It is reported that the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Communications and Postal Services (RÚ), the executive authority for the supervision and administration of services in the telecommunications sector, is independent from the government in the decision-making process.

In Romania, Regulation 2019/452 is transposed by Act No. 497/2022 on the Screening of Foreign Investments (the FDI Act), which replaces the previous regime under Act No. 45/2011 Coll. on Critical Infrastructure. Effective March 2023, the FDI Act mandates that foreign investors, including legal entities registered outside the EU and non-EU individuals, obtain prior approval from the Ministry of Economy if their intended investment qualifies as foreign investment.
According to Art. 2, foreign investment includes any investment that enables the investor to acquire a Slovak target or critical assets, gain effective participation (voting rights or registered capital) in a Slovak target (10% for critical foreign investments and 25% for non-critical investments), increase participation to specific thresholds (20%, 33%, or 50% for critical investments and 50% for non-critical investments), or exercise control over a Slovak target.
The law outlines three screening regimes:
- Compulsory screening for critical investments, requiring prior FDI approval before closing.
- Voluntary screening for non-critical investments, where a notification must be submitted before closing, allowing closure even if FDI proceedings are ongoing.
- Ex officio screening for all foreign investments that may threaten or disrupt security or public order in Slovakia or the EU, applicable within two years after closing (with no time limit for critical investments).
Additionally, Arts. 11-15 specify that investments in certain fields may be classified as foreign critical investments, requiring prior approval from the Ministry of Economy. Government Regulation No. 61/2023 Coll. identifies critical sectors, including the operation and management of critical infrastructure; cybersecurity services; digital services related to online markets, search engines, and cloud computing; production and research in encryption technologies; specific broadcasting media; online content-sharing platforms with annual revenues exceeding EUR 2 million; publishing large-scale periodic press or news agencies; and operating online news portals.

Slovakia is a party to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

There is no general principle for the use of copyright-protected material comparable to the fair use/fair dealing principles. Directive 2001/29/EC defines an optional but exhaustive set of limitations from the author´s exclusive rights under the control of the “three-step test” in line with the Berne Convention that establishes three cumulative conditions to the limitations and exceptions of a copyright holder’s rights. Member States have transposed the Directive with significant freedom. The Copyright Act provides for a wide list of exceptions.

Art. 85 of the Utilities Directive (2014/25/EU) contains provisions allowing contracting public entities to reject foreign goods not covered by any EU international commitments from its tender procedures. In these cases, a tender submitted for the award of a supply contract may be rejected where the proportion of the products originating in third countries exceeds 50% of the total value of the products constituting the tender (Art. 85.2). Additionally, in cases of equivalent offers, the provisions provide for a preference for European tenders and tenders covered by EU's international obligations. In practice, this possibility has rarely been used.
In Slovakia, the Directive has been transposed with the Act No. 343/2015 on public procurement and amending certain acts, and with the Decree of the Public Procurement Office No. 153/2016 laying down a threshold for above-threshold contract, a threshold for above-threshold concession and a threshold for design contests.

A lack of transparency in public procurement procedures is reported as a significant challenge in Slovakia. This perceived opacity, combined with the excessive length and complexity of tender verification and appeal processes, hinders broad participation by potential bidders. Additionally, "lock-in" contracts, where the Slovakian Government initially commits to procuring a basic service and then expands the contract to include additional services, continue to restrict foreign firms' access to public procurement, particularly in the information technology sector.

It is reported that in Slovakia, both local and foreign private entities can establish and own businesses with no limits on foreign ownership.

In 2021, the Romanian government approved Law No. 163 of 11 June 2021 on the adoption of measures on information and communication infrastructures of national interest and conditions for the deployment of 5G networks, requiring suppliers to have approval from the Supreme Council of National Defence (CSAT) to sell 5G equipment (Art. 3). The legislation states that equipment from untrusted vendors must be replaced by 2026 (core network) and 2028 (RAN equipment). To provide 5G equipment in Romanian mobile networks after 2026 (Core) / 2028 (RAN), the vendor must apply to the Supreme Council of National Defence (CSAT) for approval. It is reported that from 2021 until 2024, Huawei chose not to apply for such a permit. Given that Huawei has not received CSAT approval, Romanian telecom companies would have to remove all Huawei products from their networks within five to seven years, and the major Chinese firm is excluded from taking part in the development of the 5G network.

The Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU provides an updated framework aimed at encouraging online sales. The Directive has been implemented by Law No. 363/2007 on unfair commercial practices of traders in relation to consumers and harmonising the regulations with the European legislation on consumer protection.

Romania has not signed the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts.

Romania has not adopted national legislation based on or influenced by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Commerce.

Romania has not adopted national legislation based on or influenced by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Electronic Signatures.

The Directive 2000/31/EC (E-Commerce Directive) is the legal basis governing the liability of Internet Services Providers (ISPs) in the EU Member States and includes a conditional safe harbour. Not all Member States have transposed the relevant articles consistently, leading to divergent national case law that could cause legal insecurity on an EU level.
The national transposition by Romania of Directive 2000/31/EC has been carried out through the E-commerce Act. Arts. 11-15 of the law outlines the liability scheme for internet intermediaries. The law largely follows the European Union E-Commerce 'safe harbours' model, immunising intermediaries when they act as a mere conduit or when they cache or host material. Intermediaries remain liable if they are the originators of the information, if they modify the information or if they are aware of the infringing nature of the information. While there is no general monitoring duty imposed on intermediaries, once they are made aware of the infringing content, they must remove it from their platform' rapidly. Art. 16 further provides that the legal remedy brought against these intermediaries is either a take-down or a blocking order (both temporary and permanent injunctive remedies are permitted).
The law differs from the EU model in two primary respects. The law does not use the term ‘internet intermediary’; instead, it identifies specific types of ‘service provider[s]’, suggesting a more nuanced view of the online environment. This enables the law to go further than the EU E-Commerce Directive. Specifically, Art. 15 explicitly extends the internet intermediary liability protection to search engines, which are not considered in the EU directive. Search engines are similarly liable if they fail to block illegal content once they have been made aware of it.