ROBOR manipulation: the Competition Council’s sanctions and the door it opens to damages claims and litigation

Sanctioning of Romanian banks for alleged ROBOR manipulation: between the certainty of the sanction and the uncertainty of damages

The recent decision of the Competition Council to sanction several banking institutions active on the Romanian market for alleged involvement in a cartel-type arrangement regarding the formation of the ROBOR index marks an important moment for the financial-banking market.

ROBOR, as the benchmark index for variable-rate loans in lei, has a direct impact on the cost of financing borne by millions of consumers and companies. Any distortion in how it is formed raises serious competition and transparency concerns.

What the Competition Council found

The competition authority found that anti-competitive practices existed among certain banks, consisting of manipulation and the exchange of sensitive information, as well as coordinated conduct that could have influenced how ROBOR was set.

This finding — the ROBOR manipulation — even in the form of a sanctioning decision, does not automatically amount to establishing individual harm for each consumer or a direct right to damages.

The door opens to litigation over ROBOR manipulation — but with no automatic certainty

While the Competition Council’s decision is an important piece of evidence, it does not automatically guarantee success in court proceedings.

To obtain damages, claimants will individually need to prove:

• the existence of concrete harm;
• a causal link between the alleged anti-competitive practice and the harm suffered;
• the amount of the harm.

In practice, these elements can raise significant difficulties in “follow-on” litigation.

The decisive role of the Competition Council’s reasoning

An essential element remains the reasoning behind the Competition Council’s decision, which is not yet fully known or publicly clarified in all its relevant details.

This reasoning will directly influence:

• the strength of any court actions;
• claimants’ evidentiary strategy;
• the assessment of the chances of success in collective or individual litigation.

What happens next in practice

In the coming period, we can expect:

• a detailed analysis of the decision by lawyers specialising in competition law;
• possible individual or collective actions against the banks involved;
• the development of relevant case law on the impact of benchmark-rate manipulation.

However, it is important to stress that each case will depend on the specific contractual and financial circumstances of each client.

Is this the time to act?

Even though public discussion may raise expectations, bringing a court action must be done strategically and on solid legal grounds.

In this context, an individual analysis of each loan agreement and how interest was calculated becomes essential to assessing the real chances of recovering any amounts. Sabău Avocați has built a continuous, successful practice in banking-law matters, particularly in cases concerning the restoration of contractual balance with consumers.

Conclusion

The alleged ROBOR manipulation case remains a landmark for Romanian competition law. While the sanctions imposed on the banks are significant, the path to damages remains uncertain and depends on how the courts interpret the case and on the full reasoning of the Competition Council’s decision.