The main methods for resolving commercial disputes in Romania are litigation before state courts and arbitration, complemented by alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms.

Litigation remains the default mechanism, particularly in domestic disputes, due to its accessibility, established procedural framework and enforceability of judgments. The Romanian court system provides a structured and comprehensive process for resolving a wide range of commercial disputes.

Arbitration is widely used in medium to high-value disputes, especially those involving cross-border elements or technical complexity. It is particularly prevalent in sectors such as construction, energy and infrastructure.

In addition, ADR mechanisms, including mediation, negotiation and expert determination, are available and may be used either independently or alongside formal proceedings, although their use remains less widespread in practice.

The choice of dispute resolution method in Romania is largely driven by factors such as the value and complexity of the dispute, the need for technical expertise, confidentiality considerations and the presence of cross-border elements, as outlined below.

Litigation remains the most widely used dispute resolution mechanism in Romania, particularly for lower-value or less complex disputes and in matters involving public authorities.

Arbitration is preferred for high-value, complex commercial disputes, especially when parties seek confidentiality, neutrality and procedural flexibility. It is commonly used in sectors such as construction, energy and international trade, where disputes often involve technical issues and cross-border elements.

ADR mechanisms, such as mediation, remain relatively underutilised compared to litigation and arbitration. In practice, the most common form of “ADR” is direct negotiation between the parties, often with legal assistance.

Recent developments show that dispute resolution in Romania remains characterised by a high volume of litigation and the growing complexity of disputes.

There is a notable increase in disputes arising in sectors such as construction, energy and infrastructure, often linked to large-scale investment projects and public procurement frameworks. These disputes are typically multi-layered, combining contractual, regulatory and technical issues.

At the same time, insolvency-related disputes have become more prominent, frequently intersecting with commercial and enforcement proceedings, reflecting broader economic pressures.

Another emerging trend is the gradual inclusion of multi-tier dispute resolution clauses in contracts, requiring negotiation or amicable settlement before formal proceedings. While ADR remains limited, awareness and use are gradually increasing.

Under Romanian law, the general limitation period for bringing civil and commercial claims is three years, unless a different period is expressly provided by statute.

Certain types of claims are subject to shorter or longer limitation periods. For example, claims arising from insurance contracts or transport may be subject to shorter periods, while real estate rights or certain enforcement-related claims may benefit from longer ones.

Limitation periods typically start when the claimant becomes aware or should reasonably have become aware, of both the damage and the party responsible. The limitation period may be suspended or interrupted in specific circumstances provided by law. If a claim is not brought within the applicable limitation period, the claimant loses the right to seek judicial enforcement.

The Romanian court system is organised hierarchically across four levels of jurisdiction, ranging from district courts to tribunals, courts of appeal and, ultimately, the High Court of Cassation and Justice.

At first instance, lower-value or less complex disputes are generally heard by district courts, while tribunals handle more significant commercial matters.

Appeals are heard by the immediately higher court in the hierarchy. Decisions of district courts are appealed before tribunals, while decisions of tribunals are appealed before the courts of appeal.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice, as the supreme court, ensures uniform interpretation and application of the law and hears further appeals limited to points of law.

Within this structure, specialised panels operate in areas such as commercial, administrative and insolvency law, supporting consistency and expertise.

Jurisdiction is determined by the value and nature of the claim, as well as territorial jurisdiction rules under the Civil Procedure Code.

Romanian law does not impose general pre-action conduct requirements before initiating court proceedings in commercial matters. However, in certain cases, parties may be required to undertake preliminary steps, such as filing a prior complaint in administrative disputes or attempting conciliation where contractually agreed. If mandatory pre-action requirements are not met, where applicable, the claim may be dismissed as inadmissible or considered premature.

In practice, although not legally required, parties often engage in preliminary exchanges or negotiations before commencing proceedings, particularly in complex commercial disputes.

Court proceedings in Romania generally follow a structured sequence comprising written and oral phases.

Proceedings begin with the filing of a statement of claim, followed by the submission of a statement of defence and, where applicable, a reply. The court then conducts a preliminary stage focused on procedural issues and the administration of evidence, followed by hearings on the merits.

The evidentiary phase may include documentary evidence, witness testimony and expert reports. After the evidentiary stage is completed, the court deliberates and issues a judgment.

The duration of proceedings varies depending on complexity, but first-instance cases typically last between one and two years. Appeals may significantly extend the overall timeline, particularly in complex or high-value disputes.

Court proceedings in Romania are generally public, reflecting the principle of transparency in justice.

Hearings are open to the public and judgments are typically published, subject to anonymisation of personal data. However, courts may order closed hearings in exceptional circumstances, such as where confidentiality, public order or the protection of private life so requires.

Certain categories of disputes, including those involving minors or sensitive personal matters, may benefit from enhanced confidentiality protections. In commercial disputes, confidentiality is not the default rule, which is one factor driving parties to choose arbitration in sensitive matters.

Romanian law provides a broad range of interim relief measures aimed at preserving rights, assets or evidence pending a final decision. These include:

• conservatory attachment over assets;
• garnishment of receivables (including bank accounts);
• judicial sequestration; and
• measures to preserve evidence.
• Interim relief is frequently sought in practice, particularly in disputes involving financial claims or risks of asset dissipation. The applicant must generally demonstrate urgency, a prima facie right and the risk of irreparable harm.

Courts may also require the applicant to provide security as a condition for granting certain interim measures.

Romanian courts may grant a broad range of final relief in commercial litigation. This includes:

• monetary damages;
• specific performance of contractual obligations;
• termination of contracts; and
• declaratory relief establishing the existence or absence of a right.

Courts may also order ancillary remedies, such as penalties for non-compliance or restitution measures.

The type of relief granted depends on the nature of the claim and the legal grounds invoked, with courts generally aiming to restore the injured party to the position it would have occupied absent the breach.

Damages under Romanian law are governed by the principle of full compensation. Courts award damages to cover both actual loss and loss of profit, provided these are proven, certain and directly linked to the wrongful act.

The claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and extent of the damage, as well as the causal link between the breach and the loss suffered. Courts may rely on expert evidence where necessary to quantify damages, which are assessed on the basis of actual loss rather than hypothetical or estimated amounts and must be supported by sufficient evidence meeting the applicable standard of proof.

Arbitration is increasingly used as a dispute resolution mechanism in Romania, particularly for medium-to-high-value commercial claims with cross-border elements. It is widely preferred in sectors such as construction, energy, infrastructure and international trade, where parties seek a neutral forum and procedural flexibility.

In domestic disputes, arbitration is also commonly used where parties seek efficiency and confidentiality, although litigation remains predominant in lower-value or less complex cases.

Romanian law permits arbitration for disputes concerning rights that parties may freely dispose of. As a result, disputes involving patrimonial rights are generally arbitrable.

However, certain categories of disputes cannot be referred to arbitration, including:

• matters concerning personal status or legal capacity.
• family law disputes.
• disputes relating to rights that cannot be freely disposed of by the parties.

Certain insolvency-related matters, particularly where they involve collective proceedings or public interest considerations.

The main advantages of arbitration in Romania include flexibility, confidentiality and, most importantly, the ability to appoint arbitrators with specific expertise relevant to the dispute. This is particularly valuable compared to state courts, where judges are generally not specialised in complex technical or industry-specific matters.

By selecting arbitrators with sector-specific knowledge, such as in construction, energy or infrastructure, parties benefit from a more informed assessment of technical evidence and contractual frameworks, leading to more predictable and commercially grounded outcomes.

Arbitration also offers:

• greater procedural control;
• increased efficiency compared to court proceedings; and
• neutrality in cross-border disputes.
• In addition, arbitral awards benefit from a strong international enforcement regime.

These features make arbitration especially attractive for complex, high-value disputes requiring both legal and technical expertise.

Despite its advantages, arbitration presents certain drawbacks.

Costs can be significant, particularly in institutional arbitration, due to arbitrator fees and administrative expenses. Additionally, the absence of a full appeal mechanism limits the ability to challenge awards, as annulment is available only on limited procedural grounds.

The most prominent arbitral institution in Romania is the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania (CCIR).

In international disputes, parties frequently opt for well-established foreign institutions, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) or other European arbitration centres, particularly where neutrality is a key consideration.

The duration of arbitral proceedings varies depending on complexity, but typically ranges from 12 to 24 months.

Simpler disputes may be resolved more quickly, while complex, multi-party or technically demanding cases may extend beyond this timeframe, particularly where extensive expert evidence is required.

Arbitration in Romania is primarily governed by the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, which reflects a civil law framework while incorporating principles aligned with international arbitration standards.

The legal framework regulates key aspects of arbitration, including:

• the validity and effects of arbitration agreements;
• the constitution of the arbitral tribunal;
• the conduct of proceedings;
• the issuance and effects of arbitral awards; and
• annulment proceedings.

In addition, arbitration conducted under the auspices of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration (attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania (CCIR)) is subject to its updated 2025 Rules, which further align domestic practice with modern international standards.

Romania is also a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, ensuring the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards across jurisdictions.

Romanian courts play a supervisory role in arbitration, in line with the principle of minimal judicial intervention. Their involvement is primarily limited to procedural assistance, including the appointment of arbitrators where the parties fail to agree, ruling on challenges to arbitrators, granting interim measures in support of arbitration and facilitating the taking of evidence.

Courts do not intervene in the merits of disputes, which remain exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

Court intervention in arbitration is limited and occurs primarily in procedural matters, in line with the principle of minimal judicial interference.

Romanian courts may intervene in specific circumstances, including:

• challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement;
• annulment proceedings against arbitral awards; and
• support for the arbitral process, such as facilitating the taking of evidence.

Outside these narrowly defined situations, courts refrain from interference, leaving the merits of disputes to be decided exclusively by the arbitral tribunal.

Arbitral tribunals may grant a broad range of relief, including damages, specific performance and declaratory relief.

Tribunals may also order interim measures, unless the arbitration agreement provides otherwise. However, enforcement of such measures may require assistance from the courts.

The main formal ADR mechanism available in Romania is mediation, regulated by dedicated legislation and widely recognised within the legal framework.

Mediation is a voluntary, structured process conducted by an authorised mediator to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties. It may be used in a broad range of commercial disputes, provided that the rights in question are freely disposable.

In addition to mediation, parties may resort to negotiation or, in certain sectors, contractual mechanisms such as expert determination or dispute adjudication boards, particularly in construction and infrastructure projects.

There is no general obligation under Romanian law to engage in ADR before initiating court or arbitral proceedings. Parties may be required to attend an informational session on mediation in certain cases, although this does not constitute a mandatory attempt to settle the dispute. In practice, ADR is primarily driven by party agreement rather than legal obligation.

Engaging in ADR does not affect a party’s right to pursue litigation or arbitration, unless contractually agreed otherwise.

Settlement agreements reached through ADR are binding and may be formalised to obtain enforceability. In practice, ADR is often used alongside or prior to formal proceedings rather than as a standalone alternative.

ADR may take place at any stage of a dispute, including before or during litigation or arbitration. It is commonly initiated either at an early stage or after key procedural developments, when parties have greater visibility on the merits of the case. As a general rule, ADR does not suspend limitation periods.

Mediation is confidential under Romanian law and information disclosed during the process cannot be relied upon in subsequent proceedings without consent.

Other forms of ADR may also be confidential, depending on the parties’ agreement.

ADR costs are generally lower than those of litigation or arbitration. Costs are typically shared between the parties, unless otherwise agreed. In practice, cost considerations often encourage the use of ADR as a preliminary step.

Romanian courts take a supportive approach to ADR and may encourage parties to consider settlement.

However, courts cannot compel parties to engage in ADR and its use remains voluntary in most commercial disputes.

Legal fees in Romania are primarily determined by agreement between lawyer and client and are not subject to fixed statutory tariffs.

Fees are typically structured as hourly rates, fixed fees or a combination of both. In practice, fee arrangements reflect the complexity of the matter, the value of the dispute and the seniority of the lawyers involved. Professional rules require fees to be reasonable and proportionate.

In addition, the National Union of Romanian Bars has issued recommendations on minimum fee levels which, although not legally binding, are used in practice as a reference point, including in assessing recoverable legal costs.

Third-party funding is not expressly regulated under Romanian law but is generally considered permissible.

Its use remains limited in practice and is more commonly encountered in high-value disputes, particularly in international arbitration or complex commercial litigation.

Pure contingency fee arrangements – where a lawyer’s payment is based solely on the case outcome – are not permitted. However, mixed fee arrangements combining a fixed fee with a success fee are permitted, provided they comply with relevant professional regulations.

Insurance covering dispute-related risks, including legal expenses insurance, is available under Romanian law but is not widely used in commercial disputes.

In practice, such insurance is more commonly encountered in specific sectors or in relation to individuals rather than corporate matters.

As a general rule, the losing party is obliged to reimburse the winning party’s reasonable and duly proven costs. However, the court may assess and adjust the amount of the requested costs.

Recoverable costs may include court, expert and legal fees, subject to the court’s discretion and assessment.

When awarding costs, courts take into account the outcome of the case, the conduct of the parties and the complexity of the dispute.

Courts retain discretion to reduce legal fees where these are considered disproportionate to the value or nature of the case.

The key types of interim relief available from Romanian courts include:

• distraint on property;
• conservatory garnishment of receivables (including bank accounts);
• precautionary garnishment;
• injunctions;
• urgent finding of facts by a judicial bailiff;
• IP-specific provisional measures;
• evidence preservation measures;
• ship and port-related interim measures; and
• interim measures in support of arbitration.

The Civil Code provides that, before or during arbitral proceedings, parties may request the arbitral tribunal to grant conservatory and provisional measures, while once the tribunal is constituted, it may also grant such measures within its competence. Arbitral measures are enforced by a bailiff. If enforcement is challenged, the matter must be referred to a court for a decision.

Applications for interim relief in Romania can be made before or during the main proceedings, whenever urgency requires the preservation of rights, assets or evidence pending a final decision. However, provisional measures that may be granted before the main action is filed are subject to a time limit and automatically lapse if the applicant does not initiate proceedings within that period.

Security operates as a key balancing mechanism in Romanian interim relief. In the case of conservatory attachment, judicial sequestration and IP provisional measures, the court may require security and in certain situations it is mandatory.

The order granting attachment sets the amount of security and the payment deadline and failure to comply within that time results in the measure being lifted by operation of law.

Interim injunctions may be granted where the applicant demonstrates a prima facie right and the measure is temporary in nature, meaning it does not produce effects that cannot be reversed.

Romanian law does not provide for summary judgment; courts generally decide cases through full proceedings, although simplified procedures exist for straightforward claims.

Under Romanian law, there is no general mechanism for class actions. Collective actions are limited to specific frameworks, including:

• consumer protection cases;
• discrimination and human rights cases;
• competition damage claims for breaches of Romanian competition law;
• fraudulent acts committed by a debtor to the detriment of creditors in insolvency; and
• the protection of employees’ rights under employment law.

National provisions do not recognise general standing rules for class actions; general procedural requirements apply (eg, common cause, possible representation and a valid mandate). However, in specific areas, the law recognises standing for certain entities:

• in consumer protection, only qualified entities may bring representative claims;
• in human rights matters, NGOs may act on behalf of groups to protect fundamental rights;
• in competition law, consumer or professional associations may act on behalf of members;
• in insolvency, certain creditors or bodies have standing; and
• in employment law, trade unions may bring claims on behalf of their members based on a mandate.

In both collective and individual damage claims, Romanian civil law applies the principle of full compensation without distinction.

Class actions are not commonly brought in arbitration in Romania, as there is no general class action mechanism.

Class actions are not widely used in Romania, as no general class-action framework exists.

In terms of trends, collective action is increasingly common in areas such as insolvency and human rights, particularly when NGOs act on behalf of groups. In consumer protection, although a formal mechanism for representative actions was introduced in 2023, its practical use is still developing.

Overall, Romanian practice favours representative actions based on mandates rather than true class actions.

Romanian civil procedure does not provide for general pre-trial disclosure. However, the court may order a party to produce specific documents relevant to the case where it is shown that such documents are in that party’s possession. This obligation also extends to third parties and public authorities, which may be required to submit documents or certified copies.

Requests may be refused where disclosure would infringe privacy rights, legal confidentiality obligations or expose the holder to criminal liability. Failure to comply may allow the court to draw adverse inferences regarding the content of the documents.

The Romanian legal framework recognises legal professional privilege through the concept of legal professional secrecy. This covers communications between lawyers and clients, as well as documents prepared in connection with legal assistance and is protected under legislation governing, among others:

• the legal profession;
• criminal law;
• civil procedure; and
• competition law.

Documents subject to legal professional secrecy may be withheld from disclosure, including in court proceedings. Similar protections may be invoked in investigations by public authorities, including competition authorities, in line with EU principles, particularly in respect of correspondence with independent external counsel.

Protection may be lifted where the client waives confidentiality or, in limited circumstances, where the lawyer is involved in criminal conduct or disclosure is otherwise required by law.

National provisions recognise the right to withhold evidence on grounds of confidentiality in certain circumstances. Courts may refuse requests for the production of documents where disclosure would infringe privacy rights, breach a legal duty of confidentiality or affect protected interests such as trade or technical secrets. The protection of private life and personal data is also relevant in limiting access to evidence.

However, confidentiality is not absolute. Courts retain discretion to order the production of documents where required for the proper administration of justice, subject to proportionality considerations. Specific exceptions also apply where disclosure is mandated by law or justified by overriding legal interests.

Witnesses may be re-examined and there is no formal system of cross-examination as understood in common law jurisdictions.

Witness evidence is commonly used in Romanian proceedings and is typically given orally before the court. Witnesses are examined by the court, which conducts the hearing and retains control over the taking of evidence, while the parties and other participants may propose questions.

The admissibility of witness evidence is subject to certain limitations, including situations where legal acts cannot be proven solely by witness testimony and must be corroborated by other evidence. Certain categories of persons may refuse to testify, such as close relatives, while others are prohibited from being heard as witnesses in specific circumstances.

Expert evidence is permitted and frequently used in Romanian proceedings, particularly in technically complex matters. The court may appoint one or more independent experts, typically selected from official registers of judicial experts, to provide an expert report within their field of expertise.

In addition to court-appointed experts, parties may appoint their own experts to assist in the proceedings and express opinions supporting or challenging the conclusions of the court-appointed expert.

The court retains control over expert evidence. It defines the scope of the expert’s mandate, including the issues to be addressed, the timeframe for the report and the expert’s remuneration. Experts are required to act impartially and provide objective, reasoned opinions. The court may, either of its own motion or at the request of the parties, seek clarifications or supplements to the report and, where necessary order a new expert examination.

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Romania depends on the applicable legal framework. Judgments originating from EU Member States are governed by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis), which provides for direct recognition and enforcement without the need for a declaration of enforceability, subject to limited grounds for refusal.

For non-EU judgments, enforcement requires prior recognition and leave for enforcement (exequatur) granted by the tribunal having jurisdiction in the place of enforcement. The applicant must demonstrate that the foreign judgment is final and enforceable under the law of the issuing state and meets the conditions for recognition.

The court examines the request after summoning the parties and, if granted, issues an enforcement order, which serves as the basis for enforcement under Romanian law.

The enforcement of arbitral awards in Romania depends on whether the award is domestic or foreign. Domestic arbitral awards are directly enforceable, having the same effect as court judgments and may be enforced without prior recognition if not complied with voluntarily.

Foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced in accordance with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) and the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Recognition and enforcement are granted by the competent tribunal at the place of domicile or seat of the opposing party.

The applicant must submit the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement. Recognition or enforcement may be refused on limited grounds, including:

• invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• a lack of due process; or
• a breach of public policy.
• The court does not review the merits of the award.

The duration of enforcement proceedings in Romania is not expressly regulated and may vary depending on the complexity of the case. In the case of foreign arbitral awards, enforcement typically involves a prior exequatur phase followed by enforcement proceedings. The recognition stage is generally intended to be efficient, although the overall duration depends on factors such as the debtor’s compliance and whether objections or parallel proceedings are raised.

A party may resist enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards on limited grounds, which vary depending on the applicable regime.

For foreign judgments, refusal may be based on lack of proper service, breach of the right of defence, incompatibility with public policy or with an existing judgment between the same parties, as well as lack of enforceability in the state of origin.

For foreign arbitral awards, Romanian courts may refuse recognition or enforcement on grounds aligned with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), including invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of due process, irregular constitution of the tribunal, excess of mandate or where the award is not binding or has been set aside. Public policy and non-arbitrability also constitute grounds for refusal.

The use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution is not specifically regulated under Romanian law. There are currently no provisions in substantive or procedural law governing the use of AI in judicial proceedings.

At present, the Romanian legal framework addresses AI only indirectly, through general legislation such as data protection rules and broader EU-level initiatives, including the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, which is being gradually implemented.

The use of AI within the judiciary remains limited and judicial decision-making must remain subject to human control, with no autonomous AI decision-making permitted.

The impact of artificial intelligence on dispute resolution in Romania remains limited. Its use is primarily confined to supporting functions, such as legal research, document review and case management tools, used by legal practitioners.

Within the judiciary, digitalisation efforts have focused mainly on electronic case management systems rather than AI-driven decision-making. Although AI tools may improve efficiency and access to information, they do not play a role in judicial reasoning or decision-making, which remain exclusively within the competence of human judges.

Romanian courts have not yet embraced AI as a tool to improve efficiency. Efforts have instead focused on broader digitalisation, including electronic case management systems, limited use of electronic service of documents and, in some instances, remote hearings. The implementation of such measures may vary across courts, which retain a degree of autonomy in adopting efficiency tools.

Looking ahead, further digitalisation of judicial processes is expected, but there are currently no clear indications of the imminent integration of AI into court proceedings. Any future developments are likely to be gradual and aligned with broader EU-level initiatives.