Contracts no longer have to be entered in the register before enforcement

A lending company asked the Constitutional Court to remove the obligation to enter a contract in the register before enforcing it, without knowing that the obligation had already fallen away. The Constitutional Court dismissed the plea of unconstitutionality as having become inadmissible, by Decision no. 736 of 9 December 2025, published now in the Official Gazette of Romania. The reason for the dismissal is not that the provision is constitutional, but that it had already been found unconstitutional. The situation resembles that in other cases in which the Court clarified the rules governing the enforcement stage.

The provision at issue is art. 4 para. (3) of Law no. 297/2018 on the publicity of movable security interests: „Private deeds which, according to the law, are validly concluded and have the character of an enforceable title may be put into enforcement only on condition that they are entered in the Register.” In other words, a contract that was an enforceable title by force of law could not be taken to a bailiff until it had been entered in the National Register of Movable Security Interests.

The plea was raised by Societatea Finopro I.F.N. S.A. of Iași, in proceedings for the authorisation of enforcement pending before the Iași County Court, first civil division. The company argued, among other things, that an ordinary law cannot regulate enforcement and enforceable titles, a field reserved to organic law, and that the provision unjustifiably restricts the creditor’s right to recover its claim. The referring court considered the plea unfounded, and the presidents of the two Chambers, the Government and the Ombudsman sent no point of view.

What it changes in practice

The first effect, the practical one, is that the obligation of prior registration no longer exists. By Decision no. 748 of 4 November 2021, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 157 of 16 February 2022, the Court had upheld the plea and found that art. 4 para. (3) of Law no. 297/2018 is unconstitutional. From the publication of that decision, the provision ceased to produce effects.

The second effect is the reasoning itself, useful to anyone who runs into a similar formality. The Court held that, although the law expressly recognises the deed as an enforceable title, it adds a further publicity requirement that has to be met before the application for authorisation of enforcement. This becomes a genuine impediment to enforcement, within the meaning of art. 666 para. (5) point 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the ground on which the enforcement court may dismiss the application.

The third effect is the test the Court applied. Where the creditor already holds an enforceable title whose enforcing power comes from the law, requiring a further formality of him is an interference with the right to recover the claim. The Court found that the rule was not necessary for the aim pursued, did not pass the minimum interference test and did not preserve a fair balance between the general interest in recording priority in enforcement and the individual interest of creditors.

The fourth effect concerns the present case. Under art. 29 para. (3) of Law no. 47/1992, provisions already found unconstitutional by an earlier decision cannot form the object of a plea. Since the referral to the Court in this case predates the publication of Decision no. 748/2021, the plea was dismissed as having become inadmissible, not as unfounded. The difference is not one of nuance: the provision was not saved, the discussion simply lost its object.

The fifth effect is the only consequence that can still change anything for the parties. The Court recalls its settled case law: even where the plea is dismissed as having become inadmissible, the earlier decision finding unconstitutionality can be a ground for revision, under art. 509 para. (1) point 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

The real change took place in February 2022, not now. Since then, a credit agreement, a leasing agreement or any other private deed to which the law gives the character of an enforceable title can be put into enforcement without first passing through the National Register of Movable Security Interests.

What changes now is the visibility of that state of affairs. The decision published in July 2026 restates the reasoning from 2021 and places it, once again, in the Official Gazette of Romania, which helps the courts and the bailiffs who still come across cases begun under the old provision.

The second clarification concerns the distinction the prosecutor underlined at the hearing. Decision no. 238 of 3 June 2020 had concerned a different situation, in which any private deed acquired enforceable character by the mere fact of entry in the register. Here, the enforceable character came from the law, and registration was only a condition for putting the deed into enforcement. The two situations are not to be confused.

The third clarification concerns the Register. The publicity of movable security interests remains in force with all its other functions, from movable security interests themselves to the record of priority between creditors. Only the conditioning of enforcement on prior registration has fallen away, not the whole mechanism.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions