The Commission advances seven cases concerning Romania in its new infringement package

Romania faces a new procedure concerning the taxation of investment gains, an additional notice regarding the enforcement of energy labelling rules, and five reasoned opinions concerning consumer credit, electronic waste, the safety of offshore oil operations, climate reporting and banking rules. None of the seven cases currently represents a ruling against Romania by the CJEU.

The European Commission has opened or advanced seven infringement procedures concerning Romania in its October package, covering widely differing areas, from investment taxation and consumer credit to the safety of offshore oil operations, energy and climate reporting, and the transposition of the new banking rules. The newest procedure concerns the taxation of gains obtained from the transfer of securities and other financial instruments when the financial intermediary is not established in Romania.

In brief
The Commission is opening a new procedure against Romania because it considers the tax treatment applied to certain investment gains discriminatory when the financial intermediary is established in another EU or EEA state.

Romania is receiving an additional letter of formal notice concerning how it applies market surveillance in relation to ecodesign requirements and energy labelling.

Five cases are reaching the reasoned-opinion stage, concerning consumer credit, waste electrical and electronic equipment, offshore oil and gas safety, energy and climate reporting, and the Capital Requirements Directive.

For several of these opinions, Romania has two months to respond and take the requested measures before the European executive decides whether to refer the matter to the CJEU.

The European package as a whole includes 30 letters of formal notice, 66 reasoned opinions, nine referrals to the Court of Justice and 87 cases closed.

The newest procedure concerning Romania relates to the taxation of gains obtained from the transfer of securities and other financial instruments. The Commission considers that Romanian legislation applies higher tax rates when the transaction is intermediated by a financial institution that is not established in Romania than when the service is provided by an intermediary established on the Romanian market.

The European executive considers that this difference makes the custody and administration services for financial instruments offered by intermediaries from other EU or European Economic Area states less attractive and may discourage investors from using them. Case INFR(2026)2173 is at the first formal stage, with the Commission sending Romania a letter of formal notice.

A second case concerns the ecodesign and energy labelling of products. The Commission had already sent Romania a notice in 2025 because it considered market surveillance insufficient to verify compliance with minimum energy-consumption requirements and the accuracy of labels displayed to consumers.

Romanian authorities undertook to adopt the legislation needed to designate market surveillance authorities, but the Commission says this has not yet happened. For this reason, Bucharest is now receiving an additional letter of formal notice in case INFR(2025)2074.

The other five measures concerning Romania are reasoned opinions, a more advanced stage of the procedure. One of them concerns the European Directive on consumer credit agreements. Romania is among 16 countries for which the Commission says that complete transposition of the new rules has not been communicated.

The Directive aims to protect consumers in the credit market and establishes rules on transaction transparency and fairness. The deadline for transposition into national law was 20 November 2025, and the procedure against Romania had been opened at the beginning of 2026.

Another reasoned opinion concerns waste electrical and electronic equipment. The Commission says that Romania, together with six other states, has not communicated measures fully transposing changes to European legislation on this category of waste.

The changes also clarify producers’ responsibility for the costs of managing certain waste from photovoltaic panels and adjust the rules following a ruling by the Court of Justice. The transposition deadline had been set for October 2025.

In the energy sector, the Commission is advancing the case concerning the safety of offshore oil and gas operations. Romania and Poland are receiving reasoned opinions because the European executive considers that they do not fully comply with obligations intended to prevent major accidents and limit their effects on people, the marine environment and coastal economies.

Romania’s procedure in this area is older. The initial letter of formal notice was sent in 2021. The move to a reasoned opinion indicates that, in the Commission’s assessment, the identified problems have not yet been fully resolved.

A second energy case concerns Romania’s reporting on the implementation of the National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan. Member states must periodically provide information on progress in areas such as decarbonisation, energy efficiency, the internal energy market, energy security, and research and innovation.

The Commission says Romania did not submit all the required information in the progress report that had to be completed by 15 March 2025. Following the formal notification in March 2026, the European executive is now sending a reasoned opinion in case INFR(2026)2033.

The fifth reasoned opinion concerns the banking sector. Romania is among the six states for which the Commission considers that the sixth Capital Requirements Directive, CRD6, has not been fully transposed.

CRD6 amends the European prudential supervision system and includes rules on the provision of banking services in the EU by companies from third countries, the powers of supervisory authorities, the assessment of financial institutions’ management, and the integration of environmental, social and governance risks into the prudential framework.

The general deadline for transposing the Directive was 10 January 2026. The Commission opened procedures against the non-compliant states in March, and the reasoned opinion now formally requests completion of the transposition.

The seven decisions are not all at the same stage and should not be interpreted as seven convictions. A letter of formal notice formally opens the legal dialogue over a possible infringement, while a reasoned opinion is a later stage in which the Commission sets out more precisely the obligations it considers the state has failed to fulfil.

If the state’s response is not considered satisfactory after a reasoned opinion, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the Court of Justice. In cases involving the failure to transpose directives, such a referral may also include, under the conditions laid down in the treaties, a request for financial penalties.

None of the seven Romanian cases in this selection is a new referral of Romania to the CJEU in the current package. The nine referrals to the Court announced by the Commission in the general package concern other cases and states.

At EU level, the October package contains 30 letters of formal notice and 66 reasoned opinions. The Commission separately decided to refer nine cases to the Court and close another 87 after the problems that had prompted the procedures were remedied.

https://2eu.brussels/ro/news/comisia-avanseaza-sapte-dosare-privind-romania-in-noul-pachet-de-infringement