In brief

  • In the table of penalties for wastewater, the names of two indicators sat next to the wrong methods of analysis, and the correction published on 16 October 2026 swaps them round. In the form published on 20 July 2026, „consumul chimic de oxigen (CCO-Cr)”, chemical oxygen demand measured with potassium dichromate, was placed next to the potassium permanganate method, while „CCO-Mn”, the same demand measured with permanganate, was placed next to the potassium dichromate method. After the correction, each acronym stands next to the method by which it is actually measured: CCO-Mn with permanganate, CCO-Cr with dichromate. Nothing else in the table moves, because the correction touches only column 2, the one holding the name of the indicator.
  • Brought to the same unit of measurement, the two penalty levels differ by a factor of 2.78. The permanganate line is expressed in lei per thousand kilograms, 1,282.36 lei, that is 1.28 lei per kilogram. The other line, the dichromate one, is expressed directly in lei per kilogram, 3.56 lei. The difference is 2.28 lei for every kilogram of pollutant discharged above the permitted limit, that is 2,277.64 lei for every tonne.
  • Anyone who calculated the penalty for CCO-Cr from the July text arrived at 36 per cent of the sum owed, while anyone who calculated it for CCO-Mn arrived at a sum almost three times too high. Between 23 July 2026, the date from which the annex applies, and 16 October 2026, the date of the correction, 85 days passed. Anyone who read the line by the method of analysis hit the right sum throughout, because the method, the unit and the figure never moved; anyone who read it by the acronym did not.
Act: Correction to Annex no. 3 „Penalties” (Annex no. 6 to Government Emergency Ordinance no. 107/2002) within Law no. 155/2026 amending and supplementing certain legislation in the field of water
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial), Part I, no. 869 of 16 October 2026, page 8
Takes effect: 16 October 2026, the date the correction was published. Neither Law no. 24/2000 nor Law no. 202/1998 says from what date the text is to be read as corrected, while the annex it corrects has applied since 23 July 2026

A factory, a municipal treatment plant or any other operator that discharges its wastewater into a river has a limit in its permit for each pollutant. If it exceeds that limit, the National Administration „Apele Române” applies a penalty, calculated per kilogram of pollutant discharged in excess. What the kilogram costs is set out in a table, and from 23 July 2026 that table had, on two neighbouring lines, the names of the indicators stuck to the wrong methods of analysis. The correction published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 869 of 16 October 2026, on page 8, puts them back where they belong.

The table is Annex no. 6 „Penalties” to Government Emergency Ordinance no. 107/2002 on the establishment of the National Administration „Apele Române”, in the form that replaced it through Article III point 2 of Law no. 155/2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 592 of 20 July 2026. The correction concerns point A of the annex, „Penalties for exceeding the maximum permitted concentrations of pollutants in discharged wastewater”, the group at current number B, „General chemical indicators”, and only column 2 of the table, the one in which the names of the monitored indicators are entered.

The two indicators measure the same thing, the organic load of the wastewater, but not with the same tool. Chemical oxygen demand shows how much oxygen is consumed in breaking down the substances dissolved in the water, and the result depends on the oxidant used in the laboratory. Potassium dichromate is a strong oxidant and captures almost all the organic matter, including the part that is hard to degrade, and the indicator measured in that way is written CCO-Cr, after chromium. Potassium permanganate is gentler, it captures only the readily oxidisable part, and the result is written CCO-Mn, after manganese. For the same water, CCO-Cr comes out higher than CCO-Mn, so the two are not interchangeable, either in the laboratory or on an invoice.

That is precisely what happened in the annex. The July form read „Consum chimic de oxigen (CCO-Cr) (metoda cu permanganat de potasiu)”, chemical oxygen demand with the permanganate method, with the unit thousand kg and a level of 1,282.36 lei, and, on the next line, „Consum chimic de oxigen (CCO-Mn) (metoda cu bicromat de potasiu)”, with the unit kg and a level of 3.56 lei. Each line put one acronym next to the other one’s method. The correction swaps them, so the form now in force puts CCO-Mn next to permanganate, at 1,282.36 lei per thousand kilograms, and CCO-Cr next to dichromate, at 3.56 lei per kilogram.

What it changes in practice

The penalty is not an administrative fine, it is a sum calculated on quantity. Article 6 paragraph (2) of Annex no. 3 to Government Emergency Ordinance no. 107/2002, „The economic mechanism specific to the sustainable management of water resources”, provides that penalties apply to water users found in breach, both for exceeding the quantities of water used and for exceeding the concentrations of polluting substances discharged, and that their amount is the one set out in Annex no. 6. The note at point A of the annex says plainly when they are triggered: „Penalitățile se aplică pentru depășirea valorilor concentrațiilor peste limitele autorizate”, penalties apply where concentration values exceed the permitted limits. A note at point B adds that the penalties do not include value added tax.

For an operator monitoring CCO-Cr, which means the large majority, since the dichromate method is the one commonly used in water management permits, the effect of the correction is an increase. Its acronym no longer sits on the line of 1,282.36 lei per thousand kilograms, but on the one of 3.56 lei per kilogram. On an excess of one tonne, the sum rises from 1,282.36 lei to 3,560 lei. For an operator reporting CCO-Mn the effect is the reverse, a fall from 3.56 lei per kilogram to 1.28 lei per kilogram.

The second effect concerns recalculation. The correction does not say from what date the corrected text is to be read, and neither Law no. 24/2000 on legislative drafting rules nor Law no. 202/1998 on the organisation of the Official Gazette of Romania answers the question: both describe only how a correction notice is published. It therefore remains open what happens to the inspection reports drawn up in the 85 days between 23 July and 16 October 2026, during which the published text assigned the wrong figure.

The third effect concerns the documentation people actually consult. On the date this article was published, the consolidated text of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 107/2002 displayed publicly still showed the old pairing, because the correction had not been incorporated. Anyone checking the level of the penalty in a consolidated text, rather than in the Official Gazette of Romania, risks reading the superseded form.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Until 23 July 2026 the earlier form of Annex no. 6 applied, with the levels in force before Law no. 155/2026. From 23 July 2026 to 16 October 2026, the published text required 1,282.36 lei per thousand kilograms for CCO-Cr and 3.56 lei per kilogram for CCO-Mn. From 16 October 2026 the two names are swapped, so CCO-Mn carries 1,282.36 lei per thousand kilograms and CCO-Cr carries 3.56 lei per kilogram.

What has not changed deserves saying just as firmly, because it decides who has anything to recalculate. The method of analysis in brackets, the unit of measurement and the level of the penalty have stayed on the same lines: the potassium permanganate method was and remains at 1,282.36 lei per thousand kilograms, and the potassium dichromate method was and remains at 3.56 lei per kilogram. Only the acronyms moved. An analysis certificate stating which method was used leads to the same sum both before and after the correction. A calculation started from the acronym in the permit leads to different sums.

There is one further change of context that the correction does not touch, but without which the figures make no sense. The same two indicators also appear in Annex no. 5 letter B, the one with the contributions for receiving wastewater into water resources, where the pairing with the methods was correct from the outset and where both carry the same level, 129.66 lei per thousand kilograms, and the same unit of measurement. The contribution is owed for water discharged within the permitted limits; the penalty is added only for whatever goes beyond them.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The table becomes consistent with the laboratory. Each acronym stands next to the method by which it is obtained, so an analysis certificate and a penalty invoice can no longer reach different figures starting from the same line.
  • The fix came within three months of the law being published, not at the next amendment of the ordinance, which could have been a year away or more.
  • The pairing in the penalties annex is brought into line with the one in Annex no. 5 letter B, where the two indicators were correctly tied to their methods. The two annexes are read together, because one gives the contribution up to the permitted limit and the other the penalty beyond it.
  • The correction identifies precisely the place it touches: point A, current number B, column 2. It leaves no room for argument about what else might have changed in the table.

What remains a problem

  • Nowhere does it say what becomes of the calculations made in the 85 days during which the published text required the wrong figure. An operator holding an inspection report received in August does not learn from the correction whether the sum is recalculated or stands.
  • The difference is not symbolic. On the CCO-Cr indicator, the correct sum is 2.78 times higher than the one that followed from the text published in July, that is 2,277.64 lei more for every tonne of excess.
  • The mistake was hard to see precisely because the two lines use different units, thousand kg and kg. The larger figure, 1,282.36, sits on the cheaper line, and the small figure, 3.56, on the more expensive one, so a quick reading points the wrong way.
  • The publicly available consolidated form of the ordinance had not been updated on the date this article was published, so anyone who does not go to the Official Gazette of Romania still finds the wrong version.
  • The correction changes the sum somebody owes, even though Law no. 24/2000 and Law no. 202/1998 confine this operation strictly to material errors.

Practical advice

  1. Check your water management permit and your analysis certificates to see which indicator is required of you, CCO-Cr or CCO-Mn, and by which method it is determined. If the method is potassium dichromate, the level applicable after 16 October 2026 is 3.56 lei per kilogram; if it is potassium permanganate, it is 1,282.36 lei per thousand kilograms.
  2. When you compare two lines of this table, first bring them to the same unit of measurement. A level in lei per thousand kilograms is divided by 1,000 to reach lei per kilogram: 1,282.36 lei per thousand kilograms is 1.28236 lei per kilogram.
  3. If you received an inspection report between 23 July and 16 October 2026 covering either of the two indicators, redo the calculation both ways, as published at the time and as corrected, and keep the difference in writing. You will need it in any discussion with the National Administration „Apele Române”.
  4. Keep in mind the time limits in Article 6 paragraph (5) of Annex no. 3 to the ordinance, because they are short: the decision and the inspection report are communicated by post, with acknowledgement of receipt, within no more than 20 working days of being issued, and the complaint is filed with the district court in whose area the breach was committed within 15 working days of receiving the communication. An inspection report not challenged within that period becomes an enforceable title.
  5. Check the level of the penalty in the Official Gazette of Romania, not in a consolidated version found online, until the correction appears there too: the consolidated text still showed the wrong pairing on the date this article was published.
  6. If you hold an unpaid penalty invoice, work out the cost of delay as well. Under the same Article 6 paragraph (2), failure to pay invoices when due attracts interest and late-payment penalties at the level and under the procedure of the Tax Procedure Code in force on the date the invoice was issued.

Frequently asked questions

In concrete terms, how much is the difference between the two lines?
2.27764 lei for every kilogram of pollutant discharged above the permitted limit. On the potassium permanganate line the level is 1,282.36 lei per thousand kilograms, that is 1.28236 lei per kilogram, while on the potassium dichromate line it is 3.56 lei per kilogram. The ratio between them is 2.776, so on a tonne of excess the difference reaches 2,277.64 lei, and on 100 tonnes 227,764 lei.
If I monitor CCO-Cr, do I pay more or less after the correction?
More. Before, the acronym CCO-Cr sat on the line of 1,282.36 lei per thousand kilograms, that is 1.28 lei per kilogram. After the correction it sits on the line of 3.56 lei per kilogram. The sum that followed from the text published in July was 36 per cent of the sum owed.
And if I monitor CCO-Mn?
Less. The indicator moves from the line of 3.56 lei per kilogram to the one of 1,282.36 lei per thousand kilograms, that is 1.28 lei per kilogram.
Do the penalties between 23 July and 16 October 2026 have to be recalculated?
The correction says nothing about it, and neither Law no. 24/2000 nor Law no. 202/1998 provides from what date the published text is to be read as corrected. Both describe only the procedure: the correction notice is published at the request of the issuing body, with the opinion of the Legislative Council. In the absence of any provision, the question is settled case by case, and an operator with a calculation already made or an inspection report received in that period has reason to ask the National Administration „Apele Române” for clarification in writing.
Who applies the penalties?
The National Administration „Apele Române”, under Article 4 paragraph (3) of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 107/2002 and Article 6 paragraph (1) of Annex no. 3 to the same ordinance. They apply to all water users, whoever owns the works and installations. The finding is made by authorised inspection staff and is recorded in reports drawn up between the parties.
What is the difference between a contribution and a penalty?
The contribution is owed for wastewater discharged within the permitted limits and is set out in Annex no. 5. The penalty is added only for exceeding the maximum permitted concentrations and is set out in Annex no. 6. For the two indicators in question, the contribution in Annex no. 5 letter B is 129.66 lei per thousand kilograms for both, so the penalty per kilogram is 27.5 times higher on the dichromate line and 9.9 times higher on the permanganate line.
Can an inspection report imposing a penalty be challenged?
Yes, by a complaint to the district court in whose area the breach was committed, within 15 working days of receiving the communication, under Article 6 paragraph (5) of Annex no. 3 to the ordinance. The ruling on the complaint is final, and an inspection report not challenged in time constitutes an enforceable title.
Why is one indicator expressed in lei per kilogram and the other in lei per thousand kilograms?
That is how they are entered in the annex, and the correction does not change the units, only the names in column 2. The difference in unit has no legal effect, because the two can be brought to the same measure by dividing by 1,000, but it does make the comparison misleading at first glance: the larger figure sits on the cheaper line.
Will the levels of these penalties change again?
Yes, but not by way of a correction. Under Article 4 paragraph (5) of the ordinance and Article 6 paragraph (3) of Annex no. 3, the amount of the penalties is updated periodically by Government Decision, at the proposal of the central public authority for water.

Editorial analysis

The correction is right and necessary, and the best proof that this is a material error rather than a change of legal substance lies in the same law: in Annex no. 5 letter B, the one with the contributions, the two indicators were correctly tied to their methods from the start, CCO-Mn with permanganate and CCO-Cr with dichromate. Only the penalties annex crossed them. The difference between the two annexes also explains why the mistake went unnoticed: in Annex no. 5 both indicators carry the same level, 129.66 lei per thousand kilograms, and the same unit of measurement, so there a swap of names would not have cost a single leu. In Annex no. 6 the same two names sit on lines with different units and with levels that, brought to the kilogram, differ by a factor of 2.776. The same inattention, different consequences, because in one annex the figures are equal and in the other they are not.

Set beside the contribution, the figure shows how much the mistake really weighs. At 129.66 lei per thousand kilograms, the contribution is 0.12966 lei per kilogram. The penalty on the dichromate line, 3.56 lei per kilogram, is 27.5 times higher, and the one on the permanganate line, 1.28 lei per kilogram, 9.9 times. For 85 days, the operator reporting CCO-Cr had in the published text the multiplier of 9.9, although the one of 27.5 was meant for him, while the operator reporting CCO-Mn had exactly the opposite. This is not a difference of nuance between two close coefficients: it is the factor that decides whether the penalty for a tonne of excess is 1,282.36 lei or 3,560 lei.

The unpleasant part comes to light only when the date of the correction is set beside the procedural time limits. Under Article 6 paragraph (5) of Annex no. 3 to the ordinance, the decision and the inspection report are communicated within no more than 20 working days of being issued, and the penalised operator has 15 working days from receipt to complain to the district court; after that, an unchallenged inspection report constitutes an enforceable title. An inspection report issued on the first day the annex applied, 23 July 2026, exhausted both of those periods by 10 September 2026, that is 36 days before the correction appeared. In other words, within the 85-day interval, final enforceable titles could be formed on a pairing the issuing body later acknowledged to be wrong, and the recipient had no way of challenging it in time, because the official text sided with whoever did the calculation. The administration corrected its text in three months; the operator was given 15 working days to contest a figure that in the meantime turned out to belong to another indicator.

One question of principle remains, and the issuing body could have forestalled it with a single sentence. Law no. 24/2000 on legislative drafting rules, in Article 71 paragraph (2), forbids amending the provisions of a normative act by resorting to a correction, an operation that must be confined to material errors alone, and Law no. 202/1998 on the organisation of the Official Gazette of Romania repeats the prohibition, in Article 17 paragraph (3), „sub sancțiunea nulității”, on pain of nullity. Here, correcting a material error nevertheless changes the sum somebody owes, by a factor of 2.78. Neither of the two laws says from what date the text is to be read as corrected, so a reader acting in good faith can reach two opposite conclusions: either the annex had the corrected form all along and the summer calculations have to be redone, or the text published at the time produced effects exactly as it stood. Whoever has a difference to pay or to collect has no way of finding out which of the two is the right one.

What should be changed

  • The National Administration „Apele Române” should publish a note on how to apply the annex for the period between 23 July and 16 October 2026. Three lines saying whether the inspection reports from that period are recalculated automatically, on request or not at all. In practice, operators with a calculation already made would know whether to ask for it to be redone, and inspectors would apply the same rule in every river basin, instead of each following his own reading.
  • The period for complaint should reopen where a correction changes the very figure on which the penalty was calculated. The 15 working days in Article 6 paragraph (5) of Annex no. 3 run from receipt of the communication, so they are used up well before a correction that appears three months later. The result: an inspection report that became an enforceable title on the wrong pairing could be re-examined without separate proceedings.
  • The correction notice should contain a statement about its effect in time. A single sentence, along the lines of „the text is to be read in this form from the date the law entered into force”, would close the ambiguity that neither Law no. 24/2000 nor Law no. 202/1998 resolves. The practical effect: two operators penalised in the same week would not be treated differently.
  • The two lines should be expressed in the same unit of measurement. If both chemical oxygen demand indicators were entered in lei per thousand kilograms, 1,282.36 and 3,560.00, the swap would have jumped out at the first proofreading, and the comparison would be within reach of anyone reading the table. In practice, fewer calculation errors for the operator and for the inspector, with no change of substance at all.
  • The name of the indicator and the method of analysis should be separated into two distinct columns. At present they sit together in column 2, and a single swap ruins both. The result: a transcription error would affect one cell, not a pair of lines, and would be visible simply by comparing the column of methods with the column of acronyms.
  • The public consolidated text of the ordinance should be updated with the correction, stating the date. On the date this article was published, the consolidated text still showed the wrong pairing, even though the correction had been published. The practical effect: anyone checking the level of the penalty in the most accessible place would no longer read the superseded form.

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. 869 of 16 October 2026, page 8 8 pages PDF, 73 KB the act starts on page 8

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.