Card payment is declined. The balance is frozen in full, including yesterday's salary payment. The bank tells you, correctly, that it is merely executing an instruction received from the tax authority. ANAF, Romania's national tax administration, tells you, also correctly, that the payment demand (somație) was communicated to you two months ago, through the Spațiul Privat Virtual (SPV), the tax authority's secure online portal, which you never opened. The clock has already started.
Tax enforcement (Title VII of the Tax Procedure Code) is an administrative procedure. The tax authority does not need a judicial enforcement officer, nor the approval of a court. The only judicial filter is the one you yourself trigger: the appeal against enforcement.
This article deals with that filter: what can be raised, within what time limit and, above all, what can no longer be raised.
Enforcement does not appear out of nowhere. It has a sequence, and each link in the chain is a separately challengeable act.
The title of claim (titlul de creanță) is the act that establishes the amount: the tax assessment decision (decizie de impunere) issued after an inspection, the ex officio tax assessment decision, or the contravention report (procesul-verbal de contravenție). The enforceable title (titlu executoriu) is the act by which the claim becomes enforceable, after the due date and non-payment. These are two different things, and the distinction is decisive for everything that follows.
The payment demand (Article 230 of the Tax Procedure Code). Enforcement begins with the communication of the payment demand, accompanied by a copy of the enforceable title. If, within 15 days of communication, you do not discharge the debt and do not notify the tax authority of your intention to start the mediation procedure, enforcement measures continue. In addition to the elements required of any tax administrative act (Article 46), the payment demand must set out the enforcement file number, the amount, the payment deadline, the consequences of non-payment and a statement on mediation; their absence is a ground of unlawfulness. On the strength of the payment demand, ANAF may also apply to have the pursuit of the immovable property noted in the land register (Article 230(7)).
Garnishment (Article 236 of the Tax Procedure Code). It is put in place by an instruction sent to the garnishee, the bank, the employer, your client, subject to the time limit under Article 230 and to notice being given to the debtor. Four things matter: the garnishment is treated as having been put in place from the moment the garnishee receives the instruction, and the garnishee is required to record the day and time (paragraph (8)); the garnishment is not subject to court validation (paragraph (6)), unlike under the general law, there is no intermediate judicial stage; banks freeze existing funds and future receipts only up to the amount needed to satisfy the obligation (paragraph (13)) and transfer it within 3 working days; from the moment funds are frozen, the bank no longer settles payments, except, among other things, for amounts needed to pay salary entitlements, if you file a sworn statement that you hold no other available funds (paragraph (14)(a)). A breach of these obligations by the garnishee renders any payment null (paragraph (16)).
Garnishment of salary and periodic income. Here tax law steps back: income earned as an employee, pensions of any kind, and allowances or benefits with a special purpose are only attachable at the payer of the income under the conditions of the Civil Procedure Code (Article 236(4) of the Tax Procedure Code). That is, Article 729 of the Civil Procedure Code: up to 1/3 of net monthly income for ordinary debts (including tax debts), up to 1/2 for maintenance obligations, and where several attachments run at once, no more than 1/2 in total. If the income is lower than the net national minimum wage, it can only be attached on the part exceeding half of that amount. The following cannot be attached for any kind of debt: child allowances and benefits, benefits for the care of a sick child, maternity and death benefits, scholarships, per diems and other allowances with a special purpose.
Seizure of movable property (Article 238 of the Tax Procedure Code). It is put in place by minutes, and from the date they are drawn up the assets are frozen; any subsequent disposal is struck by absolute nullity, and the tax creditor acquires a right of pledge. For a natural person, the following cannot be seized as goods necessary for life and work: items strictly necessary for practising a profession, personal or household items (where there is no more than one of the same kind), two months' worth of food, three months' worth of winter fuel, and items needed by persons with disabilities or for the care of the sick. Note paragraph (3): assets needed for an activity carried on as a professional (PFA, individual enterprise) are not exempt.
Seizure of immovable property (Article 242 of the Tax Procedure Code). Seizure applied to immovable property constitutes a statutory mortgage in favour of the tax creditor. Enforcement extends automatically to the accessory items of the property, which can only be pursued together with it. Where the debtor is a natural person, the minimum living space occupied by the debtor and their family cannot be subject to enforcement, a limit worth checking before any negotiation.
Realisation (Articles 247 et seq. of the Tax Procedure Code). If the debt is not discharged within 15 days of the date the seizure minutes are drawn up, the enforcement authority proceeds to realisation, unless the seizure has been lifted or enforcement has been suspended. The methods are alternatives: agreement between the parties, direct sale, sale by auction and other methods allowed by law (auction houses, estate agencies, brokerage firms). For a sale by auction, the enforcement authority must advertise it at least 10 days before the fixed date (Article 250). And if the asset could not be realised, for immovable property the freeze is kept in place until the limitation period expires, during which the procedure can be resumed at any time (Article 255).
Ask the bank for a copy of the instruction establishing the garnishment. It will show the issuing authority, the enforcement file number, the amount and the enforceable title.
Download the payment demand and the enforceable title and check the date of communication, everything runs from it.
Compare it with the taxpayer statement of account (also in the SPV). Garnishments over amounts already discharged or time-barred are not uncommon.
File with the bank the sworn statement required under Article 236(14)(a) of the Tax Procedure Code, to unfreeze payment of salary entitlements.
From the date you became aware of the enforcement, not the date you got upset about it.
Appeal against enforcement (unlawfulness of the acts) or, if the dispute concerns the merits of the claim, security plus suspension under Article 233(2¹)(b) of the Tax Procedure Code. Do not pay “just to get it over with” without reserving your position.
Under Article 260(1) of the Tax Procedure Code, interested persons may challenge any enforcement act carried out in breach of the Code, as well as the authority's refusal to carry out an enforcement act. In practice, these are the grounds that succeed.
A payment demand not communicated or communicated unlawfully, a payment demand without the enforceable title attached, missing mandatory elements, a garnishment put in place before the time limit under Article 230 has run, seizure minutes without the required statements, enforcement started by an authority lacking competence, the classic ground of the nullity of the tax act.
Through payment, set-off or a payment facility, enforcement stops on communication of the instalment decision (Article 203 of the Tax Procedure Code).
It becomes time-barred 5 years from 1 January of the year following the one in which it arose (Article 215(1) of the Tax Procedure Code), a rule that also applies to administrative-offence fines. It is the strongest ground of appeal and the most often missed: the period runs out silently, and ANAF continues enforcement until someone raises it. Do check, however, for interruptions and suspensions (Articles 216 to 217).
Amounts frozen in excess of the claim stated in the garnishment instruction.
Article 238(2) of the Tax Procedure Code and Article 729 of the Civil Procedure Code, including the minimum living space, for immovable property.
Brought by anyone claiming a right of ownership or other right in rem over the asset being pursued (Article 261(2) of the Tax Procedure Code).
This is the mistake that kills most appeals. The client arrives with excellent arguments on the merits, the expenses were deductible, VAT was correctly deducted, and wants to raise them in the appeal against enforcement. It cannot be done.
Article 260(3) of the Tax Procedure Code also allows a challenge against the enforceable title, but only if it is not a court judgment or a decision of another adjudicating body and if no other procedure provided by law exists for challenging it. For a tax assessment decision, however, another procedure does exist: the administrative appeal (contestație) (Articles 268 et seq. of the Tax Procedure Code), followed by the action in administrative litigation. Consequently, if you did not challenge the tax assessment decision within the 45-day time limit, it has become final, and the merits of the claim can no longer be reopened by way of an appeal against enforcement.
The practical consequence: the appeal against enforcement is a remedy concerned with the lawfulness of the enforcement, not a second chance on the merits of the assessment. The exception is enforceable titles for which the law does not provide its own challenge procedure; there, the merits can be discussed.
NOTE: The appeal against enforcement does not, by itself, suspend enforcement. What is more, Article 260(2) of the Tax Procedure Code expressly excludes the application of the provisions on provisional suspension under the Civil Procedure Code, meaning you do not get an urgent measure before the suspension request is decided. What remains is suspension proper, which must be requested separately and requires security, calculated under Article 719(2) of the Civil Procedure Code: 10% up to 10,000 lei; 1,000 lei plus 5% above 10,000 lei; 5,500 lei plus 1% above 100,000 lei; 14,500 lei plus 0.1% above 1,000,000 lei.
In parallel, the Tax Procedure Code offers its own routes, often more effective: suspension by operation of law on filing a claim for refund/reimbursement at least equal to the claim being enforced (Article 233(2)); non-commencement or suspension of enforcement for claims that are contested and secured under Articles 210 to 211 (Article 233(2¹)(b)); and suspension of the garnishment where it makes it impossible to continue the economic activity, once every 2 calendar years, for a maximum of 6 consecutive months (Article 233(7) to (8)). Distinct from all of these remains the suspension of enforcement of the tax administrative act, in litigation.
Article 261(1) of the Tax Procedure Code: the appeal must be lodged within 15 days, on pain of forfeiture, from the date on which:
(a) the appellant became aware of the enforcement or of the enforcement act being challenged, from communication of the payment demand, from another notice received, or, failing these, on the occasion of the enforcement itself or in some other way; (b) they became aware of the authority's refusal to carry out an enforcement act; (c) the interested person became aware of the release or distribution of the amounts being contested.
A third party claiming a right in rem over the asset being pursued may appeal at the latest within 15 days after enforcement has taken place, and missing that time limit does not prevent them from asserting their right through a separate claim under the general law (Article 261(2) to (3)).
The key point, which I repeat at every consultation: the time limit runs per act, not just once. The payment demand, the garnishment instruction, the seizure minutes, the realisation act, each has its own 15-day time limit. Missing the time limit for the payment demand does not close off your appeal against a garnishment put in place later, if the ground of unlawfulness concerns that garnishment itself.
The appeal is lodged with the competent court and is heard under an urgent procedure (Article 260(4) of the Tax Procedure Code). Subject-matter jurisdiction lies with the local court, as the enforcement court, and territorially with the local court in whose district the debtor's domicile or registered office was located at the date the enforcement authority was seised (Articles 651 and 714 of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable through Article 3 of the Tax Procedure Code); where immovable property being pursued is located within the district of a different court of appeal, jurisdiction also lies with the local court of the place where the property is situated. By Decision No. 17/2020, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) held that, where enforcement is initiated by budgetary creditors under the final sentence of Article 143(1) of Legea nr. 85/2014, jurisdiction lies with the insolvency judge.
The remedy against the local court's judgment is the appeal, and functional jurisdiction to hear it lies with the civil divisions of the tribunals, not the administrative and tax litigation divisions, even though the claim being enforced is a tax claim. This is a distinction that constantly catches people out, including professionals: an appeal against tax enforcement remains, procedurally, an appeal against enforcement, not an administrative-litigation dispute. The regime under the tax litigation appeal on points of law does not apply here.
The court fee (Article 10 of O.U.G. nr. 80/2013): it is calculated on the value of the assets whose pursuit is being challenged, or on the value of the debt being pursued when that is lower, but it cannot exceed 1,000 lei, whatever the value in dispute. If the subject matter of the enforcement cannot be valued in money, the fee is 100 lei. Relative to what is at stake, this is the cheapest remedy in tax litigation, details in the analysis on jurisdiction and the court fee in tax disputes.
The payment demand is not an “informational notice”: it is the act that starts enforcement and triggers the 15-day time limit. Communication through the SPV is valid even if you never opened the message.
If you pay “to unfreeze the account”, without stating in the payment order that you are paying under reservation of your challenge and without identifying the obligation targeted, the payment is applied under the statutory order of discharge, and will then be used against you as an acknowledgement. Pay, if you must, but with an express reservation and with the appeal already filed.
This is ground number one for dismissal. Symmetrically: failing to check limitation. Five years pass quickly, and ANAF will not raise it on your behalf.
Against the decision putting precautionary measures in place, an action for annulment within 30 days must be brought, directly before the administrative litigation court, without a prior procedure (Article 213(13) of the Tax Procedure Code). It is only against the acts carrying those measures into effect that an appeal against enforcement is made (paragraph (14)). Two different routes, with different time limits and different courts.
Freezing funds is lawful only up to the amount needed to satisfy the obligation, as shown in the garnishment instruction (Article 236(13) of the Tax Procedure Code); the excess is challenged as an unlawful enforcement act. Separately, amounts collected by garnishment in excess are refunded automatically, within at most 5 working days of collection (Article 168(4)(b) of the Tax Procedure Code), no request is required, but it is prudent to ask for it in writing.
Yes, with regard to later acts. The time limit runs separately for each act, from the moment you became aware of it: you can no longer challenge the payment demand, but you can challenge the garnishment or the seizure for their own defects. And limitation of the right to request enforcement (Article 215 of the Tax Procedure Code) can be raised against any act carried out after it has expired.
No. The appeal does not suspend enforcement, and provisional suspension under the Civil Procedure Code is expressly excluded (Article 260(2) of the Tax Procedure Code). A separate suspension request is needed, with security, or the routes under Article 233 of the Tax Procedure Code, in particular securing the contested claim (Article 233(2¹)(b)), which stops enforcement until the remedies are finally decided.
Formally, yes, they are different forms of garnishment. However, the total amount frozen cannot exceed the claim, and the deduction at the employer is capped by Article 729 of the Civil Procedure Code (the rule: 1/3 of net monthly income for tax debts). Doubling up the deduction beyond these limits, by freezing salary already paid into the account, is frequently open to challenge, especially when the account is dedicated to receiving the salary.
Informative material, updated on 18 July 2026. It does not constitute legal or tax advice; individual situations must be assessed on their own facts.
If the appeal period is already running, the other analyses on this subject are grouped under tax litigation. For the concrete stages of a dispute, see tax disputes.
Time limits run from the date of communication. A first conversation clarifies what is being alleged, what you need to substantiate and how the defence is built, before an estimate becomes a tax assessment decision.