About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

IP Treaties Collection
Contracting Parties Romania

Dates Signature: September 26, 2007 Ratification: January 31, 2011 Entry into force: March 2, 2011

Declarations, Reservations

Objection with regard to the declaration made by Libya upon ratification: (12 December 2018)
"Romania has examined the declaration made upon ratification by the Government of State of Libya to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (New York, 2006).
Romania considers that the declaration aiming to interpret the article 25 (a) of the Convention in the light of the Islamic sharia and national legislation qualifies it as a reservation of undefined character, inadmissible under the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties. In accordance with article 27 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is the duty of States Parties to a treaty to ensure that their internal law allows the application and observance of the treaty.
From that perspective, Romania remarks that the reservation is contrary to the terms of article 4, paragraph 1, letters a) and b) of the Convention, according to which States Parties undertake "to adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention" and "to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities".
Moreover, the general nature of the reservations does not allow to analyze its compatibility with the scope and purpose of the Convention as required by article 46 (1) of the Convention and limits the understanding as to the extent of the obligations assumed by State of Libya."

Objection to the reservation made by Brunei Darussalam upon ratification: (22 March 2017)
"The Government of Romania has examined the reservation made by the Government of Brunei Darussalam to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (New York, 2006) declaring that it 'expresses its reservation regarding those provisions of the said Convention that may be contrary to the Constitution of Brunei Darussalam and to the beliefs and principles of Islam, the official religion of Brunei Darussalam'.
The Government of Romania considers that the reservation is of unlimited scope and undefined character. The general nature of the reservation does not allow to analyze its compatibility with the scope and purpose of the Convention as required by article 46 (1) of the Convention and limits the understanding as to the extent of the obligations assumed by Brunei Darussalam throughout this Convention. Moreover, in accordance with article 27 of [the] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it is the duty of States Parties to a treaty to ensure that their internal law allows the application and observance of the treaty.
From that perspective, the Government of Romania remarks that the reservation is contrary to the terms of article 4, paragraph 1, letters a) and b) of the Convention, according to which States Parties undertake 'to adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention' and 'to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities'.
Therefore, the Government of Romania objects to the reservation formulated by Brunei Darussalam to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This objection shall not affect the entry into force of the Convention between Romania and Brunei Darussalam."

Objection with regard to the reservation made by Singapore upon ratification: (26 June 2014)
"The Government of Romania has examined the reservation made by the Government of Singapore to articles 12, 25 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) and appreciates that a reservation which consists of references to national law may raise doubts as to the commitment of the reserving state to fulfill its obligations under the Convention.
In accordance to article 29 of the Convention, the exercise of the right to vote is a component of the legal capacity which cannot be restricted except under the conditions and in the manner provided by article 12 of the Convention, not as provided in paragraph 1 and 3 of the reservation, by applying the domestic legal framework.
Regarding paragraph 2 of the reservation, the Government of Romania appreciates that article 25 (e) of the Convention is applicable to the private health insurers too. The Convention does not create an exception for this category and does not make a distinction between state and private insurers. The prohibition of discrimination against persons with disabilities regarding the provision of heath insurances, applies to all categories of insurers (including private ones).
The Government of Romania considers that the reservation made by Singapore subordinates the application of some fundamental provisions of the Convention to its domestic law, being incompatible to its object and purpose, which consist in the obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the persons with disabilities.
Such a reservation is also, in view of the Government of Romania, subject to the general principle of treaty interpretation and to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, according to which a party may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for failure to perform its treaty obligations.
The objection shall not otherwise affect the entry into force of the Convention between Romania and Singapore."