Romania Moves Ahead With Draft Implementation of EU Pay Transparency Directive

Quick Hits

• Romania’s pay transparency draft law largely follows the EU pay transparency directive and does not appear to introduce major additional national obligations.
• However, Romania’s proposal introduces stricter deadlines than the directive for responding to pay information and report-related requests.
• Some uncertainties remain, particularly around worker representatives and the definition of work of equal value.
• Romania is currently well-positioned to meet the 7 June 2026 transposition deadline.

The proposal has already been shared with the business community for feedback and is expected to be discussed with trade unions next. Based on the current timing, Romania appears well-placed to meet the June 2026 deadline for transposing Directive (EU) 2023/970 into national law, ahead of several other member states that are still developing their legislative approach.

Overall, Romania seems to be following a relatively restrained implementation model. Rather than creating an extensive standalone regime, the draft largely follows the structure and substance of the directive. This will likely be seen as a positive development by employers, especially those operating across several EU jurisdictions and seeking consistency in compliance requirements.

The draft follows the directive in several key aspects. The draft law would require employers to inform job applicants of the starting salary or pay range, either in the job advertisement or otherwise in writing. Romania’s draft law also mirrors the directive’s framework on gender pay gap reporting, including the relevant employer thresholds and reporting timetable. In addition, employers with fewer than one hundred employees would be allowed to report on a voluntary basis.

Responsibility for monitoring compliance is expected to lie with ANES, the National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men.

Although the overall approach is closely aligned with EU rules, the Romanian draft contains a few notable deviations. One of the most important relates to the definition of “work of equal value.” Instead of following the directive’s wording exactly, the draft uses terminology drawn more closely from Romanian law, referring to similar or equal knowledge, skills, effort, responsibilities, and working conditions. That difference may create practical difficulties when employers assess which roles should be compared for pay transparency purposes.

Another point of possible divergence is the proposed requirement for employers to organise a “remuneration system/department” at the unit level. This would go further than the directive, which requires transparent and nondiscriminatory pay structures but does not expressly mandate a dedicated remuneration function. If this requirement is retained, this could impose one of the more burdensome elements of the Romanian legislation going beyond the minimum requirements of the directive.

The draft also sets out shorter response deadlines than those required by the directive. Employers would need to answer employee pay information requests within thirty working days, rather than within two months. For clarification requests linked to pay reports, employers would generally have to respond within thirty to sixty days, with only limited extension possibilities. These tighter timelines may require employers to establish more robust internal procedures.

As for sanctions, the proposal provides for fixed fines of RON 10,000 to 20,000, rising to RON 20,000 to 30,000 for repeated breaches. Whether these amounts would be sufficiently dissuasive for larger employers remains open to question, particularly in light of the directive’s requirement that penalties be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive.

Some issues also remain unresolved. In particular, the draft offers limited guidance on the role of worker representatives. This may be significant in Romania, where trade unions can be either representative or nonrepresentative depending on membership levels. Without further clarification, employers may face uncertainty over which representatives need to be involved in pay transparency processes and in joint pay assessments.

In summary, Romania’s draft legislation suggests a relatively predictable and business-conscious implementation of the directive. While the proposal does not currently appear to involve substantial gold-plating, employers may want to continue following the legislative process carefully, especially with regard to tighter deadlines, possible structural obligations, and the unresolved issue of employee representation.

Employers are encouraged to stay informed about the implementation process in their respective jurisdictions. Information and updates on the progress of the directive’s implementation across the European Union can be found using Ogletree Deakins’ Member State Implementation Tracker.

Further information can also be found by listening to our podcast, “Understanding the EU Pay Transparency Directive: What Employers Need to Know.”

Ogletree Deakins’ London office, Pay Equity Practice Group, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Cross-Border, Pay Equity, and Workforce Analytics and Compliance blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts