Categories
Uncategorized

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments in Romania: Practical Guide for Creditors

This guide explains how a creditor can turn a foreign court judgment into an enforceable recovery strategy in Romania. It starts with the threshold classification step: whether the case falls under an EU regime (where enforcement is typically streamlined and document-driven) or outside the EU, where Romanian recognition and enforcement rules apply. It then walks through the practical workflow—what to collect from the state of origin, how to prepare a Romania-ready enforcement file, and how to plan enforcement around the debtor’s assets (bank accounts, receivables, movable and immovable property). Finally, it outlines the most common debtor defences—especially procedural and public policy objections—and shows how to pre-empt delays by building a clean record (finality/enforceability, service and right to be heard, and consistency with prior proceedings).

 

This practical guide explains how a creditor can turn a foreign court judgment into effective enforcement in Romania. It starts with the key fork in the road—whether EU recognition/enforcement instruments apply, or whether you must rely on Romania’s domestic rules on recognition (exequatur) for judgments from outside the EU/EEA framework. It then walks through the step-by-step filing strategy, required documents, translations and (where needed) apostille/legalisation, and how Romanian enforcement via a bailiff (executor judecătoresc) typically proceeds once you have an enforceable title. Finally, it maps the debtor’s common defence playbook—public policy, defective service, irreconcilable judgments, and procedural stays—and offers practical tactics to reduce delay and increase recovery.

Table of contents

  1. Why enforcement in Romania is a distinct project (and why speed matters)
  2. When EU Regulations Apply vs. When Romanian Private International Law Applies
  3. EU civil and commercial judgments: Brussels I bis (Regulation 1215/2012)
  4. EFTA judgments via the Lugano Convention
  5. EU “special tracks” for creditors: EEO, EOP, Small Claims, EAPO
  6. Non-EU judgments: Romanian recognition rules (exequatur)
  7. Procedure for Recognition (exequatur) and Enforcement
  8. Document pack: what you need before you file
  9. Filing map: which Romanian court, and what the court decides
  10. From recognition to cash: Romanian enforcement mechanics in practice
  11. Timing, costs, and practical sequencing
  12. Defences Available to the Debtor
  13. EU-route defences
  14. Non-EU exequatur defences under Romanian law
  15. Enforcement-stage defences and delay tactics
  16. Practical strategy checklist for foreign creditors
  17. FAQ
  18. Sources

Why enforcement in Romania is a distinct project (and why speed matters)

A foreign judgment is only valuable if you can convert it into real recovery. In Romania, that conversion always involves a second layer of work: either (i) relying on EU instruments that eliminate “exequatur” and streamline cross-border enforcement, or (ii) obtaining a Romanian recognition/enforcement decision (often still called exequatur) under the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, which contains dedicated rules for “foreign judgments” in its Book VII (see the consolidated Code at legislatie.just.ro).

From a creditor’s perspective, the main practical risks are delay and asset dissipation. Romanian enforcement is carried out through a court bailiff (executor judecătoresc) under the Code’s enforcement book, and it typically starts only after you have an enforceable title and a court approval for enforcement (încuviinţarea executării silite) in the manner described by the Code (e.g., the steps and short statutory timeframes around registration and approval are reflected in Article 664–665 of the Code as consolidated at Portal Legislativ).

So the strategic goal is simple: pick the correct legal “track” on day one, assemble a document pack that will survive Romanian scrutiny, and sequence recognition and enforcement so the debtor has the smallest possible window to move assets.

When EU Regulations Apply vs. When Romanian Private International Law Applies

The first question is not “Where do we enforce?” but “Which regime governs recognition and enforcement?” Romania is an EU Member State, so for many judgments from other EU countries, enforcement in Romania is governed primarily by EU instruments that are directly applicable and built on mutual trust, such as the Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012). For judgments from outside those instruments’ scope—or from third states—Romania’s domestic recognition rules (in the Civil Procedure Code) become central (Romanian Civil Procedure Code, consolidated).

As a practical decision tree for a creditor, you can think in four layers: (1) EU civil/commercial judgments (Brussels I bis), (2) EFTA civil/commercial judgments covered by the Lugano Convention, (3) EU “special procedures” that produce instruments designed to circulate easily (EEO, EOP, Small Claims, EAPO), and (4) non-EU judgments governed by Romanian exequatur rules.

EU civil and commercial judgments: Brussels I bis (Regulation 1215/2012)

If your judgment was issued by a court in another EU Member State in a civil or commercial matter, the default starting point is Brussels I bis (EUR-Lex ELI text). It is designed so that EU judgments can circulate without a prior “declaration of enforceability” in the state of enforcement; the European e-Justice Portal explains this framework and notes its application between Member States (including Denmark via an EU–Denmark agreement) (European e-Justice Portal: Brussels I bis).

For creditors, the operational headline is: you normally do not run a Romanian exequatur case first. Instead, you obtain the standard certificate from the court of origin (Article 53 certificate; see the e-Justice form page at EU Article 53 certificate form), and then you move to enforcement steps in Romania using Romanian enforcement procedure, subject to limited refusal grounds.

Brussels I bis has important scope exclusions (for example, it does not apply to arbitration, and certain other areas are handled by dedicated EU instruments). Those scope boundaries and exclusions are discussed in EU materials and are reflected in the Regulation’s recitals and structure (Regulation 1215/2012). When your judgment falls outside Brussels I bis, do not “force” it into the regime: pick the correct instrument or the Romanian domestic track.

EFTA judgments via the Lugano Convention

For judgments connected to Switzerland, Norway, or Iceland in civil and commercial matters, recognition and enforcement may be governed by the 2007 Lugano Convention, which extends a Brussels-style regime to those EFTA states through the EU’s participation (Lugano Convention (2007) on EUR-Lex). Practically, creditors often use it when the judgment comes from Switzerland (common in banking and commercial disputes) but enforcement is sought in an EU state such as Romania.

The Lugano Convention is not identical to Brussels I bis (its structure is closer to the earlier Brussels I model), so you need to confirm which certificate/formalities apply and whether any intermediate steps are required under that convention’s enforcement architecture (Convention text). The key point for strategy: Lugano is still a treaty-based fast lane compared with pure domestic exequatur for most third-state judgments.

EU “special tracks” for creditors: EEO, EOP, Small Claims, EAPO

In addition to Brussels I bis, the EU created creditor-friendly procedures for common situations. If your case fits, using them can reduce friction at enforcement stage in Romania.

European Enforcement Order (EEO) for uncontested claims. If the debtor did not contest the claim (or it otherwise qualifies as “uncontested”), Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creates a certificate that allows a judgment to be recognised and enforced in other Member States without exequatur (see EUR-Lex at Regulation 805/2004). This can be powerful for collection cases, because it is designed for circulation and limits the debtor’s ability to relitigate.

European Order for Payment (EOP). For cross-border uncontested pecuniary claims, Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 creates a European order for payment designed to circulate with minimum formalities (EUR-Lex: Regulation 1896/2006). If the debtor does not lodge a statement of opposition in time in the state of origin, the EOP becomes enforceable and can be used for enforcement in Romania.

European Small Claims Procedure. For lower-value cross-border disputes, Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishes a simplified procedure intended to make litigation and cross-border enforcement easier (EUR-Lex: Regulation 861/2007). If your claim is within that procedure’s scope and thresholds, it can be more cost-effective than full litigation plus exequatur.

European Account Preservation Order (EAPO). If the main risk is dissipation of funds held in bank accounts, Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 establishes a mechanism to freeze funds in cross-border cases through a European Account Preservation Order (see consolidated EUR-Lex text at Regulation 655/2014 (consolidated)). For creditors, EAPO is often an “early move” tool—before or alongside enforcement—because timing is decisive when bank balances can move in hours.

Non-EU judgments: Romanian recognition rules (exequatur)

If none of the EU/treaty instruments apply, Romania’s domestic recognition rules govern. In the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, Book VII contains dedicated provisions on the “international effects” of foreign judgments. It defines what counts as a “foreign judgment” and differentiates between recognition and the additional step of granting enforceability (as reflected in Article 1.094–1.097 and the procedural rules around Article 1.098–1.100 in the consolidated Code at legislatie.just.ro).

For a creditor, the practical consequence is that you must obtain a Romanian court decision that grants recognition and (if you want enforcement) authorises enforcement. The Code also sets out which Romanian court is competent (generally the tribunal) and what documents must accompany the application (see the same consolidated source at Portal Legislativ).

Even on the domestic track, treaties still matter. A bilateral treaty on legal assistance, a multilateral convention, or reciprocity may reduce formalities (for example, the Code expressly contemplates that supralegalisation may be removed by law, treaty, or reciprocity—see the Code’s rules on supralegalisation referenced in the recognition provisions at legislatie.just.ro). That is why a creditor’s intake questionnaire should always include: country of origin, subject matter, service method, and whether apostille/legalisation requirements are waived.

Procedure for Recognition (exequatur) and Enforcement

Once you identify the applicable regime, your work splits into two parallel tracks: (A) the court-facing track (recognition/enforceability and refusal litigation), and (B) the enforcement-facing track (asset tracing, bailiff strategy, and securing measures). The winning approach is usually to run both tracks in sync: build the paper record to survive Romanian scrutiny, while also preparing for immediate enforcement actions once the legal door is open.

Document pack: what you need before you file

1) The judgment (and proof it is final/enforceable). On the EU track, enforcement typically requires the Brussels I bis certificate and an enforceable copy of the judgment (see the Brussels I bis architecture at Regulation 1215/2012). On the non-EU track, Romanian courts will expect evidence that the judgment is final according to the law of the issuing state, and (if enforcement is sought) that it is enforceable.

2) Proof of proper service and defence rights. Service is one of the most common refusal grounds across regimes. Even under Brussels I bis, default judgments can face refusal if service was defective, so a creditor should collect service certificates, postal proofs, and translations early (grounded in the refusal logic of the Brussels framework at Regulation 1215/2012). Under Romanian domestic recognition, the Code expressly requires that the losing party had an opportunity to defend; the relevant conditions and refusal grounds appear in the recognition provisions (see Article 1.096 and related parts of the Code at legislatie.just.ro).

3) Translations. Romania’s courts and bailiffs will usually require Romanian translations for core documents. The Civil Procedure Code’s recognition procedure explicitly anticipates certified copies, translations, and related formalities (see, for example, the document list and formalities around Article 1.099 in the consolidated text at legislatie.just.ro). Practically: budget for certified translations, and align terminology (parties’ names, addresses, and amounts) to avoid objections.

4) Apostille/legalisation (when needed). If you are filing foreign public documents on the non-EU track, you may need apostille or consular legalisation. Romania is a Contracting Party to the 1961 Apostille Convention (status table entry for Romania is shown in the HCCH official status table at HCCH Apostille status table), and Romanian authorities also explain when apostille is used instead of supralegalisation (Romanian MFA: apostille guidance). Always confirm whether the issuing country is also party to the Apostille Convention and whether the document type qualifies as a public document.

5) Practical enforcement intel. A judgment without asset intel is a slow recovery. Before you file, identify: debtor’s Romanian bank relationships, real estate holdings (land book), corporate participations (Trade Register), and receivables. Romanian enforcement rules expressly empower bailiffs to request information and access key public registers (see the bailiff information-gathering and access provisions in the Code’s enforcement section at Romanian Civil Procedure Code).

Filing map: which Romanian court, and what the court decides

EU track (Brussels I bis and special EU instruments). You typically move directly to enforcement in Romania, presenting the enforceable judgment and the relevant EU certificate, while anticipating that the debtor may seek refusal under the limited grounds. The e-Justice Portal explains the Regulation’s operation and its relationship with Denmark (e-Justice: Brussels I bis overview). In practice, your Romanian “court moment” may occur at the enforcement-approval stage or as a debtor-initiated refusal application rather than as a classic exequatur case.

Non-EU track (Romanian exequatur). The Civil Procedure Code assigns competence primarily to the tribunal for the application to recognise/declare enforceability of the foreign judgment, and it sets out a defined list of documents the applicant must provide (see Article 1.098–1.100 in the consolidated Code at legislatie.just.ro). The Code also distinguishes between recognition for res judicata effects and the additional decision needed for enforcement.

Strategically, creditors should separate “recognition only” (useful for set-off, registering rights, or relying on res judicata in Romanian litigation) from “recognition plus enforceability” (needed for forced execution). The Code’s structure reflects that recognition and the grant of enforceability are conceptually distinct steps within the same procedural chapter (Romanian Civil Procedure Code).

From recognition to cash: Romanian enforcement mechanics in practice

Once you have an enforceable title (either via an EU instrument or via a Romanian exequatur decision), enforcement in Romania typically proceeds through a bailiff. The Code provides that enforcement begins at the creditor’s request filed with the competent bailiff, and sets out the registration of the enforcement request and the requirement that the bailiff seeks court approval for enforcement (încuviinţarea executării silite) (see Articles 663–665 in the consolidated Code at legislatie.just.ro).

This sequence matters for planning. Article 665 describes short statutory timeframes: the bailiff must request approval quickly, and the court must decide in a short period, with the approval decision generally not subject to appeal in the standard path (as reflected in Article 665(2)–(6) of the consolidated Code at Portal Legislativ). For creditors, that means you can often move from “file with bailiff” to “approved enforcement” quickly—if your file is clean.

After approval, the bailiff can pursue multiple enforcement modalities, including attachment of bank accounts, garnishment of receivables, seizure and sale of movable assets, and enforcement against real estate (the Code’s enforcement book provides the toolbox and explicitly allows simultaneous or successive methods following approval—see Article 665(4) in the consolidated Code at legislatie.just.ro).

Bank accounts. If your case is a classic debt recovery, bank attachment is often the first move. The EAPO can be a strong pre-enforcement or parallel tool for cross-border bank freezing (Regulation 655/2014). Once on Romanian enforcement, bailiff powers to request information and identify assets are supported by Code provisions requiring third parties to provide information and allowing bailiff access to public registers (see the information duties and access features in the Code at legislatie.just.ro).

Real estate and corporate assets. For higher-value recoveries, an early land-book check and Trade Register strategy is essential. Romanian enforcement rules permit seizure and steps toward sale; they also allow making enforcement measures opposable through registrations (the Code contains detailed rules on seizing and publicising enforcement measures; see the enforcement book in the consolidated Code at legislatie.just.ro).

Settlement leverage. Once Romanian enforcement starts, the debtor’s incentives change. Even if the debtor plans to challenge recognition, enforcement pressure can produce settlement—especially if you control timing and choose measures that create immediate business disruption (e.g., bank attachments).

Timing, costs, and practical sequencing

No two recoveries are identical, but the statutory structure allows a predictable planning model. On the non-EU track, you should anticipate: (1) filing the exequatur application with the tribunal, (2) serving the debtor and handling objections, (3) obtaining a decision granting enforceability, and then (4) shifting to bailiff enforcement with the enforcement-approval step (Articles 663–665) (Romanian Civil Procedure Code).

On the EU track, you should plan for: (1) obtaining the right certificate in the state of origin (e.g., Brussels I bis Article 53 certificate, or EEO/EOP certificates), (2) translating core documents into Romanian where needed, (3) instructing a Romanian bailiff and seeking enforcement approval, and (4) being ready to litigate refusal grounds if the debtor initiates them (reflecting the limited refusal architecture in Brussels I bis and EEO) (Regulation 1215/2012; Regulation 805/2004).

Costs are driven less by “court fees” and more by three practical items: translations, expert/legal opinions on foreign-law issues (mainly in non-EU cases), and enforcement expenses (bailiff fees, registrations, and asset-tracing). For creditors, the highest ROI investment is usually up-front file hygiene: a cleaner paper trail reduces the debtor’s ability to slow enforcement.

Defences Available to the Debtor

A Romanian enforcement strategy is only as strong as its defence anticipation. In cross-border cases, debtors typically deploy a layered defence: (1) recognition/refusal grounds (EU or non-EU), (2) procedural stays and timing games, and (3) enforcement-stage objections and challenges to specific measures. Your goal is not to eliminate defences (you cannot), but to pre-empt them and compress their impact on recovery.

EU-route defences

Under Brussels I bis, the debtor cannot generally re-argue the merits, but can seek refusal on limited grounds, such as manifest public policy incompatibility, defective service in default judgments, or irreconcilable judgments. The existence of limited refusal grounds is part of the Regulation’s mutual-recognition logic (Regulation 1215/2012). Practically, that means the debtor’s best move is often to attack service, argue public policy, or argue conflict with an earlier judgment.

For creditors, the key mitigation is documentary: service proofs, clarity that the debtor had time to defend, and a record showing that enforcement is not abusive. If the judgment was in default, assume service will be attacked and gather the full service chain early.

On EEO, the Regulation is explicitly designed to abolish exequatur for certified uncontested claims (see Article 5 “Abolition of exequatur” in the consolidated EU text at Regulation 805/2004 (consolidated)). The debtor’s leverage often shifts to challenging whether the claim truly qualified as uncontested or whether minimum procedural standards were met in the state of origin, so creditors should ensure the certification conditions are carefully satisfied.

Non-EU exequatur defences under Romanian law

On the domestic track, the debtor’s defence menu is broader than under EU mutual recognition, but still structured. The Romanian Civil Procedure Code contains recognition conditions and refusal grounds, including public policy and defence-rights logic. These are set out in the “recognition of foreign judgments” chapter (see Article 1.096 and related provisions in the consolidated Code at legislatie.just.ro).

Common debtor arguments include: (1) the foreign court lacked jurisdiction (from Romania’s perspective), (2) the losing party was not properly summoned or could not defend itself, (3) the judgment is not final, (4) the judgment conflicts with Romanian public order, or (5) there is an irreconcilable judgment in Romania or an earlier judgment elsewhere. The Code’s recognition chapter is the controlling reference for how Romanian courts analyze those objections (Romanian Civil Procedure Code).

To neutralise these arguments, creditors often use two practical moves: (a) file a concise foreign-law memorandum on finality/enforceability and service rules, and (b) provide a structured “public policy” rebuttal showing that the judgment is a standard civil/commercial determination with no punitive or confiscatory effects incompatible with Romanian ordre public.

Enforcement-stage defences and delay tactics

Even after enforceability, debtors can challenge enforcement acts through Romanian enforcement remedies. The Code’s enforcement book governs these procedural tools, and the overall architecture makes clear that the bailiff issues enforceable procedural acts and that certain measures can be attacked through enforcement challenges (the framework is in the Code’s enforcement section, including the bailiff act structure and the approval step at Articles 656 and 663–665 in the consolidated Code at legislatie.just.ro).

In practice, the most common enforcement-stage tactics are: (1) contesting the enforcement approval or arguing the title is not enforceable, (2) seeking suspension (often tied to an offered security), and (3) contesting specific measures (bank attachments, seizures, valuation and sale steps). Creditors should expect these and plan accordingly: do not front-load enforcement expenses until you have strong early pressure, and prioritise measures that produce quick recoveries (bank attachments) or strong leverage (registrations against real estate).

Practical strategy checklist for foreign creditors

Step 1 — Identify the regime. Is it EU civil/commercial (Brussels I bis), EFTA (Lugano), an EU special instrument (EEO/EOP/Small Claims/EAPO), or non-EU requiring Romanian exequatur? Use the primary instruments as your references (1215/2012; Lugano 2007; 805/2004; 1896/2006; 861/2007; 655/2014; Romanian CPC).

Step 2 — Assemble a “Romania-ready” document pack. Enforceable copy, finality proof, service file, certified translations, and (if necessary) apostille/legalisation. Romania’s participation in the Apostille Convention and the practical guidance on apostille are set out in official sources (HCCH status table; Romanian MFA guidance).

Step 3 — Build the asset map early. Use public registers and corporate intelligence. Romania’s enforcement framework includes mechanisms to identify assets and requires third parties to provide information to bailiffs (see the enforcement book’s information duties in the consolidated Code at legislatie.just.ro).

Step 4 — Sequence for pressure. If eligible, consider EAPO for bank freezing (Regulation 655/2014) or rapid Romanian bank attachment once enforcement is approved. Align your filing so that translations and formalities do not become bottlenecks.

Step 5 — Pre-empt refusal grounds. Draft a short memo for each likely defence: service, public policy, conflicts, jurisdiction. Most debtor defence power comes from ambiguity; your job is to remove it with documentation.

Step 6 — Have an arbitration-aware plan. If your dispute is actually based on an arbitral award, the enforcement path is different and is governed primarily by the New York Convention framework rather than Brussels I bis (UNCITRAL: New York Convention). A mismatch between “judgment” and “award” is a common strategic error.

FAQ

Do I always need an exequatur decision in Romania to enforce a foreign judgment?

No. For many EU civil and commercial judgments, Brussels I bis is designed to allow enforcement without an intermediate declaration of enforceability, using the certificate and limited refusal grounds (Regulation 1215/2012; e-Justice portal overview). Exequatur is mainly a non-EU / non-instrument track under the Romanian Civil Procedure Code (Romanian CPC).

What is the fastest EU tool for uncontested debt recovery that can be enforced in Romania?

Depending on your facts, a European Enforcement Order certificate for an uncontested claim (Regulation 805/2004) or a European Order for Payment (Regulation 1896/2006) can reduce enforcement friction because they are designed for cross-border circulation (Regulation 805/2004; Regulation 1896/2006).

Which Romanian court is competent for non-EU recognition/exequatur?

The Romanian Civil Procedure Code allocates competence primarily to the tribunal for applications concerning recognition/enforceability of foreign judgments, and it sets out the procedural chapter and document list in Book VII (Romanian CPC (Book VII)).

Will I need apostille or consular legalisation for my documents?

It depends on the country of origin and the document type. Romania is a party to the 1961 Apostille Convention (see Romania’s entry in the official HCCH status table: HCCH Apostille status table), and Romania’s MFA explains when apostille is used and that apostilled documents are valid without additional legalisation in contracting states (MFA guidance).

Can the debtor re-argue the merits of the case in Romania?

Generally, no. Both EU instruments and Romanian recognition rules are built on non-review of the merits, with refusal grounds focused on procedure and public policy rather than correctness on the merits (see the mutual-recognition logic of Brussels I bis, and the structured recognition conditions in the Romanian Civil Procedure Code’s Book VII at legislatie.just.ro).

Can I freeze the debtor’s bank accounts in Romania quickly?

In cross-border EU situations, a European Account Preservation Order may be available to freeze accounts (Regulation 655/2014). Separately, once Romanian enforcement is opened and approved, bailiff-led attachments can be pursued under Romanian enforcement procedure (see Articles 663–665 on opening and approval of enforcement in the consolidated Code at legislatie.just.ro).

Sources

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on a specific enforcement strategy in Romania, obtain tailored legal counsel.