How to Enforce a Foreign Judgment or Arbitral Award in Romania (2026): Recognition, Enforcement Steps and Common Defences

Enforce foreign judgment Romania proceedings have become a routine feature of cross-border lending as banks, credit servicers and foreign lenders pursue debtors and assets located within Romanian jurisdiction. In 2026, the acceleration of cross-border credit, portfolio trading of non-performing loans (NPLs) and a growing volume of arbitration outcomes have made recognition and enforcement one of the most consequential procedural questions for in-house counsel. Romania operates three distinct enforcement pathways, the simplified regime for European Union judgments under Brussels Ia, the recognition (exequatur) route for non-EU judgments, and the New York Convention regime for arbitral awards, each with its own documents, timelines and refusal grounds.

This guide sets out, step by step, how each route works, roughly what it costs, how long it takes and how debtors typically resist. It is written for practitioners who need actionable procedure rather than high-level commentary.

1. Overview: Which Foreign Rulings and Awards Can Be Enforced in Romania?

Before you can enforce a foreign judgment Romania claim, you must correctly classify the ruling you hold, because the classification determines the entire procedural route. Romania recognises three broad categories, and treating them interchangeably is the most common early error made by foreign lenders.

Types of foreign decisions covered

• EU judgments (Brussels Ia). Judgments given in another EU Member State circulate under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I recast), which abolished the intermediate declaration of enforceability (exequatur). A judgment enforceable in its Member State of origin is enforceable in Romania upon presentation of the prescribed certificate (Article 53 certificate) and, where required, a translation.
• Non-EU judgments. Judgments from states outside the EU require a judicial recognition and enforcement procedure under Book VII of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code (Law No 134/2010), in which a Romanian court examines finality, jurisdiction and public policy before permitting enforcement.
• Arbitral awards (New York Convention). Foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced under the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which Romania is a party, as implemented through the Civil Procedure Code. The refusal grounds are narrow and exhaustive.

Can EU and non-EU decisions be enforced the same way? No. The EU regime is materially faster and lighter on documentation. Non-EU judgments face a full judicial recognition review and legalisation requirements. Arbitral awards, although foreign, benefit from a pro-enforcement international framework that is often quicker than non-EU recognition.

2. Eligibility: When Will Romanian Courts Accept Recognition of a Foreign Judgment?

Romanian courts apply a set of gateway tests before recognising any foreign decision. Confirming eligibility at the outset prevents wasted filing fees and translation costs on a claim that will be refused.

Jurisdiction, finality and public policy tests

• Finality. The foreign judgment must be final and enforceable in its state of origin. For non-EU judgments you must produce documentary proof of finality; for EU judgments the Brussels Ia certificate performs this function.
• Jurisdiction of the originating court. The originating court must have had jurisdiction under rules not conflicting with Romanian exclusive jurisdiction. Romanian courts will refuse recognition where the foreign court assumed jurisdiction over a matter reserved exclusively to the Romanian courts.
• Public policy (ordre public). Recognition is refused where the effect of the judgment would be manifestly contrary to Romanian or EU public policy. This is a narrow exception, not a route to re-litigate the merits.
• Res judicata and irreconcilable judgments. Recognition is refused where the foreign decision is irreconcilable with an earlier Romanian judgment or with an earlier foreign judgment already recognised in Romania between the same parties.
• Due process. The defendant must have been duly served and given a genuine opportunity to defend; default judgments obtained without proper service are vulnerable.

Pre-filing checklist. Before filing, confirm: (i) the decision is final and enforceable at origin; (ii) the originating court had proper jurisdiction; (iii) there is no conflicting Romanian judgment; (iv) service on the debtor was regular; and (v) the claim does not offend Romanian public policy. If any answer is doubtful, address it in the application rather than leaving it for the debtor to raise.

3. Step-by-Step Enforcement Procedure to Enforce a Foreign Judgment in Romania

The following procedure applies, with variations noted, to EU judgments, non-EU judgments and arbitral awards. It is presented as a sequential process so that counsel can plan resourcing and client expectations across the whole matter.

1. Step 1, Preliminary enforceability audit

   Who: in-house counsel working with a Romanian enforcement lawyer. Duration: indicatively 1–2 weeks.

   Classify the decision (EU / non-EU / award), verify finality and enforceability at origin, run asset tracing to confirm the debtor has recoverable assets in Romania, and identify the correct competent court (generally the tribunal at the debtor’s domicile or, failing that, the place of enforcement). This audit prevents committing translation and court costs to an unrecoverable claim.

2. Step 2, Prepare the application for recognition and enforcement

   Who: Romanian counsel with a certified translator and notary. Duration: indicatively 1–4 weeks.

   Assemble the certified copy of the judgment or award, obtain the Brussels Ia certificate (for EU cases) or apostille/legalisation (for non-EU judgments and awards), procure certified Romanian translations, and draft the application setting out the claim, the requested enforcement measures and the calculation of principal, interest and currency conversion. A power of attorney for local counsel is required, and where executed abroad it should be notarised and apostilled/legalised as applicable.

3. Step 3, Court filing and review

   Who: Romanian counsel. Duration: registry acceptance a matter of days; court review typically several weeks to a few months.

   File the application with the competent court. For EU judgments enforcement in Romania under Brussels Ia, no separate declaration of enforceability is required, so the creditor may proceed directly to enforcement subject to the debtor’s right to apply for refusal of enforcement. For non-EU judgments and arbitral awards, the court conducts a recognition/enforcement examination applying the eligibility tests set out above, without re-examining the merits.

4. Step 4, Oppositions and provisional measures

   Who: debtor (opposition) and creditor (provisional relief). Duration: can be expedited where urgency is shown.

   The debtor may contest recognition or oppose enforcement by an enforcement challenge (contestație la executare) within the statutory window. In parallel, the creditor can seek precautionary attachment (sechestru asigurător) to freeze assets and prevent dissipation while recognition is pending. Securing provisional measures early is often decisive in NPL enforcement.

5. Step 5, Final enforcement through the bailiff

   Who: the bailiff (executor judecătoresc). Duration: varies widely depending on assets and resistance.

   Once recognition/enforcement is granted and the enforceable title (titlu executoriu) is confirmed, instruct a bailiff to execute against the debtor’s assets, bank account garnishment, seizure and sale of movables, or forced sale of real estate. The bailiff conducts the practical recovery under the statutory fee framework and accounts for proceeds to the creditor.

Practitioner tip. In portfolio enforcement for lenders, the sequencing of Step 1 and Step 4 matters more than any other decision. Running asset tracing and applying for precautionary attachment early frequently determines whether there is anything left to recover by the time recognition is granted.

4. Required Documents to Enforce a Foreign Judgment or Award

Document defects, missing apostilles, uncertified translations, or an incomplete power of attorney, are a leading cause of avoidable delay. Assemble the full bundle before filing and confirm certification requirements with local counsel.

5. Timeline and Deadlines

Timelines are indicative and depend on court workload, the completeness of the document bundle, and whether the debtor contests. EU cases are consistently faster because there is no separate declaration-of-enforceability stage. Non-EU judgments and contested awards run longer. Urgent creditors can compress the front end by preparing translations and the power of attorney in advance, and can protect recovery through precautionary attachment while recognition proceeds. Note the debtor’s opposition window carefully: enforcement-challenge deadlines under the Civil Procedure Code generally run from the point at which the debtor learns of the enforcement act, so confirm the exact applicable term with counsel.

6. Costs and Fees

Costs to enforce a foreign judgment Romania claim vary with claim value, the enforcement measures needed and the degree of debtor resistance. Obtain fixed quotes from counsel, translators and the bailiff before committing. Court fees (stamp duty, taxa judiciară de timbru) are set by the applicable legal framework and can scale with claim value, while bailiff fees follow a regulated fee framework tied to the value recovered, subject to statutory minima and maxima. Translation and apostille costs multiply quickly on document-heavy non-EU matters, so budget realistically. The table below lists cost categories rather than guaranteed figures; verify current tariffs with counsel and the bailiff.

7. What Changed in 2026

The core statutory architecture, Brussels Ia for EU judgments, the New York Convention for arbitral awards, and the Civil Procedure Code for non-EU recognition, remains stable. The practical shifts flow largely from market conditions and court practice rather than wholesale legislative reform. The growth in NPL portfolio trading, shaped by the transposition of the EU Credit Servicers Directive (Directive (EU) 2021/2167) into Romanian law and the ongoing supervisory role of the National Bank of Romania (BNR) and the Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF) in the relevant sectors, has increased the volume of enforcement filings, and courts have continued to apply the public policy exception narrowly, resisting attempts to re-open the merits.

Practitioners should monitor legislative developments published in Monitorul Oficial and guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice, and check current High Court (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție) jurisprudence for any refinements to recognition practice. Where a specific procedural amendment affects your matter, verify the current wording of the relevant Civil Procedure Code article on the legislative portal (legislatie. just. ro) before filing, as fee schedules and procedural detail are periodically updated.

8. Common Defences and How to Respond

Understanding how debtors resist is essential to drafting a robust application. The grounds are limited and, for arbitral awards, exhaustively defined, but poorly prepared applications invite avoidable challenges.

Grounds a debtor can use to oppose recognition or enforcement

• Public policy. The debtor argues the judgment’s effect is manifestly contrary to Romanian or EU public policy. Courts apply this narrowly; it is not a merits appeal.
• Lack of jurisdiction. The originating court is said to have lacked jurisdiction, or to have infringed Romanian exclusive jurisdiction.
• Irreconcilable judgments. The foreign decision conflicts with an earlier Romanian judgment, or an earlier recognised foreign judgment, between the same parties.
• Lack of finality. The judgment is not yet final or remains subject to ordinary appeal at origin.
• Defective service / due process. The debtor was not duly served or was denied the opportunity to defend, particularly in default judgments.
• Invalid arbitration agreement. For awards, the debtor challenges the validity of the arbitration agreement, the scope of the award, the composition of the tribunal, or a breach of due process under the New York Convention refusal grounds.

Defence-response playbook for lenders

Anticipate the likely challenge and neutralise it in the application. Where default judgments are involved, attach complete proof of service abroad and, where relevant, evidence of the debtor’s actual notice. For arbitral awards, file the arbitration agreement and the full award to pre-empt scope and validity challenges. Address any potential public policy argument head-on with a short submission explaining why enforcement is compatible with Romanian and EU order. Where dissipation is a risk, apply for precautionary attachment (sechestru asigurător) in parallel so that a successful defence delay does not defeat recovery. Finally, keep settlement on the table: in NPL enforcement, a structured settlement secured against attached assets frequently delivers faster recovery than a fully litigated challenge.

If you are weighing whether to instruct local specialists at this stage, our note on When to Hire a Banking Lawyer in Romania (2026) sets out the practical triggers.

9. Comparison: EU Judgment vs Non-EU Judgment vs Arbitral Award

The table below summarises the three routes at a glance. Use it to set client expectations on speed, documentation and refusal risk before you commit to a filing strategy.

10. Practical Annexes and Templates

Structured preparation is what separates a smooth enforcement from a stalled one. Before filing, work through a standard internal checklist covering classification, finality, jurisdiction, service and asset tracing. A well-drafted application outline should open with the parties and the enforceable title, state the legal basis for recognition, set out the claim calculation (principal, interest, currency and conversion date), specify the enforcement measures sought, and confirm the attached documents. Documentary evidence of enforceability from the originating jurisdiction, a translation checklist mapping each document to its certified translation, and a corporate authority pack (registration certificate and authorisation) complete a robust bundle. Maintaining these as reusable templates materially reduces preparation time on repeat portfolio enforcement.

Conclusion

To enforce a foreign judgment Romania strategy successfully, you must first classify the decision correctly, then follow the route that classification dictates, direct enforcement under Brussels Ia for EU judgments, recognition under the Civil Procedure Code for non-EU judgments, or the New York Convention regime for arbitral awards. The recurring themes are the same across all three: assemble a complete, certified document bundle, confirm finality and jurisdiction before filing, protect recovery with precautionary attachment where dissipation is a risk, and anticipate the debtor’s limited defence grounds in the application itself. With cross-border lending and NPL enforcement volumes rising, disciplined preparation is what converts a foreign title into recovered value.

Given the procedural detail and the narrow but consequential refusal grounds, engage experienced Romanian counsel early, the front-end investment in audit and provisional measures typically determines the outcome.

Sources

1. Portal Legislativ, Romanian Legislation
2. Romanian Ministry of Justice
3. Monitorul Oficial (Romania)
4. EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I recast)
5. UNCITRAL, New York Convention (1958)
6. Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romanian High Court)
7. Curia, Court of Justice of the European Union
8. Uniunea Națională a Barourilor din România (Romanian Bar)