International Arbitration 2026 Comparisons

International arbitration is an established dispute-resolution mechanism in Albania, particularly for cross-border projects, foreign investment and contracts involving the State or State-linked entities. It is frequently selected in concession, infrastructure, energy and other long-term projects where the parties seek a neutral forum, specialised decision-makers and an award capable of cross-border enforcement. For purely domestic disputes, court litigation remains more common, although arbitration is now supported by a dedicated statutory framework.

The position has changed materially since 2023 and the guide for that year. Law No 52/2023 on Arbitration now regulates both domestic and international arbitration where the seat is in Albania. The new framework has removed the earlier legislative gap and provides rules on arbitral agreements, tribunal formation, interim measures, procedure, awards, setting-aside and enforcement. In practice, Albania-related arbitration continues to be most visible through contractual arbitration clauses, investment arbitration and the recognition or enforcement of foreign awards; Albania is not yet a frequently selected international seat, but the 2023 law creates a clearer basis for seated proceedings.

International arbitration activity involving Albania remains concentrated in sectors characterised by significant foreign investment, capital-intensive projects and interaction with public authorities. Energy, construction and infrastructure, concessions, transport and logistics, natural resources, telecommunications and information-related businesses are the principal areas in which arbitration clauses and investor-State disputes are encountered.

Recent publicly recorded proceedings illustrate continuing investment-arbitration activity and a broader range of regulated businesses. EMS Shipping & Trading GmbH v Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/23/9, remains publicly listed by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as an Albania-related investment case. Mrs Mimoza Ndroqi v Republic of Albania, PCA Case No 2023-64, is a pending investment arbitration identified by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the information and communication sector. These sectors tend to generate arbitration because projects are long term, heavily regulated and frequently involve licences, concessions, public bodies or significant sunk costs. Disputes therefore commonly raise questions of contractual performance, regulatory intervention, termination and compensation.

For investment disputes involving Albania, ICSID remains a prominent forum where the jurisdictional requirements of the ICSID Convention and the relevant investment instrument are satisfied. PCA-administered proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules are also used in Albania-related investor-State cases. In international commercial contracts, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) continues to be a common institutional choice, particularly where one party is foreign or the transaction is connected with a major project or public authority.

Law No 52/2023 expressly permits arbitration to be administered by a permanent arbitral institution under its rules or to proceed on an ad hoc basis under rules agreed by the parties. The official public sources reviewed for this guide do not identify a newly established Albanian arbitral institution in the last 12 months that has become a significant administering centre for international cases. For ICC clauses concluded or proceedings commenced under the current institutional framework, practitioners should also note that the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules entered into force on 1 June 2026.

Albania has not created a specialist arbitration court or a separate international commercial court. Judicial functions connected with arbitration are allocated to the ordinary courts by Law No 52/2023.

The territorially competent first-instance court of general jurisdiction at the seat performs key support and supervisory functions, including certain appointments of arbitrators, review of challenges or termination of an arbitrator’s mandate, court assistance in taking evidence and orders connected with enforcement. Applications to set aside an Albania-seated award are determined by the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction in whose territorial jurisdiction the seat is located. This should be read against Albania’s reorganised judicial map, under which the general-jurisdiction court structure was consolidated from 2023. Accordingly, the relevant court is identified by the statutory function and territorial competence rather than by a specialist arbitration division.

The principal legislation is Law No 52/2023 on Arbitration in the Republic of Albania. It applies to domestic and international arbitration where the seat is in Albania. Its provision on court-ordered interim measures also applies where the seat is outside Albania or has not yet been determined.

The 2023 law is based substantially on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, including the 2006 amendments, and UNCITRAL records Albania as a Model Law jurisdiction from 2023. The Albanian statute nevertheless contains a number of locally tailored provisions. These include:

• specific eligibility restrictions for arbitrators;
• detailed statutory conflict grounds and short disclosure periods;
• special formal requirements for consumer arbitration agreements;
• approval requirements for certain public entities;
• a detailed default approach to allocating arbitration costs; and
• prescribed content for awards.

The law therefore follows the Model Law architecture while supplementing it with more prescriptive domestic rules in several areas.

The principal legislative development remains the adoption of Law No 52/2023, which replaced the earlier position in which the former arbitration provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure had been repealed without a comprehensive standalone arbitration statute. The 2023 law now provides a complete framework for domestic and international arbitration seated in Albania.

As of July 2026, no significant amendment to Law No 52/2023 has been identified in the official legislative sources reviewed for this guide. The practical focus is therefore on implementation of the new statute and the development of court practice concerning jurisdiction, interim measures, setting-aside and enforcement. Separately, parties using ICC arbitration should account for the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, in force from 1 June 2026. Those institutional changes are not amendments to Albanian national law, but they may affect the procedural design of Albania-related international arbitrations where ICC Rules apply.

As a rule, an arbitration agreement must be in writing. The writing requirement may be satisfied by a clause in a contract or a separate agreement and may also be evidenced through fax, telegram, telex, email or another recordable form of communication or data storage that provides written proof of the agreement. The agreement must identify a dispute or category of disputes capable of being submitted to arbitration and must otherwise satisfy applicable rules on consent, capacity and arbitrability.

Law No 52/2023 imposes additional safeguards in specific situations. A consumer arbitration agreement must be personally signed by the parties and must be separate and independent from the underlying agreement. Certain ministries, local government bodies, dependent public institutions, autonomous agencies and state-owned companies are subject to statutory approval or consent requirements before entering an arbitration agreement. Exceptionally, a defect in written form may be cured where arbitration begins and the other party does not object to the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The Albanian Arbitration Law adopts a broad concept of arbitrability for proprietary disputes. Any property claim or demand arising from a property relationship may generally be referred to arbitration. This includes contractual and non-contractual civil or commercial disputes with an economic character.

The principal limits arise where special legislation prohibits arbitration, permits it only subject to specific conditions, or reserves the subject matter to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Albanian courts. The parties may agree to arbitrate even after court proceedings have begun, but not in respect of matters falling within exclusive court jurisdiction. Arbitrability is therefore assessed by examining the nature of the right or claim, the applicable special legislation and any exclusive-jurisdiction rule. A non-arbitrable subject matter may lead to the setting-aside of an Albania-seated award or refusal of recognition of a foreign award. The approach is thus generally permissive for commercial and proprietary disputes, while preserving mandatory judicial competence in reserved areas.

Law No 52/2023 adopts a clearly arbitration-supportive approach. Where a court is seised of a dispute covered by an arbitration agreement, it must, including on its own initiative, decline judicial jurisdiction unless the arbitration agreement is manifestly invalid. Once arbitration has commenced, a separate court action challenging the validity of the arbitration agreement may not be brought. Ambiguity concerning the arbitration agreement or the tribunal’s jurisdiction is interpreted by reference to the parties’ intention to submit the dispute to arbitration.

For setting-aside purposes, the validity of the arbitration agreement is assessed under the law chosen by the parties or otherwise applicable to it; in the absence of such a choice, Albanian law is relevant under the statutory review framework. Foreign awards are considered under the New York Convention and the Code of Civil Procedure. The legislation therefore expects courts to give effect to valid arbitration agreements and confines judicial intervention to the circumstances expressly identified by law.

The rule of separability is expressly recognised by Law No 52/2023. An arbitration clause is treated as separate and independent from the contract in which it appears. The invalidity of the underlying contract does not, by itself, render the arbitration agreement invalid.

This enables the arbitral tribunal to determine disputes concerning the existence, validity, termination or consequences of the main contract without losing jurisdiction merely because the contract is alleged to be void. The arbitration agreement may, of course, be challenged on grounds directed specifically at the arbitration agreement itself, such as lack of consent, incapacity, failure to meet mandatory form requirements or non-arbitrability. Separability therefore protects the parties’ procedural agreement while preserving a distinct review of whether that agreement was validly concluded.

Party autonomy is the starting point for the selection of arbitrators. The parties may agree on a sole arbitrator or an arbitral panel; where a panel is used, the number of arbitrators must be odd. If the parties do not determine the number, the statutory default is three arbitrators.

The law does impose minimum eligibility and integrity requirements. An arbitrator must be a natural person with full legal capacity, must be independent and impartial and must satisfy any qualifications agreed by the parties or required by the rules of the selected arbitral institution. A person with a final criminal conviction or a final judicial prohibition from exercising public functions is not eligible. Nationality is not prescribed as a general restriction. The principal practical limits on party choice therefore arise from mandatory eligibility requirements, agreed qualifications and conflicts of interest rather than from a closed professional category of eligible arbitrators.

The parties may agree their own appointment procedure. In an ad hoc three-member tribunal, the statutory default requires each party to appoint one arbitrator within 30 days after commencement and the two party-appointed arbitrators to appoint the chair within a further 30 days. For a sole arbitrator, the parties have 30 days to agree the appointment.

If the agreed or statutory appointment process fails, a third party designated by the parties may act as appointing authority. Where no such third party has been designated, or it fails to act within the statutory period, the territorially competent first-instance court at the seat may make the appointment.

Law No 52/2023 does not contain a detailed bespoke appointment mechanism for multiparty arbitration comparable to the special multiparty provisions found in some institutional rules. Multiparty cases should therefore be addressed expressly in the arbitration agreement or through suitable institutional rules; otherwise, the statutory fallback may require court support where the appointment process breaks down.

Court intervention in the appointment of arbitrators is limited to the circumstances provided by Law No 52/2023. The competent first-instance court at the seat may appoint an arbitrator where the parties’ agreed or statutory appointment mechanism has failed and no agreed appointing authority is able to resolve the failure.

Before making an appointment, the court hears the parties’ views and considers any qualifications agreed for the arbitrator as well as the requirements of independence and impartiality. The court may appoint a person from lists maintained by permanent arbitral institutions. It should refuse to make an appointment where there is no arbitration agreement or the agreement is manifestly invalid. The court is required to decide the appointment application within the statutory period, and its appointment decision is not subject to appeal. The court’s role is therefore supportive and residual; it does not replace a functioning party-agreed appointment process.

Law No 52/2023 contains detailed rules on challenge and termination of an arbitrator’s mandate. A challenge may be based on failure to meet agreed qualifications or on circumstances creating reasonable doubts as to independence or impartiality. The statute also identifies specific conflict situations, including:

• prior involvement in the dispute;
• certain family or close personal relationships;
• direct interests in a related dispute;
• employment or advisory links;
• litigation or hostility; and
• specified financial relationships with a party or representative.

Unless the parties have agreed another procedure, a written challenge must be made within 15 days after the party learns of the relevant circumstance or, where already known, after constitution of the tribunal. If the arbitrator does not withdraw and the other party does not accept the challenge, the tribunal decides it. A rejected challenge may be referred to the competent first-instance court within 30 days. The court’s decision is final, and the challenge does not automatically suspend the arbitration or prevent an award.

Independence and impartiality are mandatory statutory requirements. On accepting appointment, an arbitrator must make a written declaration confirming that there are no circumstances capable of creating reasonable doubts as to independence or impartiality and confirming compliance with any agreed qualification requirements.

The duty is continuing. An arbitrator must disclose a circumstance giving rise to reasonable doubts within five days after becoming aware of it, unless the parties already know the relevant facts. Law No 52/2023 also contains an extensive list of relationships and prior roles that may justify exclusion or challenge. These statutory requirements apply alongside any more detailed standards contained in the rules of the chosen arbitral institution. In practice, parties and arbitrators should therefore review both the Albanian statutory conflict rules and the applicable institutional disclosure framework at appointment and throughout the proceedings.

The principle of competence-competence is expressly recognised. Under Article 22 of Law No 52/2023, the arbitral tribunal has authority to rule on its own jurisdiction and on the validity of the arbitration agreement.

A plea that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction must generally be raised no later than the statement of defence. A party is not prevented from making the plea merely because it appointed, or participated in appointing, an arbitrator. An objection that the tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority must be raised when the allegedly excess matter is introduced in the proceedings. The tribunal may admit a late objection where the delay is justified, subject to the statutory conditions. Competence-competence operates together with separability and the court referral rule, creating a system in which the tribunal addresses jurisdiction in the first instance, with targeted judicial review available in the cases specified by the law.

Court review of jurisdiction is available through defined statutory routes rather than through general intervention in the arbitral process. At the litigation stage, a court must decline jurisdiction over a dispute covered by an arbitration agreement unless the agreement is manifestly invalid. The court may also consider the existence or manifest invalidity of the arbitration agreement when exercising specific support functions, such as a default appointment.

Where the tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection and rules that it has jurisdiction, the objecting party may apply to the competent first-instance court at the seat within 30 days. The court must decide the application within the statutory period, and the arbitration may continue while review is pending. The law does not provide the same immediate standalone review route for a tribunal’s negative ruling that it lacks jurisdiction. Jurisdictional defects may also be relevant after an award in setting-aside proceedings. Overall, the statutory structure limits court intervention and favours continuation of the arbitration pending review.

A jurisdictional objection should first be raised before the arbitral tribunal. The general deadline is the statement of defence. An objection that the tribunal has exceeded its authority should be made when the matter said to fall outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction is introduced. The tribunal may accept a late objection in the circumstances permitted by the law where the delay is justified.

If the tribunal rejects the objection and confirms its jurisdiction by an interim decision, the challenging party has 30 days to apply to the competent first-instance court at the seat. It is therefore unnecessary to wait for a final award in order to seek judicial review of a positive jurisdiction ruling. The court application does not suspend the arbitration or the tribunal’s ability to render a final award. After an award, defects concerning the validity or scope of the arbitration agreement may also fall within the statutory setting-aside grounds.

Law No 52/2023 does not describe judicial review of jurisdiction or admissibility by using the labels “de novo” or “deferential”. The better characterisation is that the court independently applies the statutory jurisdictional and validity requirements within the limited review routes created by the law.

In particular, the competent court may review a positive jurisdiction decision under Article 22 and may consider arbitration-agreement and jurisdictional defects in setting-aside proceedings under Article 44. The court is not authorised to conduct a general merits appeal or to reconsider the tribunal’s factual and legal conclusions merely because it would have reached a different result. Questions of pure admissibility that do not amount to jurisdictional defects are not separately identified as a category for broad judicial re-examination. The distinction between jurisdiction, procedure and merits is therefore important when framing any court challenge.

The statutory approach is strongly in favour of enforcing arbitration agreements. If court proceedings are commenced in respect of a dispute covered by an arbitration agreement, the court must, including on its own initiative, place the matter outside judicial jurisdiction unless the arbitration agreement is manifestly invalid.

This reduces the scope for a party to bypass an agreed arbitral forum by simply commencing domestic litigation. Once arbitration has commenced, the law further prevents a separate court action whose purpose is to challenge the validity of the arbitration agreement. Judicial review remains available through the specific mechanisms established by the Arbitration Law, including review of a positive jurisdiction decision and setting-aside proceedings. Accordingly, ordinary court proceedings brought in breach of a valid arbitration agreement should not be allowed to proceed on the merits.

Consent remains the foundation of arbitral jurisdiction under Albanian law. Law No 52/2023 does not establish a general “group of companies”, alter ego or other statutory doctrine allowing a tribunal to bind a true non-signatory merely because it is commercially connected with a signatory.

Questions involving assignment, succession, agency or another transfer of contractual rights and obligations may require analysis under the law governing the relevant legal relationship and the evidence of consent. Those issues can determine whether a person is in fact bound by the arbitration agreement, but they do not create a free-standing power to assume jurisdiction over an unrelated third party. The Arbitration Law does not draw a different rule for foreign and domestic non-signatories. Any extension of the arbitration agreement must therefore be justified by consent or by an applicable substantive legal rule that attributes the agreement to the person concerned.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, an arbitral tribunal may order interim measures at the request of a party. The requesting party must provide written evidence showing a risk of serious and irreparable harm during the arbitral proceedings. The tribunal may require the applicant to provide security in an amount and form determined by the tribunal for damage that may be caused by the measure.

The statute does not set out an exhaustive list of interim measures. In principle, relief may be tailored to preserve the effectiveness of the proceedings or the parties’ position, subject to the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the statutory threshold. An interim measure is not merely recommendatory. A party may seek an order from the competent first-instance court at the seat for its enforcement, and the resulting court order is directly enforceable through the bailiff service. The tribunal may also determine liability for damage where an interim measure is later found to have been unreasonable.

The Albanian courts have a defined role in interim protection. Before the arbitral tribunal is constituted, a party may seek an interim measure from the court where failure to grant relief risks serious and irreparable harm. This court power is expressly available even where the arbitration is seated outside Albania or the seat has not yet been determined. The precise form of relief depends on the circumstances and the court’s procedural powers.

After a tribunal grants an interim measure, the competent first-instance court may order its enforcement and may subsequently revoke or modify the enforcement order on a party’s application. Law No 52/2023 does not create a domestic statutory emergency-arbitrator procedure. Where the parties select institutional rules that provide emergency arbitration, such as the applicable ICC Rules, the emergency mechanism arises from those rules. The Albanian statute does not expressly define the status or direct enforcement route for an emergency arbitrator’s decision, so the form of the decision and the chosen rules require careful analysis.

Law No 52/2023 expressly allows a tribunal to require security or a guarantee as a condition of granting an interim measure. The security is intended to cover potential damage caused by the measure and may be fixed in the amount and form considered appropriate by the tribunal.

The law does not, however, expressly establish a separate general remedy of “security for costs” covering the opposing party’s anticipated legal and arbitration costs. Whether a tribunal may order such relief may therefore depend on the procedural rules chosen by the parties, the powers conferred by the relevant arbitral institution and the circumstances of the case. Albanian courts likewise do not receive a specific security-for-costs power under the Arbitration Law as a distinct arbitration remedy. Parties concerned about this issue should address it through the applicable institutional rules and the drafting of the arbitration agreement.

The procedure of an arbitration seated in Albania is principally governed by Law No 52/2023, the parties’ procedural agreement and, where applicable, the rules of the permanent arbitral institution selected by the parties. The statute gives substantial procedural autonomy to the parties while imposing minimum standards of equality, notice and the opportunity to present a case.

If the parties have not agreed procedural rules, the Arbitration Law applies directly, and the tribunal determines the conduct of the proceedings within that framework. For matters not expressly regulated, the tribunal may apply the Code of Civil Procedure by analogy or use the procedural rules of a permanent arbitral institution as a reference. The law also contains specific rules on seat, language, notices, commencement, pleadings, hearings, default, evidence, witnesses and experts. Institutional rules should therefore be read together with the mandatory provisions of Albanian arbitration law when Albania is the seat.

The Arbitration Law prescribes a basic procedural framework but leaves case management largely to party agreement and the tribunal. Unless otherwise agreed, arbitration commences when the respondent receives the request to submit the dispute to arbitration. The request must identify the parties, state the subject of the dispute and refer to the arbitration agreement.

The claimant submits its claim and supporting evidence, and the respondent submits a defence and supporting material within the period agreed by the parties or fixed by the tribunal. The tribunal decides whether the matter will be determined on documents or after a hearing, subject to the parties’ agreement and the statutory right to a hearing where it has not been excluded and a party requests one. The parties must receive timely notice of hearings, and submissions, documents and evidence relied on by the tribunal must be shared with both sides. A party that proceeds without promptly objecting to a known procedural breach may waive the objection.

Arbitrators are required to conduct the proceedings fairly, independently and impartially. The tribunal must provide equal procedural conditions and a genuine opportunity for each party to present facts, evidence and legal arguments in accordance with the adversarial principle.

Within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the tribunal may:

• rule on its own jurisdiction;
• manage the procedure;
• determine the relevance and weight of evidence;
• require parties to produce documents;
• appoint experts; and
• grant interim measures.

It must apply the law governing the merits in accordance with Article 37, respect the contract and applicable trade usages, and issue a reasoned award meeting the statutory form requirements. Arbitrators are also subject to continuing disclosure obligations and the statutory conflict rules. When fixing costs, the tribunal must ensure that recoverable costs are reasonable in light of complexity, value, time spent and other relevant circumstances.

The Arbitration Law expressly permits a party to act in person or through an authorised representative. Parties are free to choose their representatives, and the arbitral tribunal may not exclude a chosen representative solely because the representative does not hold a domestic professional qualification.

Accordingly, Law No 52/2023 does not require counsel in an Albania-seated international arbitration to be admitted to the Albanian Bar merely because Albania is the seat. This allows foreign-qualified lawyers to appear in the arbitral proceedings, subject to the parties’ agreement and any applicable institutional rules. A distinction should be made for related proceedings before the Albanian courts, such as interim relief, court assistance, setting-aside or enforcement. Representation before domestic courts is governed by Albanian procedural and advocacy legislation, and local representation requirements may apply to those judicial proceedings.

Albanian-seated arbitration does not adopt US-style discovery as a default procedural model. The parties bear the burden of proving the facts supporting their claims or defences and ordinarily submit documents and other evidence with their pleadings. The tribunal may require a party to produce specified documents or other evidence within a fixed period and has broad authority to determine relevance, authenticity and evidentiary weight.

Witnesses may be heard at a hearing, and with the parties’ consent the tribunal may receive signed written witness statements. Parties may put supplementary questions to witnesses. The tribunal may appoint experts and may permit party-appointed experts to participate at a hearing. Law No 52/2023 does not contain a comprehensive code of disclosure privilege comparable to common-law systems; such questions are generally managed through the parties’ agreement, the tribunal’s procedural directions and applicable institutional rules. Cross-examination and document production are therefore matters of procedure rather than automatic domestic-court requirements.

The Arbitration Law contains its own flexible evidentiary framework. The parties carry the burden of proving the facts on which they rely, while the tribunal determines how evidence is taken and assesses its relevance, accuracy and evidentiary value. The tribunal may order the production of documents or other evidence and may appoint experts.

The domestic rules of evidence do not automatically apply to an arbitral tribunal in the same manner as they apply to a civil court. For witness examination, the law directs that the Civil Procedure Code be applied as far as possible. More generally, where the Arbitration Law and the parties’ agreement do not regulate a procedural issue, the tribunal may use the Civil Procedure Code by analogy or refer to the procedural rules of a permanent arbitral institution. This preserves procedural flexibility while providing domestic procedural law as a gap-filling source rather than as a complete mandatory evidentiary code.

The tribunal may order the parties to produce documents or other evidence by a specified deadline. This power is directed at participants in the arbitration and is enforced through the procedural consequences available to the tribunal, including continuing the case and deciding on the evidence before it where a party fails without justification to produce material.

For evidence or legal acts that the tribunal cannot itself compel because it lacks public authority, Law No 52/2023 provides for court assistance. The tribunal, or a party with the tribunal’s approval, may request the competent first-instance court to take evidence or perform another lawful act that is outside the tribunal’s coercive power. The court acts under the Civil Procedure Code. Arbitrators may attend the court’s evidence-taking and may put questions. The distinction is therefore important: the tribunal manages evidence from the parties, while coercive measures involving non-parties or compulsory state authority require judicial assistance.

Law No 52/2023 contains important confidentiality-related safeguards but does not establish an all-encompassing statutory duty of confidentiality covering every pleading, document and communication in every arbitration. Hearings are closed unless the parties agree otherwise, and an arbitral award may be made public only with the parties’ consent.

Parties seeking broader confidentiality should regulate it in the arbitration clause, a procedural agreement or through the rules of the chosen arbitral institution. Disclosure may nevertheless be necessary in related court proceedings, including applications for interim measures, court assistance, setting-aside, recognition or enforcement. In those circumstances, information should be used to the extent required by the relevant judicial procedure and any applicable rules on access to court material. The absence of a blanket statutory provision means confidentiality should be addressed expressly at an early stage of the arbitration, particularly for commercially sensitive disputes.

An arbitral award must be in writing. Under Article 39 of Law No 52/2023, it must include, among other matters:

• the composition of the tribunal;
• the seat;
• the parties and their representatives;
• information concerning the arbitration agreement and the parties’ final claims;
• a brief statement of reasons;
• the operative part;
• the date;
• the required signatures; and
• specified information concerning the tribunal’s secretariat and the place where an original is deposited.

The award is signed personally by the arbitrator or arbitrators. In a panel, signatures of the majority are sufficient if the reason for an omitted signature is stated. The award is final and binding from the date it is announced and must be notified in accordance with the applicable procedure. The Arbitration Law does not prescribe a general statutory deadline for delivery of the final award. Separate post-award deadlines apply to correction, interpretation and supplementation requests.

Law No 52/2023 does not provide a closed statutory list of final remedies available to an arbitral tribunal. The tribunal’s remedial authority is defined principally by the arbitration agreement, the claims submitted, the applicable substantive law and the requirement that the subject matter be arbitrable.

Depending on the underlying law and the relief claimed, a tribunal may award damages, determine contractual or other proprietary rights and grant forms of performance or declaratory relief. Interim measures are separately regulated by Article 23. The tribunal may not decide matters outside the scope of the arbitration agreement or grant relief that would make enforcement contrary to Albanian public order. Punitive damages are not created as a distinct remedy by the Arbitration Law; their availability and enforceability would therefore require close analysis of the applicable substantive law and public-policy limits. The same principle applies to rectification or injunction-like relief: the tribunal must remain within its jurisdiction and the governing legal framework.

Arbitration costs are governed in detail by Article 42 of Law No 52/2023. Recoverable costs may include:

• tribunal fees;
• arbitrator expenses and remuneration;
• experts and agreed assistance;
• approved witness expenses;
• court-related costs; and
• reasonable legal representation or advice costs that were claimed during the arbitration.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, the statutory default broadly follows the outcome of the case. Costs paid by the claimant are allocated to the respondent in proportion to the part of the claim upheld, while costs paid by the respondent are allocated to the claimant in proportion to the rejected part. The tribunal may depart from that result where the circumstances or a party’s conduct justify another allocation. Interest is not separately codified as an arbitration-specific entitlement in Law No 52/2023. A claim for pre-award or post-award interest therefore depends on the applicable substantive law, the contract and the relief properly claimed before the tribunal.

An arbitral award is not subject to an ordinary appeal on the merits. Law No 52/2023 states that the sole recourse against an Albania-seated arbitral award is an application to set it aside.

The application is filed with the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction having territorial competence over the seat. The statutory grounds include:

• incapacity;
• invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• defective notice or inability to present a defence;
• an award outside the matters submitted or beyond jurisdiction;
• improper tribunal composition or procedure where the breach affected the resolution; non-arbitrability; and
• conflict with public order.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, the application must be made within 90 days after notice of the award, subject to the rules for correction, interpretation or supplementation. The Court of Appeal may remit the matter or permit curative action. Its decision is not subject to further recourse to the Supreme Court under the Arbitration Law.

The Albanian Arbitration Law does not establish a contractual merits appeal. The exclusive statutory remedy is setting aside on the grounds in Article 44, and the parties are not expressly authorised to enlarge those substantive grounds or convert the process into a rehearing of the merits.

Article 44 does expressly allow the parties to agree otherwise in relation to the default 90-day period for filing a setting-aside application. That limited contractual flexibility should not be confused with a power to waive mandatory controls concerning arbitrability or public order, or to create additional judicial review of factual and legal findings. Parties may, of course, choose institutional mechanisms that provide internal scrutiny of awards where the relevant rules contain such a process, but this does not expand the Albanian court’s statutory jurisdiction. Any clause purporting to exclude all mandatory setting-aside control or to create a broad merits appeal should therefore be approached cautiously.

There is no general judicial review of the merits of an arbitral award. The Court of Appeal’s role is confined to the setting-aside grounds in Article 44 of Law No 52/2023.

The court may independently examine issues that fall within those grounds, such as the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement, procedural fairness, tribunal composition, arbitrability and public order. It is not entitled to substitute its own assessment of the contractual dispute, reweigh evidence or correct an alleged error of law simply because it would have decided the merits differently.

The statutory model is therefore one of limited judicial supervision rather than deferential merits review or de novo rehearing. This distinction is significant when drafting an annulment application: the alleged defect must be tied to a recognised statutory ground and not presented as an appeal against the tribunal’s substantive reasoning.

Albania is a contracting state to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”). According to the UNCITRAL status record, Albania acceded to the Convention on 27 June 2001, and the Convention entered into force for Albania on 25 September 2001. The UNCITRAL status table does not list a reservation note for Albania.

The New York Convention is expressly integrated into the current arbitration framework. Article 47 of Law No 52/2023 provides that the recognition of foreign arbitral awards is carried out in accordance with the New York Convention and the Albanian Code of Civil Procedure. The Convention is therefore the central international instrument for recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in Albania, alongside the relevant domestic procedural provisions.

An award made in an arbitration seated in Albania is an executive title. Enforcement requires an enforcement order from the competent first-instance court under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court may refuse the order where a ground corresponding to the setting-aside grounds in Article 44 exists. If the Court of Appeal has already examined a setting-aside application, the first-instance court may not re-examine the same annulment grounds.

Foreign awards are recognised under the New York Convention, the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 47 of Law No 52/2023. An award set aside or suspended by the competent authority at the seat may engage Article V(1)(e) of the Convention. Where set-aside or suspension proceedings are pending at the seat, Article VI permits the enforcing court to adjourn its decision and, where appropriate, require security. The Arbitration Law contains no separate comprehensive code of state immunity. An agreement by a state or state entity to arbitrate should not automatically be treated as a waiver of immunity from execution against every asset; enforcement must also consider the legal status and use of the assets and any applicable waiver or immunity rule.

The legal framework is structured to favour recognition and enforcement subject to the limited refusal grounds in the New York Convention and Albanian law. Courts are not authorised to reconsider the merits of the dispute when deciding whether a foreign award should be recognised.

Public order is an express refusal ground under Article 47 of Law No 52/2023 and a setting-aside ground for Albania-seated awards. The statute uses the term “public order” without creating a separate statutory definition of domestic and international public policy. In enforcement proceedings, the relevant enquiry is whether recognition or enforcement in Albania would conflict with fundamental principles protected by the Albanian legal order. The public-order exception should therefore address a serious incompatibility with those fundamental principles rather than an alleged error in the tribunal’s application of law or assessment of evidence. The developing case law under the 2023 statute will be important in defining the precise intensity of this review.

Law No 52/2023 does not establish a statutory class-action arbitration or group-arbitration regime. It does not create a mechanism by which a representative claimant may bind a wider class of absent persons through an arbitral award.

Multiparty arbitration remains possible where the relevant parties are bound by compatible arbitration agreements and the agreed procedure or applicable institutional rules are capable of administering the case. The parties may also design consensual procedures for related claims, subject to due process and the tribunal’s jurisdiction. These arrangements are distinct from class arbitration because the jurisdictional basis continues to be consent to arbitration. In the absence of an express agreement or applicable institutional mechanism, the Arbitration Law does not permit a tribunal to impose class or group arbitration on parties that did not agree to that form of proceeding.

The Arbitration Law itself imposes core ethical duties on arbitrators. Arbitrators must:

• be independent and impartial;
• satisfy agreed qualifications;
• make a written declaration on acceptance; and
• disclose circumstances creating reasonable doubts as to independence or impartiality.

The law also lists detailed conflict situations that may justify challenge or exclusion and imposes short disclosure periods.

The statute does not create a separate comprehensive ethical code for counsel in arbitration. Albanian advocates remain subject to the professional and disciplinary rules governing the legal profession, while foreign counsel remain subject to the professional obligations applicable to them. Institutional rules and recognised conflict standards may supplement the statutory regime where chosen by the parties. In practice, arbitrator conflicts, counsel conduct and changes in representation should be addressed early through procedural directions and the applicable institutional framework so that equality of the parties and the integrity of the proceedings are preserved.

Law No 52/2023 is silent on third-party funding. It does not prohibit arbitration funding, establish licensing or capital requirements for funders, regulate the return payable to a funder or impose a general statutory duty to disclose a funding arrangement.

The absence of specific legislation does not remove conflict or professional-responsibility considerations. Where institutional rules require disclosure of the existence or identity of a funder, those rules apply to the proceedings. Disclosure may also be relevant to an arbitrator’s continuing duty to identify circumstances that could create reasonable doubts about independence or impartiality. The funding agreement itself remains subject to applicable general contract law and any mandatory professional rules. Parties using third-party funding in Albania-related arbitration should therefore examine the chosen institutional rules and address conflicts, confidentiality, control of the proceedings and potential cost consequences expressly.

Law No 52/2023 does not contain an express statutory mechanism for consolidating two or more arbitrations. Albanian courts are not given a general power under the Arbitration Law to order consolidation merely because proceedings concern related contracts, parties or facts.

Consolidation may nevertheless be available by consent or under the rules of the arbitral institution chosen by the parties. The effectiveness of such a mechanism depends on the wording and compatibility of the relevant arbitration agreements and the requirements of the applicable rules. In ad hoc proceedings, the parties may agree to combine cases or co-ordinate tribunal composition and procedure, but a tribunal should not assume jurisdiction over claims or parties outside the arbitration agreement. For complex projects involving several contracts, consistent dispute-resolution clauses and an express approach to consolidation or concurrent proceedings are therefore particularly important at the drafting stage.

An arbitration agreement and award are binding on the persons whose consent or legally attributable agreement establishes arbitral jurisdiction. Law No 52/2023 does not contain a general statutory rule permitting a tribunal to bind a true third party or non-signatory solely because the person is connected with one of the parties.

A third party may nevertheless be affected by related procedural or enforcement measures without becoming a party to the arbitration. For example, court assistance may be required to obtain evidence from a non-party, and enforcement proceedings may raise questions concerning ownership or rights in assets. Those consequences do not themselves extend the arbitration agreement. The same consent-based analysis applies to foreign third parties. Whether an assignee, successor, principal or other person is bound depends on the applicable substantive law and the facts establishing attribution or consent, not on a separate power in the Albanian Arbitration Law to compel non-signatories to arbitrate.