Suceava

Constanța

Tulcea

Covasna

Timiș

Dâmbovița

Teleorman

Dolj

Vâlcea

Gorj

Vrancea

Galați

Vaslui

Giurgiu

Hunedoara

Alba

Harghita

Argeș

Ilfov

Arad

Ialomița

București

Iași

Bacău

Mehedinți

Bihor

Maramureș

Bistrița-Năsăud

Mureș

Brăila

Neamț

Botoșani

Brașov

Prahova

Buzău

Sibiu

Cluj

Sălaj

Călărași

Satu Mare

Caraș-Severin

Romania

Target reduction of 40.4% in final energy consumption

Target reduction of 45.1% in primary energy consumption

Target 33% of final energy consumption in heating and cooling sector to be from renewables by 2030

Target 14.2% of final energy consumption in transport sector to be from renewables by 2030

Target 49.4% of final energy consumption in electricity to be from renewables by 2030

Target 30.7% of the final gross energy consumption to be from renewables by 2030

Targets reduction of 2% in non-ETS emissions (compared to 2005)

Targets reduction of 43.9% in ETS emissions by 2030 (compared to 2005)

Target no more than 105% greenhouse gas emissions level compared to 2005

Target reduction in pollutants emission by energy sector enterprises by at least 50% by Phase 3 (2023)

Targets no more than 44% of GDP specific energy intensity (compared to 2005)

Targets the share of non-fuel energy to be at least 38% by 2030.

Targets reduction of 1.6x in the energy intensity of GDP

Targets reduction of 2x in the energy intensity of GDP

Target reduction of 1.4x in the share of investments in the fuel and energy complex as a percentage of the gross domestic product and 2x in the total volume of investments

Target reduction of 3x in the share of the energy export in the gross domestic product

Target reduction of 1.7x in the share of the fuel and energy complex in the gross domestic
product and the share of fuel and energy resources in export

Targets 10% of the final energy consumption in transport to be from renewables by 2020

Sets mandatory annual quotas of electricity produced from renewable energy sources, which benefit from the green certificate system from 2010-2020.

Targets for the share of electricty produced from renewable energy sources in the gross final consumption of electricity to be 33% in 2010; 35% in 2015; and 38% in 2020

Target 24% of gross final energy consumption to be from renewables by 2020

Sets target that for electricity produced in power plants (using fuels from domestic production), guaranteed access to electricity networks may only be granted for annual quantities corresponding to a parimary energy of not more than 15% of the total amount of fuel equivalent

To increase the overall share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption by 30.7%. &nbsp;

To reduce by 2% the non-ETS emissions compared to 2005.

To reduce by 43.9% the ETS-GHG emissions compared to 2005.&nbsp;




19% increase in GHG emissions by 2020 against a 2005 baseline

35% cut in GHG emissions from biofuels and bioliquids compared to fossil fuels, then 50%, then 60% by 2012, 2017, 2018 against a 2008 baseline

20% increase in energy efficiency by 2020

10 million TOE energy saved by 2020 against a 2012 baseline

24% gross final consumption of energy from renewables by 2020

33% final electricity consumption from renewable by 2010, then 35% by 2015, then 38% 2020

Fuel suppliers introduce petrol with at least 9% biofuel by volume by 2017, then 10% by 2019

20% cut in GHG  emissions from aviation by 2020 against a 1990 baseline

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

In July of 2024, Greenpeace Romania filed a complaint against the urban zoning plan connected to the Neptun Deep Gas Project, which is facilitated by OMV Petrom and Romgaz. Greenpeace Romania submitted the complaint before the Bucharest Court of First Instance, contending that no climate impact assessment had been conducted for the project’s onshore works, thus failing to comply with environmental impact assessment regulations. 

The court dismissed Greenpeace’s claim, declining to assess the legality of the environmental permit. Greenpeace Romania, noting that other Romanian courts have undertaken more extensive analyses of environmental permits, filed an appeal with the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The court issued a judgement early in 2025 rejecting the appeal, ordering Greenpeace to pay approximately 30,000 EUR each to OMV and Romgaz. Greenpeace retains the right to appeal further for a definitive ruling.

In the meantime, Romgaz, which is 70% government-owned, began a lawsuit to dissolve Greenpeace Romania. The complaint alleges that Greenpeace Romania is engaged in fraudulent business practices.


On December 11, 2024, two Romanian NGOs—Declic and Bankwatch Romania—filed an application before the Cluj Administrative Court seeking the suspension of Environmental Permit No. 2024/6, issued by the Mureș Environmental Protection Agency for the Răstolița Hydropower Project. The plaintiffs challenged the legality of the permit on multiple grounds, arguing that the project, which involves deforestation and the development of major hydro-technical infrastructure, was approved without sufficient consideration of updated environmental, climate, and public safety standards.

The claim centered on several procedural and substantive issues, including:
(i) the alleged failure of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to assess the entire project comprehensively, focusing only on deforestation while omitting the full environmental effects of hydro-technical works;
(ii) reliance on outdated permits and technical documentation from 1990, despite advancements in safety and environmental standards;
(iii) alleged violations of Article 6(3)-(4) of the EU Habitats Directive and Article 28 of Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) No. 57/2007;
(iv) concerns over the adequacy of the public consultation process, which plaintiffs argued did not comply with the procedural requirements in Annex 5 of Law No. 292/2018;
(v) the lack of an adequate assessment of the deforestation’s impact on climate mitigation, flood risks, and biodiversity.

The plaintiffs argued that the deforestation of 39.38 hectares of protected natural areas would negatively affect carbon storage, flood control, and the habitat of several protected species. They also questioned the project’s contribution to national energy objectives, noting that the hydropower plant’s estimated capacity of approximately 35 MW accounts for only 0.19% of Romania’s total installed generation capacity and would affect ten rivers.

In February 2025, the Cluj Administrative Court rejected the request for suspension, allowing work on the project to continue. The court sided with Hidroelectrica, the state-owned energy company leading the project, ruling that the environmental agreement could remain in effect pending the resolution of the main case. Romanian Energy Minister Sebastian Burduja described the ruling as a major victory for the country’s energy sector, noting that over 90% of the works were already completed and the project was on track to become the first hydropower plant finalized in Romania in over three decades. He emphasized its strategic importance for balancing the grid and enhancing energy security. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.

On June 4, 2025, the Cluj-Napoca Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s ruling and ordered the suspension of the environmental permit. This decision is final with respect to the interim measure but does not resolve the underlying merits of the case, which are scheduled to be heard on June 24, 2025.

The Court of Appeal’s decision effectively halts the Răstolița Hydropower Project, which is reportedly over 90% complete and had been scheduled for commissioning in November 2025. According to the Romanian government, the project is one of strategic national interest and would be the first hydropower plant completed in the country in three decades. Officials, including the Minister of Energy, have emphasized the project's role in contributing to national energy security and reducing reliance on energy imports. They have also expressed concern that prolonged litigation has already caused significant financial losses for the state-owned energy company Hidroelectrica and the national budget—estimated at over 443 million euros in unproduced energy and related costs between 2019 and 2024.


On January 31, 2023, the NGO Declic and a group of individuals issued an application for judicial review  before the Cluj Court of Appeal against the Romanian Government, the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests, seeking that the court order the authorities to take all necessary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (hereinafter GHG) by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. They also demand that the Court order the Romanian Government et al. to take adequate measures to increase the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption to 45% and to increase energy efficiency by 13% by 2030.

Last but not least, they requested the court to order the Romanian authorities to implement concrete and coherent climate change mitigation and adaptation plans, including annual carbon budgets, within a maximum of 30 days from the final judgment, in order to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

In a nutshell, there were three big questions needed to be answered by the Court:
1. Whether national authorities are in breach of their legal obligations by applying GHG emission reduction targets for 2030 that are significantly lower than the target agreed at EU level for 2030.
2. Whether, according to objective standards, the measures taken by central authorities are sufficient, proportionate and will result in limiting global warming to 1.5-2 degrees Celsius?
3. Are the measures taken by the defendants compatible with the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Romanian Constitution, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECHR (right to a future in accordance with human dignity, right to health and an ecologically balanced environment, right to life and privacy)?

The defendants objected that the co-plaintiffs lacked standing and sufficient interest to bring the case to the court.
They also argued that such an action, if granted, would violate the principle of the separation of powers.
The Ministry of Environment, Water and Forestry had also raised the objection of passive standing in respect of the 2nd head of the claim- to take adequate measures to increase the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption to 45% and to increase energy efficiency by 13% by 2030.

The legal reasoning of the Court of First Instance
The trial judge rejected the objection of lack of locus standi and the objection of the lack of interest on the part of the applicants, essentially by holding that the present case concerned an unjustified refusal to deal with an application which had implications in terms of the right to life and to a healthy environment, so that Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act No. 554/2004 ought to be applied. In determining the objections raised by the defendants, the Court duly took into account Article 95, Article 20 (6), Article 3, and Article 5 of GEO No. 195/2005- Law on Environmental Protection, in conjunction with Article 3 of Declic’s  Articles of Association.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the objection of passive standing in relation to the 2nd head of claim on the ground that a shared/interdependent power is established between the Ministry of the Environment, Water and Forestry and the Ministry of Energy with a view to ensuring an increase in the share of renewables in the final energy consumption and an increase in energy efficiency. Moreover, the trial judge noted that the question of the existence or non-existence of the rights and obligations asserted in relation to certain specific measures necessary to achieve the quotas set out in the application is a matter of substance, not of standing.
At the same time, the trial judge expressed neatly that in the case of a complex action which comprises several heads of claim which interfere with each other, the existence of the defendants' passive standing must be analysed in relation to the whole of the action, and not in relation to each head of claim, in a piecemeal manner, as such an analysis would be hollow and devoid of legal finality.

However, when considering the merits of the case, the Court of First Instance dismissed the co-pliantiffs’ application, for the following key reasons:
        Granting the application:  when the operative part of the judgment does not  because it cannot, identify what measures are necessary and  the concrete and coherent plans to achieve the climate objectives, would result in  the delivery of a judgment which is unenforceable and which would constitute a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which has held that the right to apply to a court would be illusory if the domestic legal order of a Contracting State allowed a final and binding judgment to be ineffective to the detriment of a party (Imobiliara Saffi v Italy - 1999, paragraph 63; Dorneanu v Romania - 2007, paragraph 32).

         By granting a judgment allowing the claimants' action, without indicating any criteria on the basis of which the claim contained in the enforceable title becomes certain (the claimants leaving the defendants free to decide on the measures to be taken, even though the premise of the present dispute is, from their point of view, precisely the inadequacy of the measures taken), the judgment debtors are left free to refuse or to determine the scope and application of the enforceable title themselves.
The plaintiffs appealed against the judgment. 
They also submitted a memorandum to the Romanian Supreme Court, requesting it to ask the European Court of Human Rights for an advisory opinion under the 16th Protocol to the ECHR on the following points:
(1)         Does the decision of the court of first instance dismissing the action for failure to identify a specific measure to which the defendants are to be obliged infringe the doctrine of the margin of appreciation enshrined in the case-law of the ECtHR?
(2)         The question to be answered by the ECtHR is whether, having regard to the individual circumstances of the present case, the national court can be considered to have taken a decision on the merits of the case concerning the rights alleged to have been infringed, within the meaning of Article 13 ECHR and as consolidated in ECtHR case-law?
(3)         Whether the refusal to hear the case on the ground that the collective effort to combat climate change entails the jurisdiction of a supranational jurisdiction violates the procedural rights under Articles 6 and 13 ECHR?
(4)         Whether the removal of soft-law interpretation tools from the case, without giving reasons constitutes a violation of Articles 6 and 13 ECHR?
(5)         Whether the violation of the rights of access to a court and to an effective remedy amounts to a violation of Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, as well as the constitutional right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment?


The plaintiff has filed an application for a judicial review of the environmental endorsement issued by the Hunedoara Environmental Protection Agency for Europe's second largest mining project- Rovina Valley Mining Project developed by the Canadian company Euro Sun Mining. 

At the same time, the plaintiff applied for an interim injunction to suspend the effects of the Environmental Endorsement No. 7/2022 issued by the Hunedoara Environmental Protection Agency, until the main action was decided, as the two statutory conditions for the granting of the application were met:

I.  The manifest prima facie illegality of the environmental endorsement, for the following key reasons:
1. the lack of a transboundary impact assessment from a threefold perspective:
a) The size of the project and the extremely large area to be cleared (200 hectares of protected forest).  The assessment is mandatory under the Espoo Convention, including in the early planning stages.
b) the transboundary nature of the underground and surface watercourses. The assessment is required under Article 3 of Helsinki Convention and Articles 20-21 of the UN Watercourses Convention.
c) the transboundary nature of the climate change impacts of the project. In contravention of Article 19 of Government Decision 1076/2004 and Annex 1 of the SEA Directive, the project’s impact on climate change had not been assessed.

2. Failure to undertake public consultation in the transboundary context

3. Failure to carry out an appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the correspondent national statutory instrument, namely the Government Emergency Ordinance (hereinafter GEO) 57/2007

4. Failure to assess climate change impacts in line with Article 19 of the Government Decision 1076/2004 in conjunction with Annex I of  the SEA Directive.

II. Fulfilment of the condition of imminent harm
The plaintiff pleaded that the likelihood of harm must be assessed through the filter of the precautionary principle. In assessing whether a harm is imminent ECtHR’s approach is nuanced in the sense that the notion “imminent” has a broad meaning: where the harm is real, the ECtHR equates the reality of the harm with imminence, hence the harm is impeding and must be precluded.

This confirms the preventive nature of positive obligations. More specifically, it shows that a breach of these obligations does not only occur when the risk is close to materialising (the proverbial "point of no return"). Risks that threaten to occur in the long term can and must oblige the authorities to take preventive measures. Consequently, an "acute" danger is not required for a request for suspension to be granted, the imminence being the reality of the risk.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the application. In its reasoning, the trial judge stated that the two above-mentioned criteria were not met as the PUZ – for the Rovina mining project within the Mining Licence Area, Hunedoara County (for which the environmental endorsement was issued) would not have any possible impact on the environment, since the PUZ is an urban planning document which proposes a change in the use of the land and the functions of the area on part of the licence area and defines the applicable urban planning regulations in order to ensure the conditions for the sustainable insertion of the Rovina mining project, so that at this stage the plan for which the environmental endorsement was issued has no physical effect on the ground, but only an effect at the level of urban planning regulations.

The plaintiff appealed the judgement, and the Cluj Court of Appeal granted the appeal, reversing the lower court’s decision.

Judge Iarina Prelipceanu noted, among other things, that point 14 of the Annex to the Espoo Convention makes it compulsory to initiate the transboundary procedure in the case of activities with a significant impact on the environment such as large quarries, mines, on-site mining and processing of metal ores or coal. The conditions of Annex III, point 1 of the Convention for determining the transboundary impact according to the location, size and effects of the project are also apparently met, as the project involves an area of 698.33 ha and the clearing of 200 ha of forest, and is located in the area of the Crișul Alb river and transboundary groundwater.

The defendants (Samax Romania and Environmental Protection Agency of Hunedoara) appealed against the judgement.

The appeal for annulment was heard by another bench of the Cluj Court of Appeal, which upheld the ruling of the first panel of the Cluj Court of Appeal.

The decision was based on the following cogent reasoning by Judge George Barbura - Turcu of the Cluj Court of Appeal, who held that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that an appeal for annulment must not constitute a disguised "appeal" seeking a retrial of the case, because otherwise it would prejudice the presumption of validity which irrevocable judgments must enjoy and the principle of legal certainty, and as such the rule of law. The judgment under appeal sets out at length the grounds on which the Court of First  Instance’s reasoning was invalidated on the basis of the provisions of Article 18 of the  GEO 195/2005 [and] in relation to the fulfilment of the condition of imminent harm considering that there is apparently a serious impact of the administrative act on water quality, the health of the population as a result of the way the project is operated and, subsequently, the way waste is stored and disposed of, the impact on climate change as a result of greenhouse gases, carbon and the deforestation of a large area of forest.

Geography

Romania

Recent cases