In Romania, product liability claims may be brought on three main legal grounds: a statutory strict liability regime, tort (delictual liability) and contractual liability.

The primary framework is set out in Law no. 240/2004 on liability for defective products (Law no. 240/2004), which transposes Directive 85/374/EEC. Under this regime, liability is strict. The injured party is not required to prove fault or negligence on the part of the producer, as it is sufficient to establish the defect of the product, the damage suffered and the causal link between them. Liability may extend not only to the manufacturer of the finished product, but also to producers of components, importers into the European Union and, in certain circumstances, suppliers, where the producer cannot be identified.

Important to note that Directive (EU) 2024/2853 on liability for defective products, which repeals Directive 85/374/EEC, must be transposed into Romanian law by 9 December 2026. Until such transposition takes place, Law no 240/2004 remains applicable.

In parallel, a claimant may rely on the general rules of tort liability under the Law No. 287/2009 on the Civil Code. In this case, liability is fault-based and requires proof of an unlawful act, damage, a causal link and fault (intent or negligence). Tort claims may be particularly relevant where the damage falls outside the scope of Law no 240/2004 for example, where the loss is purely economic or where the product does not qualify as a ‘product’ within the meaning of the law.

Contractual liability may also arise where there is a direct contractual relationship between the injured party and the seller or supplier. In such cases, liability is generally fault-based, although Romanian law recognises certain implied obligations, including the obligation to deliver conforming goods and the warranty against hidden defects, which may facilitate the claimant’s position. In addition, Government Emergency Ordinance no. 140/2021 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods (GEO 140/2021) establishes a specific regime of liability for lack of conformity, including the seller’s liability under the legal guarantee of conformity and, in certain circumstances, the producer’s liability under a commercial guarantee.

Law No. 240/2004 defines a ‘product’ as any movable object, including components, parts, or raw materials incorporated into another object, as well as electrical energy. Currently, liability for defective products applies regardless of the type of commercial relationship.

At the European level, Directive (EU) 2024/2853 on product liability, modernizes the concept of a product, explicitly including digital products and software, including artificial intelligence.

Under Law no. 240/2004, any injured party may bring a claim for damage caused by a defective product. The law governs the legal relationship between manufacturers and persons who have suffered damage as a result of defective products placed on the market that do not provide the safety which may reasonably be expected.

The notion of ‘injured party’ is not expressly defined. It should be noted that the categories of recoverable damage are expressly limited to death or personal injury and to damage to, or destruction of, any item of property, provided that such property is of a type ordinarily intended for private use or consumption and was used by the injured person mainly for their own private use or consumption. As a result of these limitations, the statutory regime is to be primarily relevant to natural persons.

Consumer protection associations have standing to bring actions in court for the protection of consumers’ rights and legitimate interests, pursuant to Government Ordinance no. 21/1992 on consumer protection, which may include actions related to defective products.

A claim may also be brought in connection with the death of a person caused by a defective product. In such cases, the right to claim compensation is exercised by the deceased person’s heirs or other persons entitled under general civil law to seek damages arising from the death.

Under Law no. 240/2004, a defendant found liable for a defective product is required to compensate the injured party for the damage caused, the remedy taking the form of monetary damages. The law expressly covers both actual and future damage resulting from the defect.

The types of recoverable damage are, however, strictly limited. Compensation may be awarded for personal injury or death, as well as for damage to property, provided that such property is intended for private use or consumption and was used accordingly by the injured party. In addition, the damage must concern property other than the defective product itself and must exceed the statutory threshold. Under Romanian law, compensation for property damage is subject to a minimum threshold, aligned with the framework established by Directive 85/374/EEC, which sets a minimum value of 500 EUR for recoverable damage to property.

By contrast, certain categories of loss fall outside the scope of the statutory regime. In particular, damage to the defective product itself, purely economic loss, and damage to property used for professional or commercial purposes are not recoverable under Law no. 240/2004 and may instead be pursued, where applicable, under general tort or contractual liability rules.
In line with general principles of Romanian law, compensation may include both material and moral damages, to the extent that the conditions of liability are met.

Finally, any contractual clauses seeking to limit or exclude the manufacturer’s liability towards the injured party are null and void, ensuring that the level of protection afforded by the statutory regime cannot be contractually reduced.

A product is considered defective under Law no. 240/2004 where it does not provide the safety a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account. In assessing defectiveness, the law refers in particular to the presentation of the product, the reasonably foreseeable uses of the product and the time when the product was put into circulation. The mere fact that a more advanced or improved product has subsequently been placed on the market does not in itself render an earlier product defective.

In order to establish defect, the claimant must demonstrate that the product failed to meet the expected level of safety in light of these criteria. Romanian law does not require proof of fault or negligence on the part of the manufacturer; rather, the focus is on the objective lack of safety of the product.

In practice, proving defect is closely linked to the overall burden of proof, as the claimant must establish the existence of the defect, the damage suffered and the causal link between them. Evidence typically involves a combination of technical documentation, expert reports and factual circumstances relating to the use and presentation of the product.

Under Law no 240/2004, the burden of proof lies with the claimant. In order to establish liability, the claimant must prove the damage, the defect, and the causal relationship between the defect and the damage.

The statutory regime does not provide for a formal reversal of the burden of proof. However, once the claimant has established all four elements, the manufacturer may avoid liability by proving the existence of one of the exonerating circumstances (for example, that the defect did not exist at the time the product was put into circulation, or that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at that time did not permit the defect to be discovered).

Additionally, where the damage was caused both by the defect and by the fault of the injured party, the court may reduce or exclude the manufacturer’s liability accordingly.

In assessing whether a product is defective, Romanian courts apply the standard set out in Law no. 240/2004, namely whether the product provides the level of safety which a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account. In this context, particular relevance is given to the presentation of the product, including labelling, warnings and instructions for use, the reasonably foreseeable uses of the product, and the time at which the product was put into circulation.

A breach of regulatory obligations, such as non-compliance with applicable product safety or labelling requirements, does not automatically lead to a finding that the product is defective. However, it constitutes a strong indication that the product does not provide the level of safety which a person is entitled to expect. Conversely, compliance with regulatory standards does not exclude defectiveness, but is taken into account in the overall assessment. In practice, this assessment tends to be interpreted in a manner favourable to the injured person, given the protective purpose of the product liability regime and the consumer-oriented approach reflected in both national law and EU legislation.

It is noteworthy that Directive (EU) 2024/2853, which must be transposed by 9 December 2026, strengthens the link between regulatory compliance and the assessment of defectiveness. In particular, non-compliance with mandatory product safety requirements may give rise to a rebuttable presumption of defect, marking a significant evolution from the current regime.

Under Law No. 240/2004 liability for damage caused by a defective product falls primarily on the manufacturer. However, the term ‘manufacturer’ is interpreted broadly in order to ensure effective protection for the injured party.

Thus, the following persons may be held liable:

• the manufacturer of the finished product, of a raw material, or of a component part of the product;
• any person who presents themselves as a manufacturer by affixing their name, trademark, or other distinctive mark to the product;
• any person who imports a product for the purpose of sale, rental, or any other form of distribution as part of their commercial activity, such person being considered a manufacturer and bearing the same liability;
• the importer of a product from outside the European Union placed on the market for commercial purposes, who bears similar liability to the manufacturer;
• the supplier or distributor of the product, where the manufacturer cannot be identified, if they fail to inform the injured party, within a reasonable time, of the identity of the manufacturer or the person from whom they acquired the product.

Where multiple entities are liable for the same damage, Law No. 240/2004 establishes the principle of joint and several liability toward the injured party, who has the right to seek full compensation for the damage from any of the parties accounting for the defect.

Under Law No. 240/2004, the manufacturer is not liable if it proves one of the following:

• the manufacturer is not the party that placed the product on the market
• depending on the circumstances, the defect that caused the damage did not exist at the time the product was placed on the market or arose after the product was placed on the market, for reasons not attributable to the manufacturer;
• the product was not manufactured for sale or for any other form of distribution for the manufacturer’s economic purposes and was not manufactured or distributed in the course of the manufacturer’s professional activity;
• the defect is due to compliance with mandatory requirements imposed by regulations issued by the competent authorities;
• the level of scientific and technical knowledge available at the time the product was placed on the market did not allow for the detection of the defect in question;
• the defect is due to the consumer’s failure to follow the instructions for use provided in the technical documentation accompanying the product, as demonstrated by specialized technical expertise.
• the component manufacturer is exempt from liability if it proves that the defect is attributable to a design flaw in the assembly in which the component was installed or to instructions provided by the manufacturer of the consumer product.

Furthermore, the manufacturer’s liability may be limited or excluded by the competent court if the damage is caused both by the defect in the product and by the fault of the injured person or of another person for whom the injured person is responsible.

Law No. 240/2004 provides that the right to bring an action against the manufacturer is subject to a statute of limitations of three years, calculated from the date on which the injured party became aware or should have become aware of the injury, the defect in the product, and the identity of the manufacturer.

In addition, the law establishes an absolute limitation period (‘long-stop period’), meaning that the manufacturer’s liability ceases 10 years after the date the product was put into circulation, regardless of when the damage was discovered, unless an action has already been filed within that period.

Law No. 240/2004 does not provide for a separate statute of limitations for actions brought in the event of the death of the injured party. According to the Law No. 134/2010 on the Code of Civil Procedure, a complaint cannot be filed on behalf of a person who was already deceased at the time the court was seized of the matter, as that person no longer has legal capacity. If death occurs after the action has been filed, the proceedings may be continued by the heirs of the deceased, who acquire standing under the law. At the same time, in the event of the victim’s death, entitled persons (for example, heirs or persons who have suffered their own damages) may file a claim in their own name for compensation for damages suffered as a result of the death.

Under Law No. 240/2004 the manufacturer liability is mandatory and, in principle, cannot be excluded or limited by contractual clauses.

According to Article 10 of the law, any contractual clause that seeks to exclude or limit the manufacturer’s liability for damages caused by a defective product is null and void.

Law No. 240/2004 does not contain such limitations.

According to Law No. 134/2010 on the Code of Civil Procedure, Romanian courts have jurisdiction to hear cases concerning civil liability for damages caused by products originating in Romania, in accordance with the applicable jurisdictional rules.

Under Romanian law, negligence is not regulated as an autonomous legal institution, being subsumed under the general framework of tort (delictual) civil liability established by Law no. 287/2009 on the Civil Code. In order to validly substantiate such a claim, the claimant bears the burden of proving the cumulative existence of four constitutive elements of civil liability: un unlawful act, damage, a causal relationship between the act and the damage, and fault (in the form of intent of negligence) attributable to the defendant.

The claimant must also prove that an unlawful act occurred, an actual damage has been produced and that there is a direct causal relationship must be established between the infringement and the damage. Limitations set forth under the statutory product liability regime shall not be applicable.

Fault is assessed by reference to the defendant’s conduct, namely whether they acted with intent or negligence, as compared to the standard of a reasonably prudent and diligent person. In this context, Romanian law distinguishes between different types of fault, including both minor (ordinary) negligence and gross negligence, where each of which may engage civil liability, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

Although liability for defective products is primarily governed by a special statutory regime, Romanian law does not exclude recourse to general tort principles, which may be relied upon where the conditions of the statutory regime are not met or where a broader range of damages is sought.

A claimant may bring a claim based on tort where the statutory regime under Law no. 240/2004 is not applicable or does not provide full compensation.

As a matter of principle, Romanian law permits the coexistence of multiple grounds of liability. Nonetheless, where a contractual relationship exists between the parties, liability will, as a rule, be governed by the regime of contractual liability, and reliance on tortious liability is restricted. In this regard, Article 1350(3) of the Law No. 287/2009 on the Civil Code expressly provides that, unless otherwise stipulated by law, a party cannot circumvent the rules of contractual liability in order to rely on more favourable rules, such as those applicable to tortious liability.

Under Romanian law, the primary remedy available in tort (delictual) liability is compensation in the form of damages intended to fully repair the prejudice suffered. This includes both material damages (such as actual loss and loss of profit) and moral damages for non-pecuniary harm, where applicable.

The function of damages under Romanian law is strictly compensatory in nature, their purpose being to place the injured party, as far as possible, in the position in which they would have found themselves if the harmful event would not occurred. Romanian law does not recognise punitive or exemplary damages and the amount of compensation may not exceed the actual loss effectively sustained by the claimant.

Under Romanian law, where multiple tortfeasors are liable for the same damage, they are generally held jointly and severally liable towards the injured party. This allows the claimant to seek full compensation from any one of the liable parties, without being required to apportion the claim between them.

As between the tortfeasors, liability is ultimately apportioned according to each party’s degree of fault and contribution to the damage. A party that has discharged more than its proportionate share of the compensation may exercise a recourse (contribution) action against the other co-debtors held liable, with a view to recovering the corresponding amounts paid in excess.

Yes. Under Romanian law, a defendant may rely on several defences in negligence claims.

The most common defence consists in challenging the existence of one of the constitutive elements of civil liability, in particular by invoking the absence of fault, the absence of an infringement, or the lack of a causal nexus between the alleged infringement and the damage.

The defendant may also rely on the fault of the injured party (contributory negligence), which may, depending on the circumstances of the case, entail a reduction or even the exclusion of liability. Likewise, the fault of a third party may be capable of interrupting the causal chain and thereby excluding the defendant’s liability.

In addition, force majeure or unforeseeable and unavoidable events may operate as exonerating circumstances.

Under Romanian law, tort claims are subject to a general limitation period of three years. This period typically runs from the date on which the injured party knew or should have known both the damage and the person liable for it.

Longer limitation periods may apply in specific cases expressly provided by law.

Liability in tort cannot be excluded or limited by means of a prior notice or disclaimer addressed to the public. Such notice may, however, have the legal effect of warning of a danger, depending on the circumstances.

Moreover, liability may be reduced or excluded where the damage is caused, in whole or in part, by the conduct of the injured party or by a third party, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Liability may also be excluded where the damage is caused by force majeure or by an unforeseeable and unavoidable event, which interrupts the causal nexus between the act and the damage.

Overall, limitation and exclusion clauses are interpreted restrictively by Romanian courts, especially where they seek to derogate from fundamental principles of liability.

Under Romanian law, contractual liability under a sale contract may arise from implied legal obligations set forth in the Civil Code and through special consumer protection legislation, even if these are not expressly stipulated in the contract.

According to Law No. 287/2009 on the Civil Code, the sales contract imposes certain obligations on the seller, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, in particular: the obligation to deliver the products in accordance with the contract; the warranty against hidden defects; the warranty against eviction, the seller being legally obligated to guarantee the buyer against eviction that would totally or partially prevent the buyer from undisturbed possession of the sold products; the warranty for proper functioning, if this is guaranteed by the seller.

In a business-to-consumer relationship, GEO No. 140/2021 imposes certain obligations on the seller, including:

• subjective requirements for conformity: compliance with the description, type, quantity, and quality specified in the contract, the existence of functionality, compatibility, interoperability, and other contractually agreed characteristics; the suitability of the goods for the specific purpose requested by the consumer and accepted by the seller; delivery together with the accessories and instructions specified in the contract; and the provision of contractually agreed updates;
• objective requirements for conformity: the suitability of the goods for the normal uses of goods of the same type, conformity with the sample or model presented to the consumer, delivery together with the accessories, packaging, and instructions that the consumer can reasonably expect, the presence of the usual quantity, qualities, and characteristics, including durability, functionality, compatibility, and safety; conformity with the seller’s or manufacturer’s public statements; and the provision of updates necessary to maintain conformity for goods with digital elements.
• the provision of updates necessary for goods with digital elements, where applicable.

According to Law No. 287/2009 on the Civil Code, if a party fails to perform its contractual obligations without legal justification, it is liable for the damages caused to the other party and is obligated to compensate for them. Contractual liability is the legal regime applicable to the non-performance of obligations assumed under a contract, and the parties may not opt for another type of liability, except in situations where the law expressly provides otherwise.

In the event of non-performance or improper performance of contractual obligations, the injured party has a range of remedies available to ensure the performance of the contract or to obtain compensation for the damages suffered.

The main remedies include: fulfilment of the obligation in nature (the injured party may request the performance of the contractual obligations undertaken, to the extent that such execution is still possible), execution by equivalent (damages), termination of the contract, suspension of the performance of obligations (when there are mutual obligations), partial performance, and the application of penalty clauses (when the parties expressly provide for this in the contract).

According to Law No. 287/2009 on the Civil Code, in the event of a breach of a contractual obligation, the injured party (whether a consumer or a professional) is entitled to full compensation for the damages suffered, provided that the conditions for contractual liability are met.

Compensation aims to restore the injured party to the position it would have been in had the contractual obligation been properly performed and may include: actual losses suffered, lost profits (i.e., the gains the injured party was deprived of as a result of the non-performance), damages — including interest for late performance of monetary obligations.

In principle, only damages that were foreseeable at the time the contract was concluded are reparable, except in cases where the breach was committed intentionally or through gross negligence, in which case liability may also cover unforeseeable damages. However, in the latter case, damages are limited to what is a direct and necessary consequence of the breach of the obligation.

Romanian law does not recognize punitive damages. Damages serve exclusively to compensate for the loss suffered and to restore the injured party to the position in which it would have been had the contractual obligation been properly performed.

Under the Law No. 287/2009 on the Civil Code, contractual liability may be limited or excluded only under certain conditions expressly provided for by law. The parties may not exclude or limit liability for material damage caused to another person by an act committed with intent or gross negligence. Furthermore, the parties may not exclude liability for damages caused to physical or psychical integrity or health, except under the conditions provided by law.

However, clauses excluding liability for damage to the victim’s property caused by mere imprudence or negligence remain in effect.

Furthermore, with regard to consumer relations, GEO No. 140/2021 stipulates that the seller is not liable if:

• the seller can prove that the goods were in conformity at the time of delivery and that the lack of conformity arose subsequently;
• in certain situations, the consumer failed to install available updates in a timely manner or performed the installation incorrectly, even though the seller provided clear installation instructions, when installation is part of the sales contract;
• the consumer was informed of and accepted, at the time of concluding the contract, certain limitations or specific characteristics of the goods;
• Under certain conditions, repairing or replacing the good is impossible or would entail disproportionate costs, so the seller may refuse to bring the good into conformity.

Under Romanian law, a seller may rely on several defences to eliminate or limit contractual liability, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

Among the main defences are: force majeure and unforeseeable events, when the failure to perform an obligation is caused by an external, unforeseeable, absolutely insurmountable, and unavoidable event that prevents the performance of contractual obligations; the act of the injured party; and the statute of limitations on the substantive right to bring an action, when the claim is filed after the expiration of the applicable statutory period.

In addition, GEO No. 140/2021 sets forth specific situations in which the seller is not liable for a product’s lack of conformity; these issues were addressed in Question 23 regarding the limits of liability exemption.

Romanian law does not provide for a procedure equivalent to the disclosure mechanism available in certain other jurisdictions. Accordingly, in product liability proceedings – like in any other court proceeding, the parties are required to prove their claims by submitting evidence, without the existence of an automatic obligation to disclose all relevant documents to the opposing party. Relevant documents may be submitted as documentary evidence at the request of the parties or upon the court’s order, including by requiring the opposing party or a third party to produce specific documents, in accordance with the provisions of the Law no. 134/2010 on the Code of Civil Procedure, the court allowing such evidence only if it considers it relevant, conclusive and necessary for the resolution of the case.

Law no. 134/2010 on the Code of Civil Procedure does not establish a general or continuing duty of disclosure, and evidence is administered exclusively within court proceedings and under the control of the court, there being no pre-trial stage and no disclosure procedure prior to the commencement of the proceedings. The court may order the production of documents by the opposing party or by third parties only where such documents are sufficiently identified and considered necessary for the resolution of the dispute, and the parties are not required to conduct general searches of their records or electronic systems.

In product liability cases, the types of documents typically submitted as evidence include the manufacturer’s declarations of conformity, technical data sheets, instructions for use, quality certificates, testing reports and any other documents evidencing the characteristics of the product, the manner in which it was manufactured or tested, as well as information relating to maintenance and proper use.

Product liability claims in Romania are usually funded by the claimant. In practice, this means that the injured party typically bears the court fees, expert fees and legal fees, although litigation expenses insurance may also be available in some cases.

Romanian law does not contain a specific statutory framework governing third-party litigation funding. That said, third-party funding is generally regarded as permissible on the basis that it is not expressly prohibited, and its effects are governed primarily by the private agreement concluded between the funder and the funded party. As a result, third-party funding may operate contractually in the background, but it does not alter the procedural framework of the case unless the funder acquires the litigated right and becomes a party to the proceedings. In practice, this type of funding remains uncommon in Romania.

Romanian legislation expressly provides that the party who prevails in court proceedings may request reimbursement of the legal costs incurred in connection with the case. Such costs typically include lawyers’ fees, court stamp duties and other expenses generated by the conduct of the proceedings, such as authorised translations, court-appointed expert fees and other procedural costs.

However, the court has the power to assess the proportionality of the lawyers’ fees claimed and may reduce them if it considers that they are excessive in relation to the complexity of the case, the duration of the proceedings or the procedural difficulties involved. This review is intended to ensure that the amounts awarded are reasonable and proportionate to the work required for the resolution of the dispute. Court fees and fees due to court-appointed experts are not subject to such reduction by the court.

Under Romanian law, the lawyer may also agree with the client, although this is not mandatory, on a success fee in addition to the base fee for the legal services, regardless of the form of such fee (hourly, fixed, or capped). The success fee may be calculated as a percentage of the amounts recovered or of the value obtained as a result of the court decision, provided that the fee arrangement complies with the rules governing the legal profession.

Romanian law does not provide for a class action procedure in the traditional sense. However, collective redress mechanisms are available under Law no 414/2023 on representative actions for the protection of collective consumer interests (‘Law no 414/2023’), which transposes Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and entered into force on 23 December 2023.

Under Law no 414/2023, representative actions may be brought only by qualified entities, namely organisations or public bodies designated by the competent authorities as meeting the statutory criteria, including consumer protection associations with at least 12 months of relevant activity. Individual consumers do not have standing to bring such actions directly. Representative actions may seek either cessation measures, requiring the trader to cease or prohibit an unlawful practice, or redress measures, including compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, termination of the contract or reimbursement of the paid price.

The applicable mechanism depends on the type of remedy sought. Actions seeking redress measures follow an opt-in model, as affected consumers must expressly consent to be represented in the proceedings and to be bound by the outcome of the action. By contrast, actions seeking cessation measures may be brought without the individual participation of consumers, as the qualified entity may request the court to order the cessation of an unlawful practice without the need for consumers to opt in; however, Romanian law does not recognise an opt-out mechanism under which consumers would be automatically included in the action. Product liability legislation (Law no 240/2004) falls within the scope of Law no 414/2023, therefore representative actions may in principle be used in product liability matters.

In practice, the use of representative actions in product liability cases remains limited. Individual claims remain the mechanism most used in product liability litigation in Romania.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice issued Decision No. 525 of March 18, 2025, published in October 2025, with significant implications for the interpretation of the liability regime for defective products. The case concerned a lawsuit filed by an individual who claimed damages suffered as a result of receiving a vaccine, with the plaintiff basing his claims both on the special regime of liability for defective products provided for by Law No. 240/2004 and on the general rules of tort liability. The Supreme Court held, among other things, that the special regime of liability for defective products does not preclude the concurrent filing of claims based on the general law of tort liability, against third parties other than the manufacturer, as the two legal grounds may be invoked in parallel.

In addition, note should be made that, from an enforcement perspective at the national level, the competent authority in the field of consumer protection plays a significant role in surveillance of the relevant market. The authority’s practice tends to focus on implementing proactive corrective measures, such as product withdrawals from the market or prohibiting their sale, to prevent risks to consumers and ensure compliance with safety standards.

The most significant forthcoming development is Directive (EU) 2024/2853 on liability for defective products, which repeals Directive 85/374/EEC and must be transposed by 9 December 2026. Transposition will require a substantial revision of Law no 240/2004. The process is currently under assessment by the competent Romanian authorities in respect of the allocation of institutional responsibilities.

Beyond the revised product liability directive, the broader EU product safety framework is also becoming more demanding. Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on general product safety has applied since 13 December 2024 and strengthens obligations relating to traceability, product recalls, online marketplaces and internal safety governance. A national draft law has been published to implement and operationalise the Regulation at domestic level.

A separate draft emergency ordinance concerning the placing on the Romanian market of used, repaired or refurbished products introduces enhanced obligations for economic operators, including requirements to ensure that such products are properly cleaned, disinfected and safe before being placed on the market. The draft also provides that the intentional placing on the Romanian market of products which do not comply with applicable safety requirements, or which are considered dangerous under Regulation (EU) 2023/988, may constitute a criminal offence (Article 15 of the draft). While this provision appears to have a broader scope, not limited to used or refurbished products, its final form and practical application remain to be clarified.

At the same time, Romanian legislation increasingly integrates additional compliance layers that, while not traditionally framed as product liability rules, are likely to influence how product safety and defectiveness are assessed in practice. For example, accessibility requirements under national law (such as Law no. 448/2006 on the protection of persons with disabilities) contribute to shaping legitimate safety and usability expectations for certain categories of products.

Moreover, recent fiscal measures targeting cross-border e-commerce, including obligations relating to the declaration and taxation of low-value parcels, reflect increased regulatory scrutiny of products entering the Romanian market through online platforms. In practice, a fixed charge of approximately RON 25 (around EUR 5) applies per parcel, which is comparatively higher than similar mechanisms implemented in certain other EU Member States. Although these measures are not product liability rules, they form part of a wider trend towards enhanced traceability and market surveillance, which may indirectly affect product liability exposure.

At EU level, the AI Act and the Cyber Resilience Act introduce compliance requirements for digital and connected products in relation to safety, cybersecurity and lifecycle risk management. Although these instruments do not establish product liability regimes as such, they are likely to influence how defectiveness and safety expectations are assessed in future disputes.

The increasing focus on the circular economy is also expected to impact product liability analysis. Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 on eco-design for sustainable products introduces digital product passports and sustainability-related requirements, while sector-specific instruments such as the Batteries Regulation provide for mandatory lifecycle information. Failures relating to durability, repairability or transparency of product information may become increasingly relevant in the assessment of defectiveness and causation under the revised regime.

Taken together, these developments suggest that the assessment of defectiveness and producer liability in Romania is likely to extend beyond traditional safety criteria to encompass a wider range of regulatory compliance obligations.

Product liability litigation in Romania is expected to become increasingly complex, driven by both regulatory developments and changes in the nature of products placed on the market.

The forthcoming transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/2853 and the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on general product safety will broaden the range of relevant compliance obligations and influence how courts assess defectiveness and the conduct of economic operators.

A growing area of litigation is expected to involve digital and connected products. The AI Act and the Cyber Resilience Act introduce requirements relating to cybersecurity, functionality and lifecycle risk management which may become directly relevant in establishing defect and causation in disputes involving software-enabled or AI-driven products.

Product lifecycle considerations are also likely to feature more prominently in future disputes. Issues such as durability, repairability and the accuracy of product information including digital product passports introduced under Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 — may become relevant where alleged defects relate to long-term performance or sustainability characteristics.

Romanian market surveillance authorities have demonstrated a relatively proactive approach to the enforcement of product safety requirements, which is likely to generate administrative findings that claimants may seek to rely upon in subsequent civil proceedings. Enhanced traceability obligations applicable to online marketplaces and cross-border e-commerce are similarly expected to facilitate the identification of liable parties.

Finally, Romanian courts have shown a consistent tendency to align their interpretation of product liability rules with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. As the CJEU develops its jurisprudence under the new product liability framework, Romanian courts are expected to follow suit, contributing to a more harmonised application of the rules across the EU.