Insolvency practitioner statute republished: court immunity, two new offences and fines up to 10,000 lei

If your company has entered insolvency, the person running the proceedings works by a set of rules that has just been changed in 123 points. The consolidated text was published on 15 July 2026 and runs to 42 pages of the Official Gazette of Romania. The statute on the organisation and practice of the insolvency practitioner profession, together with the code of professional ethics and discipline, appear republished in Official Gazette of Romania no. 579 of 15 July 2026, on the basis of Decision no. 3/2026 of the Congress of the National Union of Insolvency Practitioners of Romania. It concerns judicial administrators and liquidators, but also the debtors and creditors who end up before them, including companies that go to court and cannot obtain an exemption from court stamp duty even in liquidation.

The republication is not a simple reprint. It follows the amendments adopted by the Union Congress, which met in Bucharest on 8 May 2026 and were published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 470 of 4 June 2026. The texts have been renumbered, so references in contracts, in court rulings or in internal procedures drafted before that date may no longer match.

This is the third time in less than two years that the statute has appeared in republished form. The first two were in Official Gazette of Romania no. 1108 of 6 November 2024 and in Official Gazette of Romania no. 1113 of 3 December 2025. The pace says something about how often the rules of this profession are rewritten.

What it changes in practice

Also about what the members of a regulated profession owe their body is the decision under which salaried financial auditors move to a flat fee of 1,000 lei a year.

The first effect is new protection for the practitioner in the courtroom. Article 11 now provides that the insolvency practitioner does not bear criminal liability for submissions made orally or in writing before the courts, the criminal prosecution bodies or other administrative bodies with jurisdictional powers, where those submissions support the position of the debtor whom the practitioner represents or supervises, or where they relate to advice given to participants in the proceedings. The condition is that they be made in good faith and in compliance with the law and with professional ethics.

The second effect is the exemption from legal costs. Article 11 also adds that, for actions brought in the exercise of the powers laid down by Law No 85/2014, the practitioner cannot be ordered to pay legal costs. This is a change with direct consequences: a judicial administrator who loses an avoidance action no longer risks paying the opposing party’s lawyer’s fee out of his own pocket.

The third effect moves the record of the liquidation fund money into the open. Article 21(l) requires the practitioner to record and publish on the UNPIR SEDIS data portal, in the Liquidation Fund module, the declaration on the transfer of the 2% share of the sums recovered in insolvency proceedings. The deadline is 3 days from the date of the transfer and, in any event, by the end of the month in which the payment was made.

The fourth effect is a new disciplinary offence linked to State databases. Point 26 of Article 124 penalises the use of information obtained through the ANCPI, Patrimven, DRPCIV or ONRC applications for purposes other than the handling of insolvency files. The penalty is pecuniary, between 1,000 and 10,000 lei, and Article 127(6) provides that access to the application is suspended immediately, on a provisional basis, pending investigation of the offence, and may be withdrawn permanently by decision.

The fifth effect ties continuing training to the right to practise. Point 25 of the same article turns failure to comply with the duty to attend continuing professional training courses into an offence. Under Article 126, the conduct is punishable by suspension of practitioner status for a period of between 3 months and one year.

The sixth effect concerns fee offers. The code of ethics now presumes a breach of independence in two new situations: where the practitioner accepts a fee conditional on meeting an individual requirement of a particular creditor, which breaks the unitary and equal character of the proceedings, and where the practitioner asks for a derisory fee measured against the criteria in Article 38 of Government Emergency Ordinance No 86/2006.

The seventh effect adds a disclosure duty towards the court. The practitioner must inform the court, in the offer or subsequently, by publication in the Insolvency Proceedings Bulletin and filing on the case file, of any situation carrying a risk of incompatibility or a presumed duty to abstain, as well as of everything that emerges from his ongoing checks as capable of affecting the principles of the code of ethics.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

The amendments were adopted by Congress Decision No 3/2026, with 123 points, and the republication of 15 July merely incorporates them. The most visible ones fall into three areas: the practitioner’s standing before the court, the digitisation of records, and discipline.

On standing, Article 8(2) now states that the practitioner cannot organise his activity in several forms of practice at the same time and cannot be a partner in more than one professional firm, with the exception of the branches of the professional limited liability company in which he is already a partner. Article 13(5^2) requires those who withdraw from a form of practice or lose their status as partner, employee or associate to update their status within 30 days. Anyone who fails to do so is moved automatically to the incompatible members section.

On fees, Article 12(k) expressly ties the offer to the cost standard and to the complexity criteria in Article 38 of the ordinance. The possible forms remain a fixed fee, a success fee or a combination of the two, but the benchmark is no longer left open.

On examinations, Annex no. 1 sets the pass mark at 7, the display of results within no more than 5 working days of the examination, the filing of appeals within no more than two working days of the display and their examination within no more than 15 calendar days, by a three-member panel, with re-marking of the answer sheets for all appeals received.

On discipline, beyond the two new offences, Article 127(3) keeps the hard rule on non-payment: a pecuniary penalty not paid within 90 days brings suspension from the profession for between 3 and 6 months, with automatic reinstatement if the arrears are paid in full before the period expires. The sums from fines are paid into the budget of the branch and of the Union, in equal shares.

The convening of Congress is now announced by publishing the notice of meeting on the Union’s website, at least 30 days in advance, and the branches are required to inform their members. The model documents in the annexes, among them the decision to set up an individual practice, have also been replaced.

Advantages and disadvantages

Practical advice

Frequently asked questions