, and public policy. Official text: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards.

7) Is the ICSID regime different from the New York Convention?
Yes. ICSID awards follow a distinct recognition/enforcement regime under the ICSID Convention (not the New York Convention’s Article V). The Convention requires recognition and enforcement of pecuniary obligations as if the award were a final judgment, while leaving rules on sovereign immunity unaffected. See ICSID’s official enforcement page: https://icsid.worldbank.org/procedures/arbitration/convention/recognition-enforcement.

8) Can a Romanian bailiff start enforcement immediately on a foreign title?
A bailiff acts on an enforceable title recognised in Romania. For EU judgments under Brussels I Recast, enforcement relies on the judgment + certificate. For non‑EU judgments and many arbitral awards, a Romanian court recognition step is typically required first under Book VII CPC.

9) Do I need certified translations?
Often yes in practice: Romanian courts and enforcement bodies may request certified translations of the judgment/award, certificates and key documents. Exact requirements depend on the route and the court/enforcement body.

10) How long does enforcement take in Romania?
There is no single publicly verifiable “standard duration” across all courts and routes. Timelines vary widely with translations, debtor defences, the need for a recognition step, the chosen enforcement measures, and asset complexity.