Romania Rushing to Implement the EU Pay Transparency Directive

Over the last few weeks, Romania’s legislative process has accelerated, with steps taken to expedite the passage of a bill to implement the EU Pay Transparency Directive (“Directive”) after missing the implementation deadline set by the Directive. The Draft Law has now been advanced under the Senate’s emergency legislative procedure. 

Procedural Status

On March 30, 2026, the Ministry of Labor published a draft law marking Romania’s first substantive step toward implementing the Directive through national law. On June 17, 2026, the draft law was submitted to the Senate as the first notified chamber under no. B392/2026 (“Draft Law”). At this stage of the procedure, a draft law reaching the Senate as the first notified chamber is: (1) registered and published in the legislative file; (2) placed under the ordinary or emergency procedure; (3) sent for opinions to the relevant institutions; (4) referred to the specialized committees (labor, legal, equal opportunities), which prepare reports; and (5) debated and voted in plenary. These steps do not conclude the legislative process. Once the Senate adopts its position, the draft law is transmitted to the Chamber of Deputies, which is the decision-making chamber. Submission to the Senate under the emergency procedure clearly signals that the Draft Law is moving into an accelerated phase.

On June 22, 2026, the emergency procedure was approved and the Draft Law circulated for endorsement to the relevant institutions. The Draft Law received favorable endorsements from certain institutions, namely the National Council for Combating Discrimination, the National Agency of Civil Servants, and the Economic and Social Council, which advanced a set of amendments to the Draft Law. In contrast, the Legislative Council issued a negative opinion, noting several defective and imprecise formulations that lack predictability and coherence. Among other points, the Legislative Council noted the insufficient and overly vague definition of the term “worker,” as well as the evasive and ambiguous definition of “remuneration” and “pay scales.” It also identified the incorrect formulation of the measures concerning pay transparency and the unclear, overly broad regulation of the remedies available to workers. The Council also considered the six‑month period for remedying identified deficiencies unreasonable in light of the Directive’s objectives, indicating that a shorter timeframe is necessary. The Legislative Council’s opinion is only consultative, operating as a technical alert mechanism, without the ability to ultimately block the adoption of the draft law. However, a negative opinion increases the pressure on parliamentary committees to examine critically the observations raised and to determine whether amendments are necessary. It may also influence the legislative calendar, as committees may choose to reexamine certain provisions. 

The Draft Law was also sent for endorsement to other relevant institutions, with an endorsement deadline of September 2, 2026, as well as forwarded for reports to the Labor Committee and the Legal Committee, with a deadline of September 8, 2026. Once these endorsements and reports are received, the Draft Law will be debated and voted by the Senate and subsequently transmitted to the Chamber of Deputies.

General Alignment with Romanian Nuances 

The Draft Law aligns with the language of the Directive generally. However, employers should not be lured into a false sense of security. The alignment creates areas of uncertainty in how the language will be interpreted under Romanian law. Employers should also be aware of a few key nuances. 

Uncertainty around the definition of “worker”: The Directive relies on an autonomous and broadly interpreted EU‑law concept of “worker,” developed through EU Court of Justice case law. Under the Draft Law, the provisions apply to all employers in both the public and private sectors and, accordingly, to all “workers.” However, the Draft Law does not provide a clear definition of “worker” or indicate which categories of relationships fall within this concept. This creates uncertainty as to whether the term should be interpreted narrowly, in line with the Romanian Labor Code’s definition of an employment relationship, or more broadly, in line with the Directive’s autonomous and functional concept of “worker,” which may extend beyond standard employment contracts. 

Limiting the definition of “remuneration”: The Directive introduces a significantly broad concept, covering not only salary‑based components but also any consideration—whether in cash or in kind—that a worker receives in connection with their employment, including benefits such as vouchers, insurance, stock options, travel facilities, housing and food allowances, compensation for attending training, payments in the case of dismissal, statutory sick pay, statutorily required compensation or other non‑salary advantages. In contrast, the Draft Law takes a narrower approach. The Draft Law defines “remuneration” as any gross remuneration, including base salary, allowances, bonuses, other supplements, as well as any other complementary or variable constituent elements of gross salary income that the worker receives, directly or indirectly, for the work performed. As a result, although the Draft Law covers the essential components of pay, it does not yet incorporate the Directive’s requirement to include all forms of financial and in‑kind compensation relevant to equal pay assessments. 

More precise requirements for recruitment process: Employers must inform candidates in writing—before the interview—of the initial level of remuneration or the salary range, including any complementary or variable components and any in-kind or salary-related benefits. This information may be included in the job advertisement or communicated separately, but oral disclosure is not sufficient. The rules are relatively straightforward and broadly reflect the structure of the EU Pay Transparency Directive regarding the information that must be communicated to candidates. However, Article 5(1) of the Directive requires only that such information be provided in a manner that enables an informed and transparent negotiation on pay, without specifying the timing or the means of communication. By contrast, the Draft Law clarifies these aspects by expressly requiring that the information be provided in writing prior to the interview stage. This is a stricter and more operationally precise requirement than that provided in the Directive. 

Timing of right to pay information: The Draft Law generally follows the requirements of the Directive, but adds stricter, local timeframes. Workers have the right to request and receive, in writing, their own remuneration level and the average remuneration—broken down by gender—for workers performing the same work or work of equal value. The employer must provide the requested information within a reasonable period, but no later than 30 working days from the date of the request (as opposed to the two-month window introduced by the Directive). 

Transparency of pay setting and pay progression policy: Employers must also provide the criteria used to determine pay, applicable pay levels, and any pay progression rules, except where the employer has fewer than 50 workers. While this enables workers to compare pay, employers are not required to disclose individual salaries. In this regard, the Draft Law generally aligns with the Directive. However, it does not prescribe the mechanism through which employers must make pay‑setting criteria accessible. It merely requires that this information be made available to all workers in an accessible manner, without indicating the format, channel, or procedural steps to be used. In practice, employers will need to formalize pay‑setting criteria in writing, as accessibility cannot be ensured without clear, documented rules on how pay is determined, how progression works, and how adjustments are made.

General alignment with gender pay gap reporting: The Draft Law generally follows the terms of the Directive with regards to gender pay gap reporting. However, by merely mirroring the Directive, practical implementation remains uncertain. Employers must report gender pay gap data in line with the thresholds and timelines set by the Directive. Employers with fewer than 100 workers are exempt but may report voluntarily. Furthermore, Romania has not mandated any additional reporting elements beyond those required under Article 9(1) of the Directive. The draft law mirrors the Directive’s minimum content requirements and does not introduce supplementary national indicators, breakdowns, or data categories.

Reporting employers must submit their gender pay gap data to the National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men (ANES)—which is the designated authority for receiving and centralizing the data—and must also provide the information to their workers and workers’ representatives. Upon request, the same data—along with information from the previous four years, where available—must be supplied to the Territorial Labor Inspectorate and the National Council for Combating Discrimination. Per the Draft law, there will be no obligation to publicly disclose the employer’s pay gap information. Any further details—such as the reporting format, methodology, or calculation rules—will be established later through a ministerial order. 

The reporting frequency depends on employer size, with larger employers reporting annually and those closer to the 100‑employee threshold reporting every three years, following the structure of the EU Pay Transparency Directive: 

• Employers with 250 or more workers → annual reporting 
• Employers with 150–249 workers → every three years
• Employers with 100–149 workers → every three years

Because the Draft Law does not specify how employers should calculate the number of workers for threshold purposes, it remains unclear whether the assessment should be made on a specific reference date, based on an average over a defined period, or by determining headcount at the reporting date. This lack of methodological guidance creates uncertainty for employers, particularly given the undefined scope of the term “worker” and the absence of clarity on how the threshold is calculated.

The Draft Law does not specify the pay period that employers must use when preparing the report, nor does it establish a snapshot date for calculating pay indicators. As a result, it is unclear whether employers should base their calculations on remuneration paid during a specific reference month, on a defined reporting period (e.g., the previous calendar year), or by aggregating all pay elements paid within a particular pay cycle. 

Romania has not introduced a minimum sample size requirement for gender representation within a category before an employer must report pay data. The Draft Law mirrors Article 9 of the Directive and does not add a national rule allowing employers to omit categories with very small numbers of men or women. As a result, all categories must be reported regardless of how many workers of each gender they contain, unless future secondary legislation (a ministerial order on methodology) introduces such a threshold—which, at this stage, is not indicated.

Introduction of sanctions: In the Draft Law, fines range from three to five national gross minimum wages (currently approx. EUR 2500 – 4100), and from five to ten (currently approx. EUR 4100 – 8200) for repeated breaches, determined according to the minimum wage applicable at the time of sanctioning. Contraventions and sanctions will be handled by the Territorial Labor Inspectorates. The Draft Law mirrors the Directive’s dual system of judicial remedies (courts) and administrative sanctions (CNCD and Labor Inspectorate), and it preserves the Directive’s standard of effective, proportionate, and dissuasive penalties. However, the Romanian Draft Law introduces additional procedural and administrative obligations not expressly required by the Directive, adding national specificity on enforcement, sanctions, limitation periods, and administrative processes.

The Draft Law also introduces an additional rule on interrupting the limitation period, not expressly provided by the Directive. Specifically, a complaint submitted to the employer, to the court or to the National Council for Combating Discrimination (CNCD) interrupts the running of the limitation period, offering employees enhanced procedural protection and a broader timeframe to assert their rights.

Employer‑level pay‑equality structure: Going beyond the terms of the Directive, the Draft Law requires employers to establish a company‑level pay equality structure responsible for eliminating gender‑based pay differences for workers performing the same work or work of equal value. This means Romanian employers must create an identifiable body—whether a committee, designated role, or internal working group—to monitor and ensure compliance with equal pay principles. Although not expressly stated, this structure will likely serve as the internal point of contact during Labor Inspectorate checks, CNCD discrimination investigations, and employees’ information requests.

Practical Takeaways for Romanian Employers

In light of the formal acceleration of the legislative process, Romanian employers should anticipate a final law sometime during the fall 2026. As currently drafted, there is no built-in grace period for compliance. This means that once effective, obligations such as transparency in recruitment and employee right to information will be immediately enforceable. Additionally, for employers with 150 or more employees, compliance teams should be identifying and resolving any pay gaps in preparation for reporting in July 2027.

Additional steps, include, but are not limited to: 

1. Map remuneration structures: As the Draft Law requires employers to consider remuneration elements set beyond their own local organization, they must map remuneration structures outside the company, understand sector‑ or group‑level frameworks, and anticipate comparisons with workers they do not directly employ. This will help employers with compliance obligations as well as prepare for broader and more complex disputes.
2. Consider extending the reach of compliance: Employers must review not only standard employment contracts but also other contractual arrangements to identify which individuals may fall within the Directive’s broader concept of “worker.” They should also anticipate a more expansive interpretative approach by courts and the National Council for Combating Discrimination, given the ambiguity surrounding the term “worker” and the likelihood of challenges based on the Directive’s direct effect.
3. Identify representative bodies: Employers must identify which representative body is legitimately empowered in each situation and ensure they engage with the correct representative structure at every stage, as misidentification can invalidate consultations or expose the employer to challenges. Large employers with multiple units and trade unions may face different representation structures.

*Corina Radu is a Founding Partner at EMPLAWRA in Bucharest, Romania.