In brief

  • The application by which the court bailiff asks the court to authorise enforcement is examined in chambers, without the debtor being called in, and the Constitutional Court has confirmed that this rule is constitutional.
  • The order by which the court grants the application cannot be challenged by appeal or by appeal on points of law, either by the creditor or by the debtor. The reason given by the Court is the speed required at the enforcement stage.
  • The debtor is not left without a defence: the order can be annulled through a challenge to enforcement, where both parties are summoned and can put forward all their arguments.
Act: CCR Decision no. 108/2026
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) No. 603 of 23 July 2026
Delivered: 5 February 2026

A debtor finds out that enforcement against him has been authorised only after the decision has been taken, and the Constitutional Court says this is lawful. A married couple from Mehedinți County challenged Article 666(2) and (6) of the Code of Civil Procedure in a case that started from a credit agreement declared immediately due and payable. The Court rejected the exception of unconstitutionality as unfounded. This is the third time in recent months that the constitutional court has confirmed the strict rules of this procedure, after it also upheld the 15-day time limit for challenging enforcement.

The texts under criticism are short. Paragraph (2) states that the application for authorisation of enforcement is decided within no more than 7 days from registration, by an order given in chambers, without summoning the parties, and that the order is communicated as a matter of course to the court bailiff and to the creditor. Paragraph (6) states that the order granting the application is not open to any means of challenge, but that it may be reviewed within a challenge to enforcement.

The couple’s argument was straightforward: there is no adversarial procedure between creditor and debtor, the order produces serious effects until the challenge is decided, and the judge does not examine the titles and does not take into account that the debtor has been paying instalments for years. Even the district court that referred the file to the Court considered the exception unfounded, pointing out that the order has no res judicata effect in the challenge to enforcement.

What it changes in practice

The first effect is that the procedure is kept as it stands. The two paragraphs remain applicable, and the Court found them constitutional in relation to the criticisms raised, by unanimous vote. The decision is final and generally binding from publication, under Article 147(4) of the Constitution.

The second effect is confirmation of what the court actually verifies at the authorisation stage. The merits of the dispute are not settled; what is checked is whether the judgment or the document constitutes, under the law, an enforceable title. The Court also describes the full route: the creditor files the application with the court bailiff, with the title attached; within three days, the bailiff opens the enforcement file or refuses with reasons; only then does he ask the court for authorisation.

The third effect is the one that matters for the debtor. The absence of a means of challenge does not mean that the order escapes judicial review. Through the reference to Article 712(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, those concerned or harmed may seek, through a challenge to enforcement, the annulment of the order if it was given without the legal conditions being met. At that stage, both parties are lawfully summoned and may use all procedural means.

The fourth effect concerns the asymmetry between creditor and debtor. The creditor may lodge an appeal against the order rejecting his application, because only he has an interest in doing so. The debtor has no interest in challenging a rejection, and against a grant he defends himself through a challenge to enforcement, directed against any act of enforcement. The Court considers that the balance is preserved in this way.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

In positive law nothing changes. Article 666(2) and (6) remain in force in their current wording, and the decision does not alter any time limit or any stage.

What is consolidated is an already long line of case law. The Court cites Decision no. 118 of 28 February 2019 for the principle that procedural rules fall, under Article 126(2) of the Constitution, within the exclusive competence of the legislature, which may exempt certain procedures from summoning or from means of challenge. It cites Decision no. 540 of 26 September 2019 for the conclusion that the order is not removed from judicial review. And it cites Decision no. 263 of 9 May 2023 for the rationale of speed.

The limits within which such a challenge may be brought before the Court are also clarified. The authors filed written submissions invoking constitutional grounds other than those in the referral request. The Court pointed out that the constitutional dispute is conducted within the limits set by the referral order and that invoking new grounds directly before the Court is inadmissible.

The distinction underlined by the district court also remains unchanged: orders delivered in non-contentious proceedings have no res judicata effect, under Article 535 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The authorisation order therefore does not block the discussion on the merits in the challenge to enforcement.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • Enforcement remains fast, which matters for creditors who already hold an enforceable title obtained after a trial.
  • The debtor keeps a real means of defence, the challenge to enforcement, where the procedure is adversarial and both parties are summoned.
  • The Court explicitly confirms that the authorisation order can be annulled if it was given without the legal conditions being met, so it is not an untouchable act.
  • Authorisation is not automatic: the bailiff may refuse with reasons to open the file, and the court verifies whether the document really is an enforceable title.

What remains a problem

  • The debtor learns of the authorisation after it has been ordered, because the order is communicated as a matter of course only to the bailiff and to the creditor.
  • Between authorisation and the decision on the challenge, measures with serious effects on income and assets may be taken, and later recovery is complicated.
  • The debtor’s arguments on the merits, such as instalments paid for years, are not examined at the authorisation stage, but only in the challenge.
  • The asymmetry remains: the creditor has an appeal against a rejection, the debtor has no means of challenge against a grant, only a separate procedure that he has to start himself.

Practical advice

  1. When you receive the first documents from the court bailiff, check the date of the authorisation order immediately. The time limit for lodging a challenge to enforcement runs from the communication of the documents.
  2. Lodge a challenge to enforcement, not an appeal or an appeal on points of law against the authorisation order. There is no direct means of challenge, and a wrongly titled application can cost you time.
  3. In the challenge, raise everything: the unlawfulness of the title, the payments already made, the limitation period, the unfair terms in the credit agreement. That is where the merits are examined, not at the authorisation stage.
  4. Ask the bailiff for a copy of the enforcement file. The authorisation order is communicated to him as a matter of course, and you need it in order to know which title is being enforced.
  5. If you are a creditor and your application for authorisation has been rejected, you have a right of appeal. It is the only means of challenge provided at this stage.
  6. If you raise an exception of unconstitutionality in a case, give full reasons before the court from the outset. The Court does not examine new grounds raised later through written submissions.

Frequently asked questions

Why am I not called before the court when enforcement is authorised?
Because, the Court says, this procedure does not settle the merits of the dispute, but only a matter relating to the proper administration of justice: whether or not the document is an enforceable title. The legislature may exempt such procedures from the rules on summoning, under Article 126(2) of the Constitution.
Can I challenge the order authorising enforcement?
Not by appeal or by appeal on points of law. Article 666(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure excludes any means of challenge against the order granting the application. You may, however, seek its annulment through a challenge to enforcement, on the basis of Article 712(3).
How long does the authorisation procedure take?
The application is decided within no more than 7 days from registration with the court. Delivery may be postponed by no more than 48 hours, and the reasons for the order are drafted within no more than 7 days from delivery.
Does the judge check whether I have already paid part of the debt?
Not at this stage. At authorisation, what is verified is whether the judgment or the document constitutes an enforceable title under the law. Partial payments, the limitation period or the unlawfulness of the title are discussed in the challenge to enforcement.
Why does the creditor have a right of appeal and I do not?
The Court explains this through interest: the creditor has no interest in challenging an order granting his application, and the debtor has no interest in challenging a rejection. Against a grant, the debtor defends himself through a challenge to enforcement, directed against any act of enforcement.
Does the authorisation order have res judicata effect?
No. Being delivered in non-contentious proceedings, it has no res judicata effect, under Article 535 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it can be reviewed in the challenge to enforcement.
Can I invoke before the Constitutional Court texts other than those in the initial request?
No. The constitutional dispute is conducted within the limits set by the referral order, and invoking new grounds directly before the Court, through written submissions, is inadmissible.

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. 603 of 23 July 2026 16 pages PDF, 115 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.