The Cluj-Napoca Local Court granted an application for a precautionary attachment and a precautionary garnishment over a claim of RON 134,500 arising from a loan granted to a company by one of its former shareholders. We break down the strategy that turned a straightforward debt-collection claim into a case fully settled out of court in less than two weeks from the moment the precautionary measures were obtained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This case is of practical interest to any creditor facing a debtor who delays or refuses payment: it shows, with concrete dates and deadlines, the difference between waiting for a case on the merits to conclude \u2014 a process that can take years \u2014 and using, in parallel, the legal tools that place real, immediate pressure on a defaulting debtor’s assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our client, a former shareholder holding 20% of the share capital of a company based in Cluj-Napoca, had granted the company financing of RON 161,400 (the equivalent of EUR 32,280) under a shareholder loan agreement, interest-free. The agreement set out a repayment schedule spread over four instalments, the last of which was due at the end of December 2025, with a 30-day grace period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of the entire loan amount, the debtor company repaid only one instalment, of RON 26,900, in early February 2026. The remaining RON 134,500 went unpaid, even though the payment deadline \u2014 including the contractual grace period \u2014 had expired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before bringing the matter before the court, we served the debtor, through a judicial enforcement officer (executor judec\u0103toresc), with a formal payment demand seeking settlement of the outstanding balance of RON 134,500. The debtor did not respond, confirming a pattern of systematically delaying payment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On behalf of our client, we filed a statement of claim seeking an order compelling the debtor to pay the principal debt of RON 134,500, statutory penalty interest, inflation-based adjustment of the sum, and court costs. The claim was registered with the Cluj-Napoca Local Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A conventional approach would have stopped there, leaving the judgment on the merits, the issuance of an enforceable title, and enforcement proceedings to unfold over months or even years \u2014 time during which the debtor could have reorganised its assets, emptied its bank accounts, or disposed of its property. We chose a different strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rather than waiting for the outcome of the merits proceedings, we simultaneously filed a separate application asking the court to order, without summoning the parties, a precautionary attachment (sechestru asigur\u0103tor) over all of the debtor’s movable and immovable assets, together with a precautionary garnishment (poprire asigur\u0103torie) over the credit balances of the debtor’s bank accounts held at any bank, up to the amount of RON 134,500.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The legal basis for this step was Article 953(1) of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code, which provides:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n“A creditor who does not hold an enforceable title, but whose claim is evidenced in writing and has fallen due, may request the establishment of a precautionary attachment over the debtor’s movable and immovable assets, provided that it proves it has brought a claim before the courts. It may be required to pay security in an amount set by the court.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Read together with Article 971 of the Civil Procedure Code, which extends these provisions to precautionary garnishment, the law affords the creditor a key advantage: there is no need to identify the specific assets over which the attachment is sought, nor the third-party garnishees in the case of a precautionary garnishment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The loan agreement between the parties was a private document without a certified date (f\u0103r\u0103 dat\u0103 cert\u0103), meaning our client did not hold an enforceable title against the debtor. We nevertheless demonstrated to the court that the two statutory conditions were met: the claim was evidenced in writing, through the loan agreement, and it had fallen due, since the debtor had failed to comply with the repayment schedule set out in the agreement and the final instalment had matured well before the application was filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court’s Ruling: The Application for Precautionary Measures Is Granted<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
By Civil Ruling of the Cluj-Napoca Local Court, in file no. 21267\/211\/2026\/a1, the court granted the application in full, ordering:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- the establishment of a precautionary garnishment, in the form of a bank garnishment, over the bank accounts held by the debtor at all banking institutions, covering present and future attachable sums owed to the debtor by third parties, in favour of the creditor, up to the amount of RON 134,500, until an enforceable title is obtained;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- the establishment of a precautionary attachment over the debtor’s movable and immovable assets, up to the same amount of RON 134,500.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
From the Court Ruling to Actual Enforcement: Just 2 Days<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
We enforced the Civil Ruling without delay. Just two days after it was issued, the judicial enforcement officer’s office opened the enforcement file and proceeded to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- establish a precautionary garnishment over all bank accounts held by the debtor, with an express prohibition on the banks making any payment or transaction that could reduce the garnished amounts, up to the sum of RON 134,500;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- impose a precautionary attachment over a movable asset in the debtor’s estate;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- verify, by querying the databases of the National Tax Administration Agency (ANAF), all bank accounts, income, and assets registered in the debtor’s name, in order to establish precisely the extent of its attachable assets.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
In practice, within less than 48 hours of obtaining a simple court ruling \u2014 and without there yet being a judgment on the merits or an enforceable title as such \u2014 the debtor’s bank accounts were frozen and its assets were encumbered by a precautionary attachment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Real Pressure on the Defaulting Debtor: Settlement in Just 5 Days<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Freezing the bank accounts and imposing the precautionary attachment had the intended effect. Faced with the impossibility of carrying on its business as usual, and with the prospect that these measures would remain in place until the merits proceedings concluded, the debtor requested negotiations to settle the dispute amicably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just 5 days after the precautionary measures were enforced, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- the debtor paid, before signing the settlement, the full principal debt of RON 134,500;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- the debtor additionally undertook to pay RON 22,000, covering the costs incurred by the creditor in recovering the debt (court stamp duties, attorneys’ fees, and enforcement officer’s fees) and part of the accessory amounts related to the payment delay;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- payment of the RON 22,000 was secured by a promissory note (bilet la ordin) for the same amount, issued by the debtor and personally avalised (guaranteed) by its manager, immediately enforceable in the event of non-payment of any instalment;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- the creditor undertook to file an application discontinuing the merits proceedings and an application to lift the precautionary measures in the enforcement file, and the debtor agreed to the return to the creditor of the security deposit it had lodged.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The Final Outcome<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
- RON 156,500 recovered in full for our client \u2014 RON 134,500 in principal debt, plus RON 22,000 in costs and accessories \u2014 in less than two weeks from the moment the precautionary measures were obtained;<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
- the entire process, from establishing the precautionary attachment and garnishment to the full settlement of the dispute, took less than 10 days;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- the merits proceedings were terminated through discontinuance, without the need to go through the full judicial process to a final judgment;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- the precautionary measures (bank garnishment and precautionary attachment) were lifted, and the security deposit lodged by our client was returned to her in full;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- recovery of the RON 22,000 in costs was further secured by a promissory note personally avalised by the debtor’s manager.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Conclusions: Why a Passive Approach Would Not Have Produced the Same Result<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
This case shows, with concrete facts, the difference between two possible strategies when facing a defaulting debtor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A passive approach \u2014 limited to filing a statement of claim and waiting for a judgment on the merits \u2014 would most likely have meant months or years of proceedings, during which the debtor could have continued to use the funds in its bank accounts without restriction, and by the end of the process our client would have had to go through a full enforcement procedure, with the risk that the debtor’s assets would no longer be sufficient, by that point, to cover the claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The approach we chose \u2014 pairing the merits action with an application for precautionary measures, followed by their immediate enforcement \u2014 turned a simple loan-recovery dispute into real and immediate financial pressure on the debtor. Freezing the bank accounts and imposing the precautionary attachment brought the debtor to the negotiating table within days, where it agreed not only to pay the principal debt in full but also to cover in full the costs generated by its own delay in payment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The key to this outcome was the correct and prompt use of the tools that the Civil Procedure Code makes available to a creditor even in the absence of an enforceable title: the precautionary attachment and precautionary garnishment governed by Article 953 et seq. and Article 971 of the Civil Procedure Code, combined with prompt enforcement of the measures obtained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Get Personalised Assistance from the Brisc Legal Team of Attorneys in Cluj<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
This case shows how important speed and firmness are in a creditor’s response to a debtor who delays or refuses to pay a debt. A merits action filed in isolation, without precautionary measures, gives the debtor time and means to avoid enforcement; a strategy combining the merits action with the immediate establishment and enforcement of a precautionary attachment and garnishment can turn an apparently slow case into an amicable resolution reached within days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this matter, the creditor was assisted and represented by Brisc Legal, a law firm based in Cluj-Napoca with solid experience in debt recovery, precautionary measures, and enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Our team regularly assists individuals and companies with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
- recovering claims arising from loan agreements, commercial contracts, or relationships between shareholders;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- preparing and pursuing applications for precautionary attachment and precautionary garnishment;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- promptly enforcing precautionary measures obtained, working with judicial enforcement officers;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- assisting with negotiations with debtors and drafting settlement agreements that resolve disputes pending before the courts amicably.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
If you are dealing with a debtor who delays or refuses to pay a sum of money and want to find out whether your situation allows for precautionary measures, the Brisc Legal \u2013 Cluj-Napoca Attorneys team can provide a legal assessment of your situation and identify the most effective strategy for the full and prompt recovery of the amounts owed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Don’t let a legitimate claim turn into a loss because of a debtor’s inaction. Contact the Brisc Legal team for a firm debt-recovery strategy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Cluj-Napoca Local Court granted an application for a precautionary attachment and a precautionary garnishment over a claim of RON 134,500 arising from a loan granted to a company by one of its former shareholders. We break down the strategy that turned a straightforward debt-collection claim into a case fully settled out of court in … <\/p>\n