Competition Council decision sanctioning 10 credit institutions with total fines of 3.73 billion lei for anti-competitive practices related to the ROBOR index reopens the discussion on ROBOR compensation for affected borrowers. Among the sanctioned institutions are BCR, BRD, Banca Transilvania, ING Bank, Raiffeisen Bank, Exim Banca Românească, CEC Bank, UniCredit Bank, Intesa Sanpaolo România and Libra Internet Bank. For Banca Transilvania, the sanction also specifically targets the action imputed to OTP Bank România.

What the Competition Council decided in the ROBOR case

According authority, the investigation analysed the behaviour of the banks involved in the ROBOR fixing procedure. The Council's conclusion: there was coordination between the banks through the exchange of confidential and strategic information, particularly regarding the level of the index.

The fixing procedure normally involves quotes formulated independently by each bank, with the maintenance of confidentiality being essential for the integrity of the mechanism. Any coordination that affects this process raises issues from both a competition law and sectoral regulatory perspective.

Why the decision matters for borrowers with ROBOR-linked loans

ROBOR forms the basis of the variable interest rate for a very large number of loans in Romania. If the sanctioned practices effectively influenced the level of the index, the possibility of damages arises for those whose financing costs were calculated by reference to it.

This link however, it cannot be automatically presumed. Right to compensation ROBOR depends on an individual analysis, made on a case-by-case basis.

What needs to be proved to obtain ROBOR compensation

For a successful damages claim, the conditions for civil liability for harm caused by infringements of competition law must be met. In essence, it is necessary to prove:

• anti-competitive conduct established by the Competition Council;
• of the causal link between this conduct and the influencing of the ROBOR level;
• the actual damage suffered by each individual debtor.

The mere existence of a fine from the Competition Council it doesn't automatically lead to compensation. Each case must be analysed individually, with sound economic and legal arguments.

The role of the reasoning behind the Competition Council's decision

So far, the reasoning behind the decision has not been published. This will be essential to understand:

• the Competition Council’s reasoning;
• the conduct imputed to each individual bank;
• the mechanism by which the exchange of information would have affected the fixing process;
• the evidence considered;
• the time period in which the events took place.

The decision can also be challenged in court, through administrative litigation, after the reasoning is communicated — which means it is possible for the courts to reassess the authority's findings.

Can claims for compensation be brought against banks?

Yes. The Romanian legal framework allows individuals prejudiced through the infringement of competition rules to claim full compensation for the damage. The main regulation is Emergency Ordinance No 170/2020 on actions for damages in cases of infringements of competition law.

However, the existence of a penalty from the Competition Council does not, in itself, guarantee the award of damages. The central element in such litigation is proving the damage and the causal link between the sanctioned conduct and the additional costs incurred by each claimant.

In the case of ROBOR, the analysis is complex from an economic and evidentiary perspective. It will need to be established whether the sanctioned practices led to a level of the index different from that which would have formed in a normal competitive environment — and, further, how much of this difference was actually reflected in the interest rates paid by each borrower.

The publication of the reasoning behind the decision, scheduled for September, will be a key milestone for evaluating any legal proceedings.

Legislative amendments regarding actions for damages

The evolution of the legislative proposal is also interesting L339/2026, which aims to simplify damage recovery mechanisms and facilitate collective actions in the field of competition.

The proposal was rejected by the Senate and sent to the Chamber of Deputies, which is the decision-making chamber. The final form of the law remains, for now, uncertain.

What is next in the ROBOR case

The publication of the Competition Council's reasoned decision will be the main benchmark for assessing the legal consequences of the ROBOR case, including the merits of any claims for damages.

Only the analysis of the reasoning will allow the precise establishment of the period and mechanism of the sanctioned conduct, the impact on the formation of the ROBOR index and, implicitly, the real chances of success of the compensation claims brought by the affected debtors.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs) about ROBOR compensation

Can any credit tied to ROBOR generally generate a right to compensation? No, not automatically. From the perspective of the applicable legal framework (Emergency Ordinance no. 170/2020), the existence of a sanction applied by the Competition Council does not equate, in itself, to the existence of individual harm. The law provides for distinct conditions — illicit conduct, harm, and a causal link — which are analysed separately, depending on the circumstances of each situation.

What is the role of the reasoning behind the Competition Council's decision in this context? The reasoning is relevant from a general legal perspective, as it will clarify the period, mechanism and scope of the established conduct. Its publication is such as to provide a clearer framework for the legal assessment of such situations at a general level.

What does Emergency Government Ordinance no. 170/2020 regulate? This ordinance establishes the procedural framework for actions for damages brought as a result of infringements of competition law, including aspects related to the burden of proof and the quantification of harm. It is the reference normative act in this field, generally, regardless of the type of case.

How can I find out if my specific situation falls within the scenarios discussed in this article? The article has a general informative purpose and does not represent legal advice for an individual situation. The assessment of a specific situation requires the analysis of the documents and circumstances specific to each case, an aspect that cannot be achieved through content of a general nature.

---

This article is strictly for informational and general legal analysis purposes, based on public information available at the time of drafting. The content does not constitute legal advice, does not create a lawyer-client relationship, and does not represent an assessment of any individual situation. To analyse the specific circumstances of a particular case, direct consultation with a lawyer.