In Romania, an award enforcement process that appears procedurally clear on paper can fracture at the courtroom door. International creditors arrive with a valid arbitral award. A membership certificate confirming Romania's adherence to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Additionally, a reasonable expectation of swift execution. What they frequently encounter instead is a layered contest involving public policy objections, contested seat-of-arbitration arguments, and procedural formalism that can absorb months of additional effort.
Cross-border enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Romania is governed by civil procedure legislation, EU Regulation frameworks applicable to intra-EU judgments, and Romania's treaty obligations – most significantly the New York Convention. Proceedings are initiated before the court of appeal having territorial jurisdiction. With a right of appeal on points of law to the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania). The process typically spans several months at first instance and may extend further if the respondent lodges a challenge.
This analysis examines the doctrinal foundations of enforcement law in Romania, identifies the gap between statutory text and actual court practice. Maps the treaty architecture that international creditors must understand. Additionally, offers strategic guidance for European businesses operating in or through Romania. It covers foreign court judgments, foreign arbitral awards, and the interaction between institutional arbitration rules – including ICC Rules and UNCITRAL – and local enforcement mechanics.
Doctrinal foundations: how Romanian law approaches foreign decisions
Romania's civil procedure rules establish a two-track system for recognising foreign decisions. One track handles intra-EU matters, where EU regulations on civil and commercial judgments largely eliminate the need for a substantive review of the underlying decision. The other track – applicable to awards and judgments from non-EU states – requires a formal exequatur procedure under Romania's private international law provisions.
The distinction matters in practice. For intra-EU judgments, the creditor files a standard application, provides the judgment in certified form with a translation, and the court verifies only limited grounds for refusal. Grounds include irreconcilability with a prior Romanian judgment, manifest breach of public policy, and lack of proper service. Courts are not permitted to review the foreign judgment on the merits. This approach reflects the EU's mutual trust principle and applies consistently across Romania's appellate courts.
For non-EU awards and judgments, the analysis is more involved. Romanian private international law requires the court to verify: whether the foreign court had jurisdiction under principles analogous to Romanian rules. whether the decision is final and enforceable in the country of origin. whether the defendant received proper notice. and whether enforcement would be contrary to Romanian public order. Additionally, Romanian courts must confirm that the underlying matter does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Romanian courts.
The doctrinal difficulty lies in the public order test. Romania's civil procedure legislation does not exhaustively define public order for enforcement purposes. Courts have applied the concept both narrowly – limiting it to fundamental constitutional and procedural principles – and broadly – using it to scrutinise the substantive outcome of the foreign decision. The Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție has moved toward a narrower reading in recent years. Emphasising that public order must be assessed by reference to the effect of enforcement in Romania rather than by re-examining the foreign court's reasoning. Yet divergence persists at appellate court level, which creates meaningful uncertainty at the first instance stage.
For intra-EU corporate disputes, creditors should also consider the interaction between the enforcement track and Romanian insolvency legislation. Where the Romanian debtor is subject to insolvency proceedings, the general enforcement regime is suspended. A separate legal strategy – usually involving participation as a creditor in the insolvency process – becomes necessary. Practitioners advising on corporate disputes in Romania regularly encounter this overlap and must map both tracks before filing.
Arbitral award enforcement: the New York Convention in Romanian court practice
Romania acceded to the New York Convention decades ago. The Convention's core obligation – that courts shall recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards subject only to the enumerated refusal grounds – is incorporated into Romanian civil procedure legislation. In theory, this means Romanian courts must enforce any award rendered in another Convention state unless one of the narrow defences applies.
In practice, the picture is more nuanced. Romanian courts have applied the Convention's refusal grounds with varying degrees of rigour, and the public policy defence has at times expanded beyond the Convention's intended scope. Several patterns emerge from court practice.
First, challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement remain common. Respondents frequently argue that the arbitration clause was not validly concluded under Romanian law, or that the clause did not cover the specific dispute that was arbitrated. Courts must apply the law governing the agreement. typically the law of the seat of arbitration. but Romanian courts have occasionally imported domestic contract formation requirements into this analysis. Creating friction with civil law systems that have more flexible approaches to clause validity.
Second, arguments about the arbitral tribunal's constitution and procedure arise regularly. Where the respondent claims it was not given proper opportunity to present its case, Romanian courts have shown willingness to examine the procedural record in some depth. This is broadly consistent with the Convention's due process ground, but the threshold applied varies across courts. Tribunals operating under ICC Rules or UNCITRAL procedural standards are generally better positioned to demonstrate procedural regularity. Because both sets of rules impose documented notice and participation requirements that translate well into evidence for a Romanian enforcement application.
Third, substantive awards involving interest calculations, punitive elements, or contractual penalty mechanisms have attracted public policy challenges. Romanian civil law tradition is less comfortable with exemplary damages or contractual penalties that significantly exceed the underlying loss. Courts have on occasion characterised enforcement of such awards as contrary to public order. Practitioners should address this risk at the award-drafting stage by ensuring that the reasoning in the award addresses proportionality and the applicable contractual law in sufficient detail.
The seat of arbitration carries particular significance for enforcement in Romania. An award rendered at a seat with a strong pro-arbitration legislative tradition – such as France, Switzerland, or Sweden – tends to receive more deferential treatment from Romanian enforcement courts. This is partly because courts are more familiar with the procedural standards of established arbitral centres, and partly because awards from those seats have typically passed through a well-documented institutional process. Choosing the seat strategically – at the contract drafting stage – is therefore a decision with direct consequences for Romanian enforcement.
To receive an expert assessment of arbitral award enforcement strategy in Romania, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
The gap between statute and practice: where enforcement proceedings break down
The statutory text of Romania's civil procedure rules presents enforcement as a relatively contained procedure. An application is filed, the court verifies compliance with formal requirements, the respondent is heard, and a decision is issued. The appellate structure provides a further check. This sequential process looks manageable on paper.
In practice, several gaps open between the legislative text and courtroom experience. Understanding them is essential for any creditor planning enforcement in Romania.
Translation and authentication requirements create more friction than the statute implies. Foreign awards and judgments must be accompanied by certified translations into Romanian. The certification chain – involving notarisation in the country of origin, apostille or legalisation depending on the treaty relationship. Additionally. Then Romanian notarial certification of the translation – is time-consuming and can surface defects that pause proceedings. Courts have refused applications on translation errors that, in substance, did not affect the intelligibility of the document. Creditors should treat the documentation phase as a project in itself, not as a formality.
Territorial jurisdiction generates disputes that the statute does not clearly resolve. The court of appeal having jurisdiction over the respondent's domicile or registered seat is the competent court. Where the respondent has recently changed its registered address, or maintains multiple establishments in Romania, creditors face the risk of filing in the wrong court and having the application transferred. or, in worse cases, dismissed. Verifying the respondent's current registered domicile in the Romanian trade register before filing is a non-negotiable step.
Interim measures and asset preservation sit in an awkward procedural position. Romanian civil procedure legislation permits provisional attachment of assets pending enforcement proceedings, but obtaining such an order requires a separate application to the competent court, supported by evidence of urgency and risk of asset dissipation. Courts apply this standard inconsistently. Some courts grant provisional attachment on the basis of the award alone, treating it as prima facie evidence of the creditor's right. Others require additional evidence of the debtor's intent to dissipate assets. The inconsistency means that a creditor who waits to secure provisional measures until after the main enforcement application is lodged may find that the debtor's assets have been restructured or transferred in the interim.
Appellate delay is a structural feature of Romanian court practice. First-instance enforcement decisions at the court of appeal level are subject to an appeal on points of law (recurs) before the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The recurs stage adds a further period – frequently six months to over a year in complex matters – during which the enforcement title is not yet final and enforceable. This timeline has strategic implications: a creditor holding a large commercial award may need to run enforcement proceedings in parallel in multiple jurisdictions to maintain pressure on the debtor.
Practitioners advising on litigation and arbitration in Romania consistently identify asset tracing as a parallel workstream that should begin at the award stage, not at the enforcement filing stage. By the time a Romanian enforcement judgment is final, a respondent who anticipated the claim may have restructured its Romanian assets significantly. Early asset intelligence – conducted within the bounds of Romanian data protection and privacy legislation – is an investment that frequently determines whether enforcement yields recovery.
Treaty architecture and EU dimensions: the multilateral layer
Romania sits within three overlapping treaty regimes relevant to cross-border enforcement. Understanding how they interact is essential for structuring enforcement strategy.
The New York Convention provides the primary framework for foreign arbitral award enforcement. Romania applies the Convention with the commercial reservation, meaning it limits application to disputes arising from commercial relationships. This reservation rarely affects mainstream commercial disputes but can be relevant in mixed public-private matters – for example, where a state-owned entity is the respondent and the dispute touches on sovereign functions. In those cases, the characterisation of the underlying relationship as commercial becomes a threshold question.
EU Regulation on civil and commercial judgments – which Romania applies as an EU member state – governs intra-EU court judgment enforcement. The regulation largely abolishes the need for a separate exequatur procedure for money judgments from EU member state courts. A creditor with a German, French, or Portuguese court judgment can enforce it in Romania through a streamlined process that requires only a standard certificate from the originating court. The public policy ground for refusal remains available under EU law, but courts apply it even more narrowly in the intra-EU context than in the New York Convention context.
Romania is also party to a network of bilateral treaties on legal assistance and enforcement. These treaties – concluded with a range of European and CIS states – sometimes provide more favourable enforcement conditions than either the EU regulation or the New York Convention. For creditors holding judgments from states with which Romania has such a treaty, the bilateral instrument should be examined before defaulting to the general private international law procedure. Some bilateral treaties waive the requirement for apostille on documents from the other contracting state, which simplifies the authentication chain considerably.
The interaction between the arbitration track and the EU regulation track occasionally produces procedural conflicts. Where a dispute involves an intra-EU contract with an arbitration clause. Additionally. One party seeks enforcement of an award while the other party simultaneously brings court proceedings in a different EU member state, questions of priority and coordination arise. EU law does not extend its mutual recognition rules to arbitral awards – those remain governed by the New York Convention even in intra-EU settings. Romanian courts have generally respected this division, treating arbitral award enforcement applications under the Convention rather than the EU regulation, but the theoretical tension remains relevant in complex multi-party disputes.
Investment treaty arbitration adds another dimension. Romania has concluded a significant number of bilateral investment treaties and remains party to the Energy Charter Treaty, though the EU law implications of intra-EU investment treaty claims have created substantial uncertainty in that space. For claims against the Romanian state, the interaction between investment treaty arbitration, EU state aid rules, and Romanian administrative law creates a distinct enforcement challenge. Awards against Romania in investor-state proceedings have in some cases been subject to enforcement difficulties arising from EU law constraints on payment of state aid-characterised compensation. This area of law is in active development and requires specific analysis at the case strategy stage.
For a comparative perspective on how a different EU civil law jurisdiction manages similar enforcement challenges, the analysis of cross-border enforcement in Portugal provides a useful reference point for European businesses managing multi-jurisdiction recovery strategies.
To discuss how treaty frameworks apply to your enforcement situation in Romania, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Strategic recommendations for international creditors and commercial parties
The practical complexity of Romanian enforcement proceedings calls for a structured approach. The following strategic considerations apply across the main enforcement scenarios.
Design the dispute resolution clause with enforcement in mind. Where a contract involves Romanian parties or Romanian assets, the arbitration clause should be drafted to minimise the grounds for challenge at the enforcement stage. Specifying a well-recognised institutional seat – with established procedural rules such as ICC Rules or UNCITRAL – reduces the risk of procedure-based challenges. Including an explicit choice of law for both the substantive contract and the arbitration clause, with clear incorporation of institutional rules, gives Romanian enforcement courts a complete record to work with. Ambiguous or ad hoc clauses invite challenge.
Treat the enforcement filing as a documentation project. Every element of the application. the award, the arbitration agreement, the procedural record, translations, and certifications – must be prepared to the highest documentary standard before filing. Romanian courts have used minor documentation defects as grounds to pause or refuse applications. Preparing the complete documentation package, and having it reviewed by Romanian counsel before submission, materially reduces this risk.
Initiate asset tracing early. Romanian enforcement titles take time to become final. A creditor who begins asset intelligence work at the award stage – rather than after the enforcement judgment – is in a substantially better position. Asset tracing in Romania involves searches of the land register, vehicle register, trade register, and, where applicable, bank attachment procedures. Each register has its own access rules under Romanian data protection and privacy legislation. Romanian counsel with experience in enforcement proceedings will have established workflows for this process.
Consider parallel enforcement in other jurisdictions. Where the respondent holds assets in multiple EU member states or third countries, parallel enforcement proceedings may be warranted. An EU member state court judgment from one EU jurisdiction can be enforced across the EU under the simplified procedure without re-litigating the underlying claim. For non-EU creditors holding a Romanian court judgment, enforcement in other jurisdictions will depend on bilateral treaty coverage or general private international law principles in each target state.
Anticipate the public policy defence and address it in the award. If the dispute involves damages methodologies, contractual penalties. Alternatively, remedies that may appear unusual from a Romanian civil law perspective. Ensuring that the arbitral tribunal's reasoning explicitly addresses the applicable law and the proportionality of the remedy will reduce the scope of a public policy challenge. A well-reasoned award that engages with the applicable law on each contested point is harder to attack on public policy grounds than a briefly-reasoned operative order.
Monitor the respondent's corporate status throughout proceedings. Romanian corporate legislation permits relatively swift changes to registered seats, mergers. Demergers, and. under insolvency legislation. the appointment of a judicial administrator who will contest enforcement claims in the context of the insolvency estate. Monitoring the Romanian trade register throughout enforcement proceedings is a basic but frequently overlooked precaution. A change in the respondent's corporate status can alter the competent enforcement court, the applicable procedural rules, and the practical recoverability of the claim.
Outlook: where Romanian enforcement law is heading
Romania's enforcement legislative regime has evolved materially since the adoption of the current civil procedure rules, which modernised key aspects of the prior system. Several trends are visible in recent court practice and legislative development.
Romanian courts at appellate level have shown increasing familiarity with institutional arbitration. Proceedings conducted under ICC Rules or UNCITRAL are now routinely accepted as satisfying due process standards without detailed examination of procedural steps. This is a notable improvement from earlier periods, when courts occasionally scrutinised institutional procedures through the lens of domestic litigation norms.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice has progressively narrowed the public policy defence for New York Convention award enforcement. Recent decisions – without referencing case numbers – have consistently framed public order as a last resort, applicable only where enforcement would produce a result incompatible with Romania's fundamental legal and constitutional principles. This trajectory benefits international creditors and aligns Romanian practice more closely with the prevailing approach in Western European jurisdictions.
At the same time, investment treaty enforcement remains contested. Romania's position within the EU creates ongoing tension between its treaty obligations to foreign investors and EU law constraints on compensation payments characterised as state aid. The resolution of this tension. which is being addressed at EU level as well as in national court proceedings. will have significant implications for any creditor holding an investment arbitration award against the Romanian state.
Digitalisation of court proceedings is advancing in Romania, though unevenly. Some enforcement courts now accept electronic filing of applications and supporting documents, which reduces the logistical burden of the documentation phase. Full electronic enforcement proceedings are not yet uniformly available, but the direction of travel is toward greater procedural efficiency.
For international businesses, the practical implication of these trends is that Romanian enforcement is becoming more predictable – but has not yet reached the degree of consistency found in Western European jurisdictions. Building enforcement strategy on the assumption of a well-functioning system, without local procedural knowledge and active case management, remains a material risk.
Frequently asked questions
Q: How long does it typically take to enforce a foreign arbitral award in Romania?
A: The recognition and enforcement process in Romanian courts typically spans several months to over a year, depending on court workload and whether the respondent contests the application. First-instance proceedings at the court of appeal level may conclude within four to eight months, but appellate review can extend the timeline considerably. Planning for twelve to eighteen months from filing to enforceable title is a reasonable working assumption for complex matters.
Q: Can a Romanian court refuse enforcement of a foreign arbitral award even if Romania is a party to the New York Convention?
A: Yes. Convention membership does not eliminate refusal grounds. Romanian courts may refuse enforcement on public policy grounds, lack of proper notice, incapacity of a party, or if the award covers a matter not capable of settlement by arbitration under Romanian law. In practice, public policy is the most frequently invoked defence, and courts have applied it inconsistently. Anticipating this risk at the award-drafting stage can significantly reduce exposure.
Q: Is Romania considered a reliable seat of arbitration for cross-border disputes?
A: Romania has a functioning domestic arbitration institution and its civil procedure rules incorporate modern arbitration principles. However, most international practitioners engaged in high-value disputes prefer established neutral seats such as Paris, Vienna, or Stockholm, using Romanian courts solely for the enforcement stage. Engaging a lawyer in Romania with cross-border experience is therefore advisable to manage the interface between the chosen seat and local enforcement proceedings.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm in Lisbon advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our practice covers the full cycle of cross-border enforcement – from arbitration clause design and seat selection through award enforcement and asset recovery in civil law jurisdictions including Romania. We combine Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition, which positions us to manage the interface between institutional arbitration proceedings and local enforcement courts across Europe. Our litigation and arbitration team has advised on enforcement matters before courts in EU member states and in international arbitration proceedings under ICC Rules and UNCITRAL. We work with international entrepreneurs, institutional investors, and in-house counsel who require an effective enforcement strategy across multiple legal systems. As a law firm in Romania-adjacent matters with EU-wide reach, we regularly coordinate enforcement workstreams across several jurisdictions simultaneously. To explore legal options for award enforcement or cross-border recovery in Romania, schedule a consultation at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.