In brief

  • The Constitutional Court dismissed, as inadmissible, a new challenge against the debt-for-asset settlement law brought by Banca Transilvania in a dispute with a debtor whose loan exceeded the equivalent of 250,000 euro.
  • Law No. 77/2016 on debt-for-asset settlement remains unchanged: the hardship (unforeseeability) rules, payment suspension and notary-summons deadlines were not affected by this decision.
  • The decision indirectly confirms an important threshold: only loans not exceeding 250,000 euro (calculated at the exchange rate on the day the contract was signed) can benefit from the debt-for-asset settlement mechanism.
Act: Constitutional Court Decision No. 806/2025
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 650 of 6 August 2026
Delivered: 16 December 2025

The Constitutional Court has dismissed, as inadmissible, the challenge to constitutionality brought by Banca Transilvania against provisions of Law No. 77/2016 on debt-for-asset settlement and Law No. 52/2020, which amended it. Decision No. 806/2025, published in the Official Gazette of Romania No. 650 of 6 August 2026, does not rule on the merits of the bank’s arguments; instead, it finds that the challenged law did not apply to the dispute at hand: the debtor’s loan exceeded the equivalent in lei of 250,000 euro, the threshold above which Law No. 77/2016 does not apply at all.

The bank had argued that the hardship presumptions introduced by Law No. 52/2020, which allow a debt to be extinguished through a simple transfer of the property to the bank when the exchange rate has risen by more than 52.6%, violate the creditor’s property rights and the principle of legal certainty. The Court did not examine these arguments on the merits, stopping instead at a procedural issue: the case at hand did not fall within the scope of the challenged law.

Four banks did find exactly such a case, and the Court dismissed their criticisms on the merits, in CCR Decision no. 644/2025.

What it changes in practice

For debtors and creditors already in debt-for-asset settlement proceedings, the decision changes nothing: the rules in Law No. 77/2016, including the hardship presumptions introduced by Law No. 52/2020, remain applicable exactly as before. The Court did not annul, amend or suspend any legal provision.

For credit institutions that might have wanted to challenge the constitutionality of these presumptions, the decision shows a practical limit: such a challenge can be dismissed as inadmissible if the specific case in which it is raised does not fall within the scope of the law (for example, if the loan amount exceeds the 250,000 euro threshold). Banks would need to find a case involving a loan below this threshold for a future challenge to be examined on the merits.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

  • Nothing changes in the application of the debt-for-asset settlement law: the rules remain exactly as they were, set in 2016 and amended in 2020.
  • The 250,000 euro threshold is confirmed: the Court explicitly recalled that only loans not exceeding this amount, calculated at the exchange rate on the day the contract was signed, fall within the scope of Law No. 77/2016.
  • An admissibility condition is clarified: the decision shows clearly that a connection to the resolution of the case is a mandatory condition for a constitutionality challenge to be examined on the merits, not merely a formality.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It provides predictability for debtors with loans under 250,000 euro: the debt-for-asset settlement mechanism, with its hardship presumptions, remains untouched.
  • It clarifies, for courts and parties, the exact value threshold above which Law No. 77/2016 does not apply, reducing unnecessary litigation on this issue.
  • It reaffirms the rigour of the admissibility conditions for constitutionality challenges, useful for general procedural discipline.

What remains a problem

  • Creditors’ substantive arguments about the constitutionality of the hardship presumptions remain unexamined, to be raised again in an eligible case.
  • Debtors with loans above 250,000 euro remain outside the protection offered by Law No. 77/2016, with no alternative legislative solution mentioned in the decision.
  • The decision does not clarify whether or how these arguments could be examined on the merits in a future, eligible case.

Practical advice

  1. If you are a debtor and want to use debt-for-asset settlement, first check whether the amount borrowed, at the time it was granted, does not exceed the equivalent in lei of 250,000 euro, calculated at the exchange rate on the day the credit contract was signed.
  2. If you are a creditor (bank or non-bank lender) and want to challenge the constitutionality of the hardship presumptions, make sure the specific case in which you raise the challenge involves a loan below the 250,000 euro threshold, otherwise you risk dismissal as inadmissible.
  3. Do not confuse dismissal as inadmissible with dismissal on the merits: the Court did not say the hardship presumptions are constitutional or unconstitutional, only that it could not examine this particular case.
  4. For loans above 250,000 euro, the available remedies remain those of ordinary law, provided by the Civil Code (general contractual hardship), not the special mechanism of Law No. 77/2016.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Constitutional Court decide in Decision No. 806/2025?
It dismissed, as inadmissible, the challenge to the constitutionality of provisions of Law No. 77/2016 on debt-for-asset settlement and Law No. 52/2020, brought by Banca Transilvania, because the specific case did not fall within the scope of the challenged law.
Do the debt-for-asset settlement rules change after this decision?
No. The Court did not examine the constitutionality of the hardship presumptions on the merits, so Law No. 77/2016 remains applicable exactly as before.
Why was the challenge dismissed as inadmissible rather than unfounded?
Because the amount borrowed by the debtor exceeded the equivalent in lei of 250,000 euro, the threshold above which Law No. 77/2016 does not apply. Since the condition of a connection to the resolution of the case was not met, the Court could not examine the arguments on the merits.
What is the 250,000 euro threshold?
Under Article 4(1)(b) of Law No. 77/2016, only loans whose amount, at the time granted, does not exceed the equivalent in lei of 250,000 euro (calculated at the exchange rate on the day the contract was signed) can benefit from the debt-for-asset settlement mechanism.
Is the decision final?
Yes. Under Article 147(4) of the Constitution, decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and generally binding from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette of Romania.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 650 of 6 August 2026 8 pages PDF, 81 KB the act starts on page 3

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.