Across Europe, creditors increasingly face a recurring situation: individuals who temporarily live or work abroad sign contracts for services such as medical treatment or consumer credit, yet have no real intention of paying. In practice, many of these debtors return to their home country while leaving their financial obligations unresolved, which creates genuine obstacles for the creditor trying to recover the outstanding amounts.

This pattern is closely linked to today’s economic and professional mobility. Romania is part of a broader European labour market, and there is a constant movement of Romanian nationals who reside for a period in other EU states and then relocate again. For international companies, this reality often turns debt recovery into a cross-border exercise. Creditors may discover that the debtor is no longer easy to locate, that assets are difficult to identify or that enforcement must ultimately be carried out in Romania under local rules.

Non-payment is not limited to consumer situations. It is also common in B2B relationships, where companies fail to pay invoices for delivered goods or provided services. Debtors frequently justify non-payment by pointing to financial hardship, and in certain cases this may indeed be legitimate. However, there are also situations where non-payment is driven less by economic distress and more by strategy. Some debtors assume that a foreign business partner will be reluctant to initiate legal proceedings in Romania, either due to unfamiliarity with the legal system or fear of additional costs and delays. This expectation, when it exists, can make recovery more difficult and can prolong the timeframe for obtaining payment, even where the claim is properly documented and contractually clear.

From a legal standpoint, creditors seeking debt collection in Romania typically have two main procedural avenues available. The first route is to rely on an EU-level mechanism, obtain a decision or enforceable title through a European procedure, and then pursue compulsory enforcement in Romania. The second route, and often the more efficient solution in practice, is to conduct the entire recovery process directly under Romanian procedural law, starting with court proceedings and continuing through enforcement if necessary.

 

1.    Pursuing a European procedure and enforcing the claim in Romania

The European Small Claims Procedure and the European Order for Payment are among the most practical EU instruments available to creditors who need a fast recovery and an enforceable title with cross-border effect. In many cases, these procedures can produce a decision or payment order within a relatively short period of time and the resulting title is, in principle, valid throughout the European Union.

That said, it is important to understand a key limitation: EU law facilitates recognition, but not the enforcement mechanics themselves. While the title obtained under these European procedures benefits from streamlined recognition across Member States, the enforcement stage is not unified at EU level. Compulsory execution remains governed by the national rules of the state where enforcement takes place. This means that recovery actions must be carried out in the country where the debtor is domiciled or where assets can be identified, strictly in accordance with that country’s procedural framework.

Where the debtor is based in Romania, enforcement is conducted under the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, through a Romanian court enforcement officer (bailiff), who manages the execution steps under local law.

Although European procedures can be advantageous, jurisdiction must be evaluated with particular caution, especially in B2C cases.

Clauses that attempt to impose the jurisdiction of the state where the service was contracted are often scrutinised and may be treated as unfair in consumer contracts. In practice, courts tend to prioritise the consumer’s domicile, which in many files results in Romanian jurisdiction becoming mandatory.

Under Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis), proceedings against a consumer may generally be brought only in the courts of the Member State where that consumer is domiciled: “Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled.”

Under the applicable European regulation, the general rule is that jurisdiction lies with the courts of the debtor’s domicile. While the regulation allows the parties to derogate from this rule by agreement, any such jurisdiction clause must not operate in an abusive manner to the detriment of the debtor.

In this context, clauses conferring jurisdiction on the courts at the creditor’s seat may be regarded as abusive, particularly where they are included in adhesion contracts, such as credit agreements, which are drafted unilaterally and contain pre-formulated terms. As a result, there is a real risk that a court will treat such a clause as unfair and disregard it, requiring the dispute to be heard before the courts of the debtor’s domicile.

This approach is reinforced by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In CJEU Case C-243/08, Pannon GSM, the Court confirmed that national courts must assess whether a jurisdiction clause included without individual negotiation creates an unfair imbalance in consumer contracts. The Court noted that: “It is for the national court to determine whether a contractual term, such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, satisfies the criteria to be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13. In so doing, the national court must take account of the fact that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair”.

At the same time, practical considerations often weigh heavily in the strategy selection. Court timelines vary significantly across the EU, and Romanian proceedings may, in real terms, move faster than similar cases in other Member States. In addition, European procedures frequently require coordination between professionals in more than one jurisdiction, which can increase both costs and overall duration, especially when enforcement must still be transferred to Romania in the final stage.

For these reasons, many creditors find that handling the case entirely in Romania, from the start of court proceedings through to enforcement, is often the most efficient route for debt collection from Romania, particularly when the debtor and the relevant assets are located within Romanian territory and procedural predictability becomes a main factor in any effective recovery strategy.

2.    Debt collection in Romania using Romanian procedures from start to finish

Debt recovery in Romania can be carried out through three separate procedural paths, and the most suitable option depends on the legal nature of the claim and the particular features of the file. In practice, a creditor may choose between the small claims procedure, intended for lower-value monetary disputes, the payment order procedure, which is available for claims that are certain, liquid and due irrespective of their amount, or ordinary civil/commercial litigation, which applies where the dispute requires a broader evidentiary review or where the special procedures cannot be used. Selecting the correct route is not merely a technical matter, as it directly influences the expected timeline, the procedural costs, and the overall effectiveness of debt collection from Romania.

Small claims procedure

The small claims procedure is a special framework designed to ensure a quicker resolution of disputes involving monetary claims up to RON 50.000, which corresponds roughly to EUR 10.000. It offers creditors a simplified alternative to full-scale litigation and is specifically meant to support the efficient recovery of smaller debts. The decision to use this mechanism rests entirely with the claimant, who must consider both the value of the claim and how strong the supporting documentation is.

As a rule, the proceedings are conducted primarily in writing, and the case is usually handled in chambers, without formal hearings. The court may still request the parties’ attendance, but this is the exception rather than the standard approach.

The debtor is entitled to file a counterclaim. If that counterclaim exceeds the RON 50.000 limit (approximately EUR 10.000), it will be separated from the small claims file and assessed under the ordinary procedure. The court typically places emphasis on documentary evidence, and additional forms of proof are admitted only where they remain proportionate to the value of the claim.

In principle, the judgment is issued within 30 days after the evidentiary stage has been completed.

A significant advantage for creditors is that the judgment becomes enforceable by law, which allows enforcement measures to begin immediately. The debtor may challenge the decision by filing an appeal within 30 days, but this appeal does not automatically suspend enforcement. Execution may therefore continue at the creditor’s risk, under Article 637(1) of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code. If the judgment is later modified or overturned, the creditor is required to return any amounts recovered beyond what is ultimately confirmed by the final ruling.

Payment order procedure

The payment order procedure is available without any value cap and is intended for claims that are clearly defined and immediately payable, namely those that are certain, liquid and due, arising from civil or commercial contracts. Before taking the matter to court, the creditor must issue a formal prior notice to the debtor, offering a 15-day deadline for payment.

If the debtor does not pay within that period, the creditor may petition the court to issue a payment order. The court will set a payment deadline between 10 and 30 days from the communication of the decision. Where the debtor does not file a statement of defence, the payment order is usually granted within a maximum of 45 days from the date the claim is lodged, not including the time needed for the formal service of court documents.

The payment order is enforceable even if the debtor files an application to annul it. As with small claims, enforcement may continue during this challenge, and the creditor proceeds at its own procedural risk until the remedy is resolved definitively.

Ordinary court proceedings

Where the claim does not satisfy the conditions of the special procedures, or where the dispute is legally or factually complex, the creditor must rely on ordinary civil or commercial court proceedings. This pathway is generally slower and involves a more extensive evidentiary stage, which may require expert assessments or witness hearings. Unlike the special procedures, compulsory enforcement can only be initiated once a final judgment is obtained, either because no appeal is filed or because any appeal is ultimately dismissed and the creditor’s position is confirmed.

In practical terms, handling litigation and enforcement entirely under Romanian procedural law is often the most predictable and efficient route for debt collection in Romania, especially where the debtor is domiciled locally and the debtor’s assets are located within Romanian territory, allowing the creditor to pursue the full recovery process under a single legal system and a coherent enforcement.

Bailiff enforcement in Romania

Compulsory enforcement in Romania can only begin if the debtor does not comply voluntarily with obligations set out in an enforceable title. In order to start enforcement, the creditor must submit an enforcement request to a competent Romanian bailiff (court enforcement officer), either personally or through a representative. The bailiff will then either open the enforcement file or issue a reasoned decision refusing to do so.

If the bailiff opens the file, Romanian law requires that the bailiff seeks court authorisation within three days. The enforcement court then rules within seven days, in chambers and without summoning the parties. This step is mandatory, because enforcement cannot proceed lawfully without the court’s approval.

The authorisation decision confirms the validity of the enforceable title and identifies the amount that may be recovered, including any ancillary sums, such as interest and penalties, where applicable. Where the creditor has requested a specific enforcement method, the court will also address that request. Once authorisation is granted, the bailiff is empowered to use all enforcement measures permitted by Romanian law, in order to obtain full recovery, including the enforcement-related costs, and can do so anywhere within Romanian territory.

Following authorisation, the debtor must be formally served with the court’s approval, the enforceable title and, as a rule, a final notice granting a short deadline for voluntary compliance. Proper service is not a procedural formality, but a strict legal requirement, and enforcement measures carried out without compliant service may be exposed to challenges for unlawfulness.

Once enforcement has been authorised and service has been properly completed, Romanian civil procedure offers several execution mechanisms, selected according to the debtor’s available assets and always subject to the principles of legality and proportionality. Recovery may be pursued through enforcement against movable assets, whether held directly by the debtor or held by third parties, as well as through enforcement against immovable property, including certain in rem rights such as usufruct or superficies. Enforcement against immovable assets is typically used for higher-value claims and is carried out through regulated sale procedures, most commonly public auction, but in certain situations also through direct sale under the conditions set by law.

Another widely used tool is garnishment, which allows the creditor to recover amounts directly from funds or receivables owed to the debtor by third parties. This method may target, for example, bank account balances, salary income, other periodic earnings or amounts payable under ongoing contractual relationships, regardless of whether those sums are already due or will become payable in the future.

Key practical aspects of debt collection from Romania

Recovering a debt from a Romanian debtor is most effective when it is approached in a structured way, based on solid documentation, an early legal assessment of the claim, and a procedural strategy chosen with realism and efficiency in mind. In practice, successful debt collection from Romania usually begins with correctly identifying the debtor, confirming the contractual foundation of the debt, and ensuring that all supporting materials are properly organised, such as invoices, proof of delivery or performance, relevant correspondence and documented reminders requesting payment.

What if I do not have the debtor’s full address in Romania?

The absence of a complete Romanian address does not prevent debt recovery. Under Romanian rules, a creditor may submit formal requests to the competent Population Register authorities, provided that the creditor can demonstrate a legitimate interest, such as initiating court proceedings.

If these conditions are met, the Population Register Directorate will communicate the debtor’s officially registered address. This enables the creditor to continue with court steps and, where applicable, to move forward into enforcement proceedings once an enforceable title is obtained. As a result, incomplete address information is not treated as a decisive obstacle to filing a claim, and obtaining the missing details typically involves only a limited administrative fee, which may differ depending on the county where the debtor is registered.

Can I find out what assets a Romanian debtor has before starting a debt recovery legal action?

As a general rule, no. Romanian law does not allow a creditor to access comprehensive information about the debtor’s assets in advance, before initiating formal recovery steps. Asset identification is primarily carried out at the enforcement stage and falls within the exclusive powers of the Romanian court enforcement officer, who uses the mechanisms available under the Romanian Civil Procedure Code.

However, from a practical standpoint, it is relatively rare for a debtor to have absolutely no traceable assets. Even where the debtor does not own real estate, there is often at least one bank account in Romania, a salary or another form of income, movable goods or patrimonial rights that can be targeted through enforcement. Romanian bailiffs have the legal authority to identify bank accounts, income sources, movable property and other assets and to pursue enforcement measures against them.

Court fees in debt recovery proceedings in Romania

When planning debt collection from Romania, court fees are a relevant cost factor because they influence both the overall budget of the recovery process and the procedural strategy chosen. Romanian legislation sets out judicial stamp duties with the applicable fee depending mainly on the type of proceedings and the value of the claim.

Applications filed under the payment order procedure are subject to a fixed court fee of RON 200 (approximately EUR 40), regardless of the total value of the debt. This makes the payment order particularly cost-effective for creditors pursuing debt collection in Romania, especially where the claim is well documented and clearly qualifies as certain, liquid and due.

The small claims procedure also involves fixed court fees calculated by reference to the amount claimed. For claims of up to RON 2,000 (around EUR 400), the court fee is RON 50 (approximately EUR 10). For claims between RON 2,000 and RON 50,000 (roughly EUR 400–10,000), the fee is RON 200 (approximately EUR 40).

In ordinary civil or commercial proceedings, stamp duties are calculated progressively based on the value of the claim, using the following scale:

  • For claims up to RON 500 (≈ EUR 100), the court fee is 8%.
  • For claims between RON 501 and RON 5,000 (≈ EUR 100–1,000), the fee is RON 40 (≈ EUR 8) plus 7% of the amount exceeding RON 500.
  • For claims between RON 5,001 and RON 25,000 (≈ EUR 1,000–5,000), the fee is RON 355 (≈ EUR 70) plus 5% of the amount exceeding RON 5,000.
  • For claims between RON 25,001 and RON 50,000 (≈ EUR 5,000–10,000), the fee is RON 1,355 (≈ EUR 270) plus 3% of the amount exceeding RON 25,000.
  • For claims between RON 50,001 and RON 250,000 (≈ EUR 10,000–50,000), the fee is RON 2,105 (≈ EUR 420) plus 2% of the amount exceeding RON 50,000.
  • For claims above RON 250,000 (≈ over EUR 50,000), the fee is RON 6,105 (≈ EUR 1,220) plus 1% of the amount exceeding RON 250,000, capped at RON 100,000 (≈ EUR 20,000).

Can I recover my costs?

Yes. If the creditor succeeds, Romanian courts will generally order the debtor to reimburse the creditor’s legal costs, based on the principle that the losing party bears the reasonable expenses caused by the dispute. Recoverable costs may include, among others, attorney’s fees, court stamp duties, translation expenses and any other necessary costs incurred during the court proceedings or at the enforcement stage.

Once awarded by the court, these amounts become part of the enforceable debt and may be pursued through compulsory enforcement alongside the principal claim and any ancillary amounts, such as interest or penalties.

Our dedicated debt recovery department

Debt collection from Romania can be carried out efficiently when the appropriate legal procedure is selected and the file is handled in a coherent manner, from the first formal payment notice through to the effective enforcement of an enforceable title. While European instruments may be useful in certain cross-border scenarios, practice often confirms that initiating and conducting the entire recovery process directly in Romania can offer a clear advantage in terms of duration, costs and procedural control, particularly where the debtor is domiciled in Romania and enforcement will ultimately take place locally.

In this context, Blaj Law’s debt recovery department provides legal assistance during the amicable phase, throughout court proceedings and during enforcement through a Romanian court enforcement officer.

The department handles, in particular, debt portfolios arising from consumer credit agreements, medical services, transport-related claims, as well as customer and contractual receivables where payment obligations remain outstanding. Through a combination of procedural expertise and practical enforcement coordination, Blaj Law supports creditors in obtaining effective recovery while maintaining predictability at each stage of the process.

 

More from Blaj Law