How do you protect your deposit when buying an apartment under construction?

Before paying, you need to establish which document is being signed and what obligations it creates. The reservation agreement and the promise to sell and purchase are distinct stages, and the treatment of the sums paid must be analysed against the specific document.

Under Article 22(5) of Law no. 10/1995, as amended by Law no. 207/2025, an agreement reserving a future home may be concluded for no more than 60 days. The sum paid for the reservation is deducted from the sale price and may not exceed 5% of the price, on pain of absolute nullity of the agreement.

For example, for an apartment priced at EUR 100,000, the ceiling for the reservation is EUR 5,000. This ceiling must not be confused with a general limit of 5% for any deposit paid later under the promise.

The law provides for the full refund of the sums received for the reservation, within 30 days, if the promise or the sale contract is not concluded before the 60-day maximum period expires through the developer's sole fault. It does not follow that there is an unconditional right to a refund simply because the prospective buyer changes their mind. The conditions for termination and repayment must be read before paying, including for the situation in which the buyer does not obtain the necessary financing.

The promise to sell and purchase creates obligations concerning the future conclusion of the sale. It must not be confused with the deed by which ownership is transferred, even where the deposit represents a significant part of the price.

For apartments in future condominiums, the framework introduced by Law no. 207/2025 requires the building permit to be noted in the land register, the pre-division of the building into apartments (preapartamentare) and the opening of land register entries for the individual future units. The promise may be concluded only in authenticated form, once the legal conditions are met and the land register extract has been obtained. The notary requests that the promise be noted on the day it is drawn up or, at the latest, on the following working day.

For the buyer, these formalities make it possible to identify the promised apartment in legal terms and to check the entries that concern it. They do not, however, replace an analysis of the contractual clauses and of the developer's ability to complete the project.

One of the protections introduced concerns the destination of the deposit. Sums paid under the promise must be paid into a separate bank account of the developer, dedicated to the project for which they were paid.

The legal text makes spending them conditional on their exclusive use for that project and on the "good for payment" (bun de plată) of the responsible person or of the site supervisor. It mentions a maximum of 25% of the price for the structural part and, once that is completed, a maximum of 20% of the price for the services and installations.

The important distinction is between the sum that may be collected and the way it may be spent. The wording adopted regulates the use of the deposit, without expressly providing a general ceiling on the deposit collected under the promise. It should be noted that there is uncertainty about the use of sums exceeding the stated thresholds. The percentages must not be presented as a complete statutory schedule of the payments owed by the buyer.

The separate account disciplines the use of the money, but in itself it is not equivalent to a refund guarantee. The contract should identify the project account and provide mechanisms for reporting on the progress of the works. These clauses are contractual protection measures, not rights that should be assumed to exist automatically.

The preliminary analysis should cover the identity of the company concluding the promise, the rights over the land, the building permit, the identification of the apartment and the encumbrances registered in the land register. Separately, the developer's financial situation and any litigation relevant to the project must be analysed.

From the point of view of protecting the deposit, the recommendation is that the check be concentrated on the entity that actually takes on the contractual obligations, not only on the trade name under which the development is promoted.

The existence of bank financing and of mortgages must be analysed in context. What matters are the assets burdened by guarantees, their ranking and the conditions in which the apartment can be released from encumbrances on sale. The relevant question is whether the documents allow the transfer to be carried out on the promised terms, not merely whether the developer states that the project is financed.

One contractual protection measure is to link payments to verifiable stages of construction, instead of paying a very large part of the price at the outset.

For the mechanism to be useful, the contract should define the stage that justifies each payment, the documents that confirm it and the procedure that applies if there are discrepancies. A general formulation such as "on completion of the structure" can give rise to disputes if it is not accompanied by clear technical benchmarks and documentation.

This is a negotiating recommendation, not a statement that the law imposes the same payment schedule in every project. The recommendation aims to limit the buyer's financial exposure as the project progresses.

A serious contract must answer the question clearly: what happens if the apartment is not completed or the sale cannot be concluded on time?

In negotiation, it is worth looking for a fixed deadline for concluding the sale, precise conditions for any extensions, penalties for delays attributable to the other party and a clear mechanism for terminating the promise. The refund of the deposit should have its own deadline, rather than depending on the resale of the apartment or on some uncertain future receipt. These are contractual benchmarks of protection, which must be adapted to the project and to the obligations of each party.

The contract should also distinguish between completion of the works, handover of the home and conclusion of the sale. According to the official text consulted, handover of the building is tied to acceptance of the reception at completion of the works and to the commissioning of the authorised and definitive connections, under the conditions of the law.

Noting the promise in the land register and guaranteeing the refund of the deposit are not the same operation.

Article 2386 point 2 of the Civil Code is the basis of the statutory mortgage of the promisee-buyer over the promised property, for the refund of the sums paid towards it if the promise is not performed. Concrete protection requires checking the registration of the guarantee, its object and its ranking; it is not prudent to assume that merely noting the promise settles all of these matters.

Even a registered guarantee does not justify promising full recovery in every situation. The value of the asset and competing guarantees remain relevant, especially if the developer becomes insolvent.

Protecting the deposit is not limited to signing an authenticated document or to the existence of a repayment clause. It requires checking the project, limiting the financial exposure, clear conditions for payment and refund, and an analysis of the guarantees available.

The law can impose obligations on the developer and can make the transaction more transparent. It does not, however, replace an assessment of the financial and contractual risk. For the buyer, the essential question remains: if the project is not completed, what concrete mechanism allows the money paid to be recovered?

This article is of a general nature and concerns the framework introduced by Law no. 207/2025. For promises concluded earlier, the application of the law over time and the state of the land register entries require a separate analysis; the new rules should not be assumed to be automatic remedies for the risks of older contracts.