In brief

  • Two insurance brokers leave the public register kept by the Financial Supervisory Authority (ASF), and a new one comes in, all three on the same day. By Decisions no. 960 and no. 961 of 9 September 2026, ASF approved, at their own request, the withdrawal of the operating authorisation of the brokerage companies FAIRWAY BROKER DE ASIGURARE S.R.L. of Constanța and FORSAFE BROKER DE ASIGURARE S.R.L. of Mediaș, and by Decision no. 965 it authorised the company FLEX BROKER DE ASIGURARE S.R.L. of Bucharest. Those directly affected are the clients of the two firms leaving, that is the people and companies who took out their policies through them.
  • The exit is not a sanction. Both companies asked to cease activity themselves, and before approving, ASF checked that the clients had been notified, that the settlements with the insurers were closed and that no debts remained. Withdrawal of the authorisation also exists as a penalty, in Article 28(3)(b) of Law no. 236/2018, but that is not what this is about.
  • A policy does not lapse because the broker leaves the register. The insurance contract binds the client to the insurer, not the client to the intermediary, and premiums paid through a broker are deemed transferred to the insurer from the very moment of payment, under Article 11(4) of Law no. 236/2018. What is lost are the broker’s services: advice, negotiation with insurers and assistance with a claim.
Act: Decisions of the Financial Supervisory Authority no. 960, no. 961 and no. 965 of 9 September 2026
Published: Official Gazette no. 791 of 17 September 2026
In force from: 17 September 2026, the date of publication

From 17 September 2026, two brokerage companies may no longer sell insurance, and a third takes their place. The Financial Supervisory Authority, the same institution that a day earlier cut to 10% the own money required on contracts for oil or wheat, published in the Official Gazette three decisions issued on the basis of resolutions adopted by its Council in the meeting of 2 September 2026 and all signed on 9 September 2026. Two of them take an intermediary out of the market, the third brings a new one in.

An insurance broker is the firm through which many people take out their motor third party liability policy, their home insurance or their travel cover. In the language of the law it is called a brokerage company and it belongs to the category of principal intermediaries, that is firms authorised by ASF to distribute insurance. ASF Norm no. 22/2021 describes it, in Article 2(1) point 8, as the intermediary who represents the clients’ interests: it advises them, proposes contracts to them, negotiates with the insurance companies and assists them afterwards, above all when a claim arises.

All three firms in these decisions are entered in a public record, the Register of Principal Intermediaries, kept by ASF and open to anyone on the authority’s website, under Article 5(1) of the same norm. The register has two sections. Section I covers the principal intermediaries entered following a decision of authorisation or approval, that is those allowed to work. Section II covers those whose registration has been struck off following the withdrawal of the authorisation or approval. So says Article 5(5) of Norm no. 22/2021. Striking off therefore does not mean deleting the firm from the record, but moving it into an archive section that stays just as public.

The two firms leaving are not newcomers. FAIRWAY BROKER DE ASIGURARE S.R.L. appeared in the register under number RBK-014 from 10 April 2003, and FORSAFE BROKER DE ASIGURARE S.R.L. under number RBK-748 from 10 August 2013. The first asked to cease activity on 24 November 2025, the second on 26 August 2025. Both files have closed only now.

What it changes in practice

The three decisions take effect from the date of publication, that is from 17 September 2026. Each says so in its last article, and ASF Norm no. 22/2021 provides, in Article 52(8), that decisions of authorisation, approval, suspension, prohibition and withdrawal concerning principal intermediaries are published in the Official Gazette, Part I. That is why all three appear together.

For the two companies leaving, the effect is twofold. Their operating authorisation is withdrawn, and their registration moves from section I to section II of the register. Article 2(1) of each decision forbids them to carry on insurance distribution activity as defined in Law no. 236/2018. In practice, from 17 September 2026 neither of them may give advice, propose insurance contracts or negotiate with insurers on behalf of a client.

The second effect shows in the firms’ very names. Article 2(2) of both decisions gives them 15 days from publication to remove from their names the phrase required by Article 11(1)(a) of Norm no. 22/2021, that is precisely the words showing they are brokers, and to remove distribution from their objects of activity. The deadline falls on 2 October 2026. After that date, a company no longer entitled to distribute insurance should no longer carry the words „broker de asigurare” in its name.

For the new company, the effects mirror those. Decision no. 965/2026 authorises it to operate as a principal intermediary, brokerage company, with insurance distribution as its object of activity. The right to work in practice does not start from publication, however, but from the date of registration in the Register of Principal Intermediaries, as Article 2 of the decision provides. Article 3 requires it to open, maintain and submit the registers called for by Article 4(5) of Norm no. 22/2021: the journal of assistants and the registers of employees and of members of executive management who carry on distribution.

For clients, none of the three decisions lays down any obligation and any deadline. The texts do not transfer contracts, do not name an intermediary to take over the portfolio and do not require anyone to present himself anywhere. The only mention of clients appears in the verification part: in the Constanța file, ASF found that proof of notification of the firm’s single client had been submitted, and in the Mediaș file, that the company had notified its clients of the cessation of activity at its own request.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

Until 17 September 2026, the two companies appeared in section I of the register, with a valid authorisation, although their activity had long since ceased on their own paperwork. The shareholders of the Constanța firm had resolved, on 11 November 2025, to cease broking activity and to be struck off the register with effect from 1 January 2026. The sole shareholder of the Mediaș firm had decided, on 21 July 2025, to cease activity with effect from 1 August 2025. Between that date and the publication of the decision, 412 days passed in which the company stayed listed among the authorised intermediaries.

What has changed, therefore, is the fit between the register and reality. From now on, anyone searching for either name in the ASF record finds it in section II, not in section I, and the note of withdrawal of the authorisation appears in the observations column provided for in annex no. 2 to Norm no. 22/2021.

The client’s counterpart has changed as well. Anyone holding a policy taken out through one of the two firms no longer has a broker to carry his file. The insurance contract stays where it always was, between the client and the insurance company, because Article 2199(1) of the Civil Code defines it as the agreement by which the contracting party or the insured pays a premium to the insurer, who undertakes to pay the indemnity when the risk materialises. The broker is not a party to that contract, only the intermediary who brought it about. What disappears with him are the services he provided: advice, negotiation and assistance in handling a claim.

Nothing has changed about money already paid. Article 11(4) of Law no. 236/2018 says that insurance premiums paid by clients through intermediaries are deemed transferred to the insurer from the moment of payment, while indemnities paid by the insurer through an intermediary are deemed to have reached the client only at the moment he actually receives them. The next paragraph adds that sums collected on behalf of clients are held in separate accounts, do not belong to the intermediary’s assets and cannot be pursued by his creditors, not even in bankruptcy or administrative liquidation.

Finally, the make-up of the market has changed, with a net loss. On 17 September 2026 two principal intermediaries left section I and one came in.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • The exit is orderly, not abrupt. Before approving, ASF checked the notification of clients, the settlements with insurers, the striking off of the executive managers and employees involved in distribution and the payment of the operating fee, that is all the conditions in Article 30(1)(b) of Norm no. 22/2021. In both files it found no debts owed to the insurance companies.
  • The firms do not vanish from the record, but move into section II, which stays public. A client who wants to check a year from now what became of his intermediary finds the answer in the same register, not in a closed archive.
  • The names are cleaned up within 15 days. By 2 October 2026 the two companies must remove the words „broker de asigurare” from their names and distribution from their objects of activity, so they can no longer be mistaken for active firms.
  • The client’s money is protected by law, not by decision. A premium paid to the broker counts as paid to the insurer from the very moment of payment, and sums collected on behalf of clients sit in separate accounts, outside the broker’s assets and out of reach of his creditors.
  • The market is not closing. In the same ASF Council meeting, on 2 September 2026, the entry of a new company was also approved, so the withdrawal of the two authorisations does not come against a background of frozen authorisations.

What remains a problem

  • None of the three decisions says what the client does next. Notification of clients appears as a file item checked by the authority, not as information addressed to them, and the real protection, the one in Article 11(4) and (5) of Law no. 236/2018, is nowhere mentioned in the text.
  • Section II does not distinguish a voluntary exit from a sanction. Article 5(5) of Norm no. 22/2021 puts there any intermediary struck off following the withdrawal of an authorisation, and the observations column in annex no. 2 records only „withdrawal of the authorisation”, without the reason. Anyone reading the register two years from now can no longer tell a firm that left of its own accord from one pushed out of the market.
  • The authorisation decision does not say from when the new firm may work. Article 2 ties the right to practise to the date of registration in the register, a date that does not appear in the act, even though Article 10(5) of Norm no. 22/2021 requires the authorisation decision to state the date on which distribution activity begins.
  • The deadlines run one way only. The company is given 15 days from publication to change its name, while the norm sets no deadline at all within which ASF must decide on an application to cease activity: the Mediaș file took 387 days from the registration of the application to publication, the Constanța file 297 days.
  • Article 2(1) of the first two decisions ties the prohibition to the „date of cessation of activity”, a date not fixed in the operative part. The only cessation dates written into the act are those resolved by the shareholders, 1 January 2026 and 1 August 2025, both earlier than publication, while Article 3 says the decision takes effect from publication.

Practical advice

  1. Take out your policy and look at who issued it. The insurance contract is concluded between you and the insurer, under Article 2199(1) of the Civil Code, and its conclusion is proved by the policy issued and signed by the insurer, under Article 2200(2). The withdrawal of the broker’s authorisation does not touch that contract and does not shorten its term.
  2. If you paid the premium to the broker and wonder whether it reached the insurer, the law answers for you. Article 11(4) of Law no. 236/2018 says that a premium paid through an intermediary is deemed transferred to the insurer from the moment of payment. Keep the receipt or the payment order, that is the proof that counts.
  3. Do not pay the same premium twice. Sums collected by a broker on behalf of clients sit, under Article 11(5) of the same law, in separate accounts, do not enter his assets and cannot be pursued by his creditors, neither in bankruptcy nor in liquidation. If anyone asks you for that money again, this is the text you show him.
  4. From now on deal directly with the insurer, for everything: changing the policy, renewing it, opening a claim. The contact details are on the policy, not with the broker.
  5. If you want another intermediary, check him first in the Register of Principal Intermediaries, public on the ASF website under Article 5(1) of Norm no. 22/2021. Section I is the list of those allowed to work, section II the list of those whose authorisation has been withdrawn.
  6. Do not be alarmed if the firm writes to you under a different name. By 2 October 2026 the two companies are obliged to remove the words „broker de asigurare” from their names. The change is a legal obligation, not a sign that something has gone wrong with your policy.
  7. If, after 17 September 2026, someone offers you a new policy on behalf of either of the two companies, refuse it and report the matter to ASF. From the day of publication, both are barred from insurance distribution activity.

Frequently asked questions

Is my policy cancelled if the broker I took it out through leaves the register?
No. The insurance contract binds the contracting party or the insured to the insurer, under Article 2199(1) of the Civil Code, and the broker is not a party to it, only the intermediary who brought it about. The three decisions do not touch contracts in force: they withdraw an authorisation and move a registration from one section of the register to another. What you lose is the broker’s service, that is the advice, the negotiation and the assistance with a claim, not the cover itself.
What do section I and section II of the Register of Principal Intermediaries mean?
They are the two parts of the public record kept by ASF. Under Article 5(5) of ASF Norm no. 22/2021, section I covers the principal intermediaries entered following a decision of authorisation or approval, that is those allowed to work, and section II covers those whose registration has been struck off following the withdrawal of the authorisation or approval. Striking off does not delete the firm from the record, it moves it into the second part, which stays public.
Is the withdrawal of the authorisation a punishment for the two firms?
Not in this case. Both asked to cease activity themselves, and the legal basis is Article 30 of ASF Norm no. 22/2021, which governs cessation at the request of the brokerage company. Withdrawal of the authorisation also exists as a penalty for an administrative offence, in Article 28(3)(b) of Law no. 236/2018, but that applies in different circumstances and is not the case here. The decisions say expressly, in their titles and in Article 1, that the withdrawal is made „at the request” of the company.
I paid the premium to the broker and he did not pass it on to the insurer. Am I uninsured?
No. Article 11(4) of Law no. 236/2018 provides that premiums paid by clients through intermediaries are deemed transferred to the insurer at the very moment of payment. The risk that the money does not travel further is borne by the insurer, not by the client. In addition, paragraph (5) of the same article holds those sums in separate accounts, outside the intermediary’s assets, and puts them out of reach of his creditors.
What is a brokerage company, in plain words?
It is the firm the law calls a principal intermediary and that people know as an insurance broker. Under Article 2(1) point 8 of ASF Norm no. 22/2021, it represents the clients’ interests: it advises them, proposes insurance contracts, negotiates the most suitable terms with the insurance companies and assists them while the contract runs, above all when a claim arises. To operate, it needs an ASF authorisation and registration in the Register of Principal Intermediaries.
Why do these decisions appear in the Official Gazette?
Because Article 52(8) of ASF Norm no. 22/2021 requires decisions of authorisation, approval, endorsement, suspension, prohibition and withdrawal concerning companies and principal intermediaries to be published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I. Publication is not a formality: each of the three decisions provides that it takes effect from the date of publication, that is 17 September 2026.
What changes for the new firm, authorised by Decision no. 965/2026?
It obtains the right to operate as a principal intermediary, brokerage company, with insurance distribution as its object of activity. The right to work in practice begins, under Article 2 of the decision, from the date of registration in the Register of Principal Intermediaries. It also has, under Article 3, the obligation to open, maintain and submit the registers laid down in Article 4(5) of Norm no. 22/2021, that is the journal of assistants and the registers of employees and of executive management involved in distribution.

Editorial analysis

The three decisions do the maintenance work a public register periodically calls for: they take out of the list of the authorised two firms that were no longer working and add one that wants to start. The checks are serious and they show in the text. In both exit files, ASF asked for and received proof that the clients had been notified, proof that the insurers knew of the intention to cease, the position on the striking off of the executive managers and proof that the operating fee had been paid. This is no formality: those four points are exactly the ones listed in Article 30(1)(b) of ASF Norm no. 22/2021, and the decisions go through them one by one, with the registration numbers of each letter.

Two figures in the acts say more than their description does. The Constanța firm appeared in the register under number RBK-014 from 10 April 2003, that is the fourteenth position in the series reserved for brokerage companies by Article 5(7)(d) of the norm, and the Mediaș firm under number RBK-748 from 10 August 2013. Between those two entries, ten years and four months apart, the register’s numbering advanced by 734 positions. And the 2003 veteran closes by notifying, according to its own withdrawal decision, a single client and a single insurance company with which it had a contract.

The observation that does not show on reading the acts from start to finish concerns the client. He appears once in each decision, as a file item that has been checked, and never again as an addressee. No decision tells him what happens to his policy, whom he should turn to from now on and what he should do if he has paid the premium and has no confirmation from the insurer. The answer exists and it favours the client, but it sits elsewhere: Article 11(4) and (5) of Law no. 236/2018 deem the premium transferred to the insurer from the very moment of payment and hold the sums collected on behalf of clients outside the broker’s assets, shielded from his creditors including in bankruptcy. The same decisions cite Article 4(2) and (38) of the same law, texts about the authority’s powers, but not the one that directly concerns the person holding the policy. Three paragraphs of cross reference would have turned an administrative act into useful information for a few hundred or a few thousand people.

The second observation is about the clock. The norm sets firm deadlines for the companies, but none for the authority when a firm asks to leave. The company is given 15 days from publication to change its name, so by 2 October 2026. The application of the Mediaș firm, by contrast, was registered on 26 August 2025 and closed with publication on 17 September 2026, that is after 387 days, and the Constanța one, lodged on 24 November 2025, took 297 days. For comparison, on authorisation Article 10(4) of the same norm obliges ASF to decide within 90 days of the complete file being lodged. Leaving the market, which leaves clients without an intermediary, has no equivalent deadline. Throughout that time the Mediaș firm stayed entered in section I, among the authorised intermediaries, even though its activity had ceased, according to the sole shareholder’s decision, as far back as 1 August 2025, 412 days before publication.

One point remains that we weighed and flag here, not as an error in the acts. The decision authorising the new company ties the right to practise to the date of registration in the Register of Principal Intermediaries, and that date appears nowhere in the text, even though Article 10(5) of Norm no. 22/2021 requires the decision granting the authorisation to state the date on which distribution activity begins. A reader of the Official Gazette cannot establish from the act when the firm may start work; he can, however, find it in the public register, so the information is missing without contradicting anything.

What should be changed

  • Add to the withdrawal decision an article about contracts in force. A single paragraph saying that policies stay in force with the insurer and that premiums paid through the broker are already deemed transferred, with a reference to Article 11(4) and (5) of Law no. 236/2018. The practical effect: the client who reaches the text of the decision, directly or through the press, gets the answer there, instead of hunting for it in the law or ringing the insurer to find out whether he is still covered.
  • Write into the operative part the date from which the ban on distributing takes effect. At present Article 2(1) ties it to the „date of cessation of activity”, and the only date of that kind in the act is the one resolved by the shareholders, earlier than publication. The practical effect: it would be known without interpretation whether a contract concluded between the shareholders’ resolution and the publication of the decision was or was not concluded by a firm entitled to do so.
  • State in the authorisation decision the date on which distribution activity begins, as Article 10(5) of ASF Norm no. 22/2021 requires. The practical effect: a client or an insurer checking a new company would see from the published act, not from the register, the day from which it may conclude contracts.
  • Separate in the register a voluntary exit from a withdrawal imposed as a sanction. A subsection or a mandatory note in the observations column of annex no. 2 would be enough. The practical effect: a firm that closed honourably would no longer sit in the same list as one pushed out of the market for misconduct, and anyone checking a former intermediary would see the difference at a glance.
  • Set a deadline within which ASF must decide on an application to cease activity. Authorisation has 90 days under Article 10(4); cessation has none. The practical effect: there would no longer be year long stretches in which a firm with no activity appears among the authorised intermediaries, and a client looking it up in the register would not get an answer that is out of date.

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 no. 791 of 17 September 2026 16 pages PDF, 119 KB the act starts on page 13

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.