Nicolae Iorga street, 2/1,
Tîrgu-Mureș
postal code: 540088
telephone:0265-250102;
0265-255554
e-mail: redactie@revcurentjur.ro
Year: 2026
Issue: 3
Volume: 106
Author Names: Lacrima Bianca LUNTRARU
Abstract: On 5 June 2026, the Romanian Competition Council fined ten commercial banks a cumulative amount of RON 3.73 billion (approximately EUR 710 million), finding an infringement of competition rules on the grounds that the banks had coordinated their conduct within the ROBOR fixing procedure, in breach of Law No. 21/1996 and of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The decision thus rendered is, in terms of its implications, unprecedented in the practice of the competition authority and has given rise to intense public debate, particularly among the consumers concerned. This study sets out to provide a factual and legal analysis of the decision, examining, among other aspects, the first procedural steps taken before the courts by some of the sanctioned banks, as well as the procedural avenue that remains open to them – the action for annulment before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, contingent upon communication of the reasoned decision. The study further considers the prospects for redress available to consumers and professionals also under under G.E.O. No. 170/2020, transposing Directive 2014/104/EU, emphasizing that the binding effect attached to a final finding of infringement extends only to the existence and the unlawful character of the practice, whereas the burden of proving the individual damage, the causal link and the quantum of compensation continues to rest with claimants. A separate section situates the ROBOR case comparatively alongside the European Commission's 2013 and 2016 decisions concerning the EURIBOR/LIBOR cartels, while also noting the National Bank of Romania's institutional objection regarding the lack of methodological comparability between the three indices. The study concludes that, in the absence of the reasoned decision, both the actual scope of the infringement and the viability of subsequent damages actions remain, at this stage, provisional. This study is presented as a preliminary note and first commentary on a decision whose reasoned version has not yet been issued. Its conclusions are therefore provisional and subject to revision once the statement of reasons becomes available.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.62838/cjjc-2024-0088
Pages: 45-57