The Legal Framework for Cryptocurrencies in Civil Enforcement

Comparative Lessons for Romania

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61801/Arsaequi.2026.29

Keywords:

cryptocurrencies, digital assets, cryptographic possession, property rights, enforcement, Decentralized Finance (DeFi), comparative private law

Abstract

The present research explores how blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies challenge the traditional continental civil law framework. By reassessing the legal taxonomy of digital assets, the paper argues against their strict classification as jura in personam, primarily due to the absence of a designated debtor in permissionless networks. Alternatively, it supports the recognition of a sui-generis real right (jus in re) grounded in the concept of ‘cryptographic possession’. Furthermore, classical civil classifications are reinterpreted to address the ubiquitous nature of digital assets and the inherent complexities of jurisdictional localization. The study highlights the legal distinction between fungible cryptocurrencies and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), alongside the emerging fructiferous character of assets deployed within Decentralized Finance (DeFi) ecosystems, which generate civil fruits. To contextualize these shifts, three European regulatory paradigms are evaluated: the French dualist approach under the PACTE Law, the German institutional integration into the banking sector, and the Swiss DLT framework, which innovatively merges substantive rights with digital tokens. Finally, the analysis focuses on the practical implications for the pathology of legal relations, particularly regarding the efficacy of forced execution and the safeguarding of the creditors' general pledge. The paper concludes with targeted de lege ferenda proposals for the Romanian legal system. These include the express statutory recognition of digital assets as intangible movable property in the Civil Code, alongside modern civil procedure mechanisms, such as the judicially mandated surrender of private keys under penalty and automated electronic garnishment, aimed at harmonizing state coercive power with the realities of the Web 3.0 economy.

References

Antonopoulos AM, Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain (2nd edn, O'Reilly Media 2017).

Călin ES, ‘Where Soft Law is the Only Law: Digital Goods in Comparative Perspective’ (2025) 15(1) Ars æqui 36-45 https://doi.org/10.61801/Arsaequi.2025.282.

De Filippi P, and Wright A, Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code (Harvard University Press 2018).

Fairfield J, ‘Tokenized: The Law of Non-Fungible Tokens and Unique Digital Property’ (2022) 97(4) Indiana Law Journal 1261-1313 https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol97/iss4/4.

Pop L, Popa IF, and Vidu SI, Tratat elementar de drept civil. Obligațiile (Universul Juridic 2012).

Schär F, ‘Decentralized Finance: On Blockchain- and Smart Contract-Based Financial Markets’ (2021) 103(2) Fed-eral Reserve Bank of St Louis Review 153-174 https://doi.org/10.20955/r.103.153-74.

Stoica A, Teoria generală a obligațiilor (Solomon 2026).

Terré Fr, Simler Ph, Lequette Y, and Chénede Fr, Droit civil. Les obligations (12th edn; Dalloz 2019).

Zimmermann R, The Law of Obligations. Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (OUP 1996).

Downloads

Published

27.08.2026

How to Cite

Păun, M.-G. (2026). The Legal Framework for Cryptocurrencies in Civil Enforcement: Comparative Lessons for Romania. Ars æqui, 16(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.61801/Arsaequi.2026.29