Objection to Enforcement Stays Without a Second Appeal: Constitutional Court Dismisses Bank’s Challenge

The Constitutional Court has dismissed, as unfounded, the challenge of unconstitutionality brought by a bank against the rule under which rulings on objections to enforcement can only be appealed once, without the right to a second appeal (recurs). Decision no. 214/2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania almost five months after it was handed down, confirms Article 651 para. (4) in conjunction with Article 718 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and applies, on the merits, the same reasoning the Court used in another objection to enforcement examined earlier in 2026: anyone wishing to challenge an enforcement procedure is, as a rule, left with a single level of judicial review above the first-instance court.

The challenge was brought by Raiffeisen Bank in a case at the second-appeal (recurs) stage, filed against a ruling in which the appellate court had partly upheld a debtor’s objection to enforcement. The bank argued that the current rule creates unjustified discrimination: in civil matters, any claim with a monetary value can generally be heard at first instance, on appeal, and on second appeal, yet an objection to enforcement, where a genuine issue of substance is sometimes at stake (for example, the unfair nature of certain contract terms and the return of amounts collected under them), remains capped at a single appeal. The Târgu Mureș Court of Appeal, which referred the matter to the Constitutional Court, considered the challenge unfounded, since regulating avenues of appeal falls within the exclusive competence of the legislature.

On 28 August 2026 the Court ruled the same way on the application for penalties in enforcement: Decision no. 215/2026 confirms that the ruling under Article 906(2) is given once, with no appeal.

What it changes in practice

For anyone involved, as debtor or creditor, in an objection to enforcement, the rule remains unchanged: the first-instance ruling can only be challenged on appeal, and the appellate ruling is final. There is no third avenue of challenge before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, except in two special situations expressly provided by law. This holds even when the objection raises a serious substantive issue, such as the unfair nature of certain terms in a credit agreement, which, if brought as a separate ordinary-law action, would have benefited from a second appeal.

For courts, the decision means that any similar challenge, raised on the same grounds, can be dismissed directly, by reference to the Court’s already settled case law (including Decision no. 72/2025). For banks and other creditors pursuing enforcement, as well as for debtors, the practical stakes are clear: procedural strategy must be planned from the first-instance stage and the appeal stage onward, without counting on a possible correction at a later avenue of challenge.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

• Nothing in the text: Article 651 para. (4) and Article 718 of the Code of Civil Procedure remain unchanged.
• One constitutional avenue of challenge is closed: the argument of discrimination between objections to enforcement and other claims with a monetary value can no longer be successfully used as a constitutional challenge.
• Case law confirmed: the Court reaffirms, citing Decision no. 72/2025, that free access to justice does not imply access to every level of jurisdiction, and that regulating avenues of appeal is the exclusive prerogative of the legislature.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions