Mediation in Romania: untapped potential

Romania has one of the most congested justice systems in the European Union, while mediation — the tool that could relieve the courts — remains almost unused. The Mediation Law has been in place since 2006 and there are thousands of authorised mediators, yet disputes still end up before a judge almost by default.

The paradox is not unique to Romania, but here its cost is higher, because the judicial system is already working at its limits.

Where we stand today

The courts are overwhelmed. According to the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM), in 2024 Romanian courts handled a total caseload of 3,655,103 files (across all procedural stages), about 2.5 million of them newly filed, with a shortage of judges of roughly 17%. In civil and commercial matters (about 90% of all cases), Romania had 769,823 cases pending at first instance, against a European average of 358,277 — that is 4.04 pending cases per 100 inhabitants, more than twice the European average (1.75), according to CEPEJ data reported by the CSM. In 2025, a judge at a first-tier court (judecătorie) had on average 1,479 cases to resolve.

Mediation is marginal. There are no complete, publicly available official statistics on the number of mediations — which is itself a symptom of the problem. Estimates from within the profession — for instance, an opinion piece published in 2020 — put the number of mediators on the national Register at over 10,000, but the number of mediations carried out each year nationwide at fewer than 1,000. At European level, a study carried out for the European Parliament (2014) found that mediation is used in fewer than 1% of civil and commercial disputes.

The legal framework lost its main driver. Between February 2013 and June 2014, attending an information session about mediation was mandatory before bringing certain types of claims to court. The Constitutional Court declared the requirement unconstitutional (Decision no. 266 of 7 May 2014), finding that the sanction of rendering the claim inadmissible restricted free access to justice. Since then, mediation has once again been purely optional and, according to practitioners, the number of cases has fallen sharply.

What the judicial system would gain

Mediation does not need to resolve every dispute to matter. European research (De Palo et al., 2011) shows that a success rate of just 19% already shortens the overall duration of disputes, and from 24% onwards it also saves costs.

• Fewer new cases. Family disputes, property divisions, neighbour disputes, small commercial debts and employment conflicts are precisely the high-volume areas with a strong potential for agreement.
• Judges focused on what matters. Every case settled amicably frees up time for the files that genuinely need a judgment: criminal, administrative and complex cases.
• Agreements owned, not imposed. An agreement built by the parties is voluntarily accepted by each of them, which can ease the pressure on enforcement proceedings and on appeals.
• Lower public costs. Every case avoided saves hours of judges', clerks' and infrastructure time, in a system that cannot even fill the posts it already has.

What the business community would gain

For a company, a lawsuit is not just the lawyer's fee: it also means a period of uncertainty that is hard to estimate, money tied up and, often, a lost business partner.

• Time. The mediation calendar is set by the parties together with the mediator; a commercial lawsuit that goes through first instance and appeal follows a calendar the parties do not control. And money recovered sooner is worth more than money recovered late. We compare the two roads side by side in Mediation or court?
• Predictability. The parties control the outcome — no solution is adopted without their consent — instead of waiting for a judgment they cannot anticipate. If an agreement is reached, the legal risk becomes a known cost.
• Relationships preserved. With a supplier, a client or a business partner, cooperation can continue after an agreement; after a lawsuit, the relationship is often damaged beyond repair.
• Confidentiality. Mediation is confidential, under the conditions set by law: the dispute does not become public on the courts' portal, and reputation and sensitive information remain protected.
• Legal force. The mediation agreement can become enforceable through notarial authentication, through approval by the court, or through its verification and attestation by the parties' lawyers or by a notary, under the conditions of art. 58 of Law no. 192/2006. The details are in our article on the legal force of the mediation agreement.

The simplest step for a company is to include a mediation clause in its contracts: before going to court, the parties undertake to attempt mediation. On our commercial mediation page we explain what such a procedure looks like in practice.

What would make mediation work

European experience shows that voluntary mediation, left to public awareness campaigns alone, does not take off. The most frequently cited example is Italy, where a form of mandatory mediation for certain categories of disputes significantly increased the number of cases. For Romania, a few measures could change the picture:

• A mandatory information session that does not block access to court — for example, for certain categories of disputes, without the sanction of inadmissibility criticised by the Constitutional Court.
• Encouraging mediation clauses in commercial contracts, with clear recognition of them by the courts.
• Judges who actively recommend mediation in suitable cases, with the proceedings suspended while it takes place.
• Annual public statistics on mediations and their success rate, without which no policy can be evaluated.

Conclusion

Mediation does not replace justice; it makes justice possible where it is truly needed. With courts handling, relative to population, more than twice the European average number of pending cases, Romania can no longer afford to leave this tool unused. For the state, it means less congested courts; for companies and citizens, a path in which the solution is built by the parties themselves, in a confidential setting.

If you are wondering whether a specific dispute is suitable for mediation, write to us — the information session is free of charge and places you under no obligation.

Sources

1. CSM — Report on the state of the judiciary in 2024 (in Romanian)
2. Gândul — CSM warning: over 2 million new cases in 2024 (in Romanian)
3. JURIDICE.ro — CSM press release: the number of pending cases at an unprecedented level (February 2026, in Romanian)
4. Sibiu100 — Romania above the European average in pending cases (CEPEJ data, in Romanian)
5. Digi24 — The CSM report for 2025 (in Romanian)
6. VeDem Just — Mediation, a project that needs reviving (opinion, 2020, in Romanian)
7. Law no. 192/2006, consolidated version — Romanian Legislative Portal
8. European Parliament — Quantifying the cost of not using mediation (De Palo et al., 2011)
9. European Parliament — "Rebooting" the Mediation Directive (2014)
10. JAMS — Resolving the mediation paradox in Europe (2025)

Legal and statistical sources: Law no. 192/2006 on mediation and the organisation of the mediator profession, consolidated version, and the statistical sources listed above, consulted on 28 September 2026. Last review of this article: 28 September 2026.