A Warsaw-based software company wins a Romanian client. Contracts are signed. Then the data team asks a simple question: "Can we send customer data to Bucharest?" The answer depends on which legal mechanism applies – and whether the company has documented it correctly before the transfer begins.
Data transfers from Poland to Romania are permitted under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) without requiring special authorisation, because Romania is a European Union member state subject to the same data protection rules. Both countries are bound by GDPR directly, meaning the transfer itself does not trigger the third-country transfer restrictions found in Chapter V of the Regulation. However, a lawful transfer still requires a valid legal basis for the underlying processing, a compliant data processing agreement where a processor is involved, and accurate records in the controller's Register of Processing Activities. Failing to document these elements exposes the controller to enforcement action by the Personal Data Protection Office (Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych, UODO) – Poland's national supervisory authority.
This service page sets out the regulatory framework, the practical instruments used in Poland-to-Romania data flows, common compliance failures, cross-border considerations specific to the Romanian market, and a self-assessment checklist for businesses preparing to transfer data.
Why does the EU framework matter for Poland–Romania data flows?
Both Poland and Romania are EU member states. GDPR applies directly in both jurisdictions without the need for national implementing legislation to bridge the gap. That means a controller established in Poland and a processor established in Romania operate under an identical regulatory standard. The Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) supervises Polish controllers. Romania's equivalent is the National Supervisory Authority for Personal Data Processing (Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal, ANSPDCP).
The practical consequence is significant. Chapter V of GDPR – which imposes restrictions on transfers to third countries – does not apply here. There is no adequacy decision to rely on, no standard contractual clauses to execute for the transfer itself, and no binding corporate rules required. The data simply moves within the EU's single data protection area. What does apply, however, is the full set of GDPR obligations governing the processing relationship between the parties.
Controllers should note that UODO and ANSPDCP both participate in the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) consistency mechanism. An enforcement decision in one jurisdiction can inform investigations in the other. Polish businesses with Romanian processors should therefore treat Romanian compliance posture as a direct reflection of their own risk profile.
One figure worth keeping in mind: UODO may impose administrative fines of up to EUR 20 million or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover for serious infringements. That ceiling applies regardless of whether the data reached Romania or stayed in Poland. The transfer destination does not reduce the fine exposure.
What legal instruments govern the processing relationship with a Romanian party?
The transfer mechanism and the processing instrument are two separate questions. Since Chapter V restrictions do not apply, the relevant instruments concern the controller-processor relationship, joint controllership arrangements, and the legal bases for processing. Each instrument has a different documentation requirement and a different risk profile.
The core instrument is the data processing agreement (DPA). Where a Polish controller engages a Romanian company to process personal data on its behalf – a cloud hosting provider in Bucharest, a payroll bureau, a customer service centre – GDPR requires a written contract specifying the subject matter, duration, nature, and purpose of the processing. The contract must also list the categories of data subjects and personal data involved. UODO's enforcement decisions consistently cite missing or incomplete DPAs as the primary compliance failure in processor relationships. A DPA missing the mandatory elements is treated as no DPA at all.
Joint controllership is less common but arises more often than businesses expect. Where a Polish and Romanian entity jointly determine the purposes and means of processing – for example, a shared marketing database or a co-branded loyalty programme – both are joint controllers. They must enter into an arrangement under GDPR that allocates responsibilities between them and makes the essence of that arrangement available to data subjects. The arrangement does not replace individual privacy notices.
- Data processing agreement – mandatory where the Romanian party acts as processor
- Joint controller arrangement – required where both parties determine purposes jointly
- Controller-to-controller transfer – no special instrument needed beyond a valid legal basis
- Records of Processing Activities – must reflect the Romanian processing activity
- Data Protection Impact Assessment – required where high-risk processing is involved
We secured a reversal of a UODO enforcement notice for a logistics client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The original notice cited an absent DPA with a Romanian subcontractor. After we restructured the processing documentation and demonstrated remediation, the authority closed the case without a fine.
For a tailored strategy on structuring your Poland-Romania data processing arrangements, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.
What are the most common compliance pitfalls in Poland-to-Romania transfers?
The absence of a Chapter V restriction creates a false sense of security. Businesses assume that because the data is "just going to the EU," no documentation is required. That assumption is wrong – and it is the single most frequent cause of UODO enforcement action in cross-border processing relationships.
The first pitfall is treating a commercial contract as a substitute for a DPA. A service agreement between a Polish company and a Romanian IT provider may contain confidentiality clauses and data security obligations. It does not, however, contain the mandatory GDPR elements unless those elements were deliberately included. UODO inspectors check for the mandatory DPA content specifically. A confidentiality clause does not satisfy the requirement.
The second pitfall involves sub-processors. A Romanian processor that engages its own subcontractors – a hosting provider, a translation bureau, a technical support team – becomes a sub-processor chain. The original DPA must authorise sub-processing and impose equivalent obligations on sub-processors. Many DPAs drafted before 2021 contain general authorisation language that no longer satisfies UODO's interpretation of the requirement. Controllers should audit existing DPAs for this gap.
The third pitfall concerns data subject rights. Where a Romanian processor receives a data subject access request directed at the Polish controller, the processor must assist the controller in responding within 30 days. That obligation must be written into the DPA. Without it, the controller cannot meet the deadline and faces a separate infringement for failing to respond to the request. This is a particularly sharp risk in business-to-consumer contexts where Romanian end users interact directly with the Romanian processor's interface.
A fourth area involves sector-specific regulation. Companies in the financial sector must also consider the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA compliance), which imposes specific requirements on ICT third-party arrangements. A Romanian cloud provider engaged by a Polish financial institution is not just a GDPR processor – it is also a potential ICT third-party service provider under DORA. The two frameworks overlap but do not duplicate each other. See also our analysis of trade secret protection strategies under Polish law for overlapping confidentiality obligations that often arise in the same cross-border arrangements.
How do AI Act Poland obligations interact with data transfers to Romania?
The EU AI Act entered into force in August 2024. Its obligations phase in through 2026 and 2027. For Polish companies transferring data to Romanian AI system providers or processors, the AI Act adds a compliance layer that sits alongside GDPR. The two frameworks do not replace each other – they apply simultaneously.
Where a Polish company uses a Romanian AI system to process personal data – for example, an automated credit scoring tool or a recruitment screening platform – it may be both a GDPR controller and an AI Act deployer. As a deployer, it must conduct a fundamental rights impact assessment for high-risk AI systems. That assessment draws on the same data inventory that feeds the GDPR Data Protection Impact Assessment. Conducting them separately wastes resources. Conducting them together requires careful coordination of the two methodologies.
The AI Act also imposes transparency obligations toward individuals subject to high-risk AI decisions. Those obligations interact with GDPR's right to explanation for automated decisions. A Polish controller using a Romanian AI processor must ensure that the DPA allocates responsibility for transparency disclosures. Without that allocation, both parties risk non-compliance with both frameworks simultaneously – a doubled enforcement exposure.
IP protection is a related concern. Where the data transferred to Romania includes training datasets, model weights, or proprietary algorithms, the transfer may also trigger intellectual property considerations. Our analysis of IP protection strategy for tech companies in Poland addresses how to structure data-sharing arrangements without inadvertently disclosing protectable IP. Controllers should review both GDPR and IP obligations before transferring AI-related datasets.
One concrete threshold: the AI Act's prohibited practices provisions applied from February 2025. Any Romanian processor engaged in AI processing for a Polish controller must confirm it does not operate a prohibited AI system. That confirmation should be documented in the DPA or a separate warranty. Failure to obtain it forfeits the controller's ability to demonstrate due diligence if a prohibited practice is later identified.
To receive an expert assessment of your AI Act and GDPR compliance posture in Poland-Romania data flows, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
What cross-border considerations are specific to the Romanian market?
Romania presents several practical features that Polish controllers should account for when structuring data transfers. The country has a developed IT sector concentrated in Cluj-Napoca, Bucharest, and Timișoara. Many Polish companies engage Romanian IT subcontractors without realising that those subcontractors may themselves have offshore parent companies or use infrastructure located outside the EU. That creates a sub-processor chain that extends beyond the EU – and reintroduces Chapter V restrictions at the sub-processor level.
Controllers should require Romanian processors to disclose the location of all data processing infrastructure and all sub-processors before signing the DPA. Where any element falls outside the EU or the European Economic Area, standard contractual clauses or another Chapter V mechanism must be in place for that specific link in the chain. The Polish controller remains responsible for the entire chain.
Romanian employment law also affects data transfers involving employee data. Where a Polish employer seconds workers to Romania or engages Romanian staff through a local entity, the processing of employee personal data is subject to both GDPR and Romanian labour legislation. Our guide on posted workers from Romania to Poland and A1 certificates addresses the employment law dimension of cross-border workforce arrangements that frequently generate personal data flows in both directions.
We obtained interim measures protecting a data asset portfolio worth over EUR 3m for a Polish technology client operating in Lower Silesia (spring 2026). The case arose from a disputed DPA with a Romanian subcontractor that had transferred data to a non-EU sub-processor without authorisation. Securing the interim measures preserved the client's ability to terminate the arrangement without losing access to its own data.
Currency and contracting considerations are also relevant. Romanian processors may invoice in RON (Romanian leu) rather than EUR. DPAs should specify the currency of any liability caps and clarify whether those caps apply per incident or in aggregate. A liability cap denominated in RON at the time of signing may be worth significantly less in EUR terms by the time a claim arises.
Self-assessment checklist and next steps
Before initiating or continuing a data transfer from Poland to Romania, controllers should verify the following. Each item represents a distinct compliance obligation. Missing any one of them creates an independent infringement risk – not a minor gap, but a basis for UODO enforcement action with fines running to EUR 20 million.
- Valid legal basis: confirm that the processing of transferred data rests on a GDPR legal basis (consent, contract, legal obligation, legitimate interest, or another applicable ground)
- DPA in place: verify that a written data processing agreement meeting all mandatory GDPR requirements is signed before the first transfer
- Sub-processor audit: obtain a full list of the Romanian processor's sub-processors and confirm that all processing infrastructure is located within the EU/EEA
- Records updated: ensure the Register of Processing Activities reflects the Romanian processing activity, including the categories of data, the processor's identity, and the technical and organisational measures applied
- Data subject rights mechanism: confirm that the DPA allocates responsibility for handling data subject requests, with a response timeline aligned to the 30-day GDPR requirement
GDPR Poland compliance is not a one-time exercise. Controllers should review DPAs with Romanian processors at least annually and whenever the processor changes its sub-processor chain, infrastructure, or processing activities. A processor that was compliant at the time of signing may have introduced non-compliant elements since then. The controller bears responsibility for monitoring that risk throughout the duration of the relationship.
For businesses in the financial sector, DORA compliance adds a parallel review cycle for ICT third-party arrangements. The two review cycles should be coordinated to avoid duplication and to ensure that gaps identified in one framework are addressed in the other. A Romanian cloud provider that fails a DORA ICT risk assessment should trigger a simultaneous review of the GDPR DPA.
Your specific situation may involve combinations of these obligations that interact in ways that are not immediately obvious from the frameworks alone. A controller that is also an AI Act deployer, also subject to DORA, and also transferring employee data faces three overlapping compliance regimes simultaneously. Addressing each in isolation risks leaving gaps at the intersections.
To discuss how these instruments apply to your Poland-Romania data transfer arrangements, email info@kordeckipartners.com.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Does GDPR require standard contractual clauses for data transfers from Poland to Romania?
A: No. Standard contractual clauses are a Chapter V mechanism designed for transfers to countries outside the European Union. Romania is an EU member state and is subject to GDPR directly. Chapter V restrictions do not apply. However, a data processing agreement is still required where the Romanian party processes data on behalf of the Polish controller. The two instruments serve different functions and should not be confused.
Q: How long does it take to put a compliant data processing agreement in place?
A: A DPA can be executed within two to five business days where both parties are ready to negotiate. In practice, the bottleneck is the sub-processor disclosure and the technical and organisational measures annex. Processors in the Romanian IT sector are generally familiar with GDPR requirements and can produce these documents quickly. Controllers should budget at least ten business days for a complete DPA package, including sub-processor review and records update.
Q: Is it a misconception that GDPR only applies to large companies?
A: Yes – this is a common and costly misconception. GDPR applies to any controller or processor that processes personal data, regardless of company size. The only limited exemption covers organisations with fewer than 250 employees in relation to the obligation to maintain a Register of Processing Activities – and even that exemption does not apply where the processing is likely to result in a risk to the rights of data subjects, where the processing is not occasional, or where it includes special categories of data. Most Poland-Romania commercial data flows do not qualify for this exemption.
KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to data protection, technology regulation, and cross-border compliance. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams navigating GDPR, the AI Act, DORA, and related frameworks. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. KORDECKI & Partners assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@kordeckipartners.com.