International arbitration is well established in Romania and has experienced steady growth since 2014, with a more or less constant rise in the number of arbitration cases per year. Its increasing use predominantly results from disputes related to the various infrastructure projects started by the public authorities in Romania with the help of European financing (from pre-adhesion and post-adhesion funds and, most recently, from the funds associated with the Recovery and Resilience Plan for Romania). The contracts concluded for these projects generally follow the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (Fédération Internationale Des Ingénieurs-Conseils; FIDIC) general conditions of contract, which include the standard International Chamber of Commerce arbitration clause.

Starting in 2018, important legislative amendments were adopted covering a broad category of publicly financed projects subject to public procurement procedures. This led to the replacement of the FIDIC general conditions of contract with new forms of public procurement contracts that are mandatory for public works. The new conditions of contract bring significant changes to the claims/dispute resolution procedure, including referral of the dispute to the national arbitration court – the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania (CICA) – as the arbitral institution within the standard arbitration clause (thus replacing the jurisdiction of the ICC International Court of Arbitration (ICC), which was applicable under the former FIDIC general conditions of contract).

CICA is currently the most frequently used and important international arbitration institution in Romania. Its 2025 Rules of Arbitration align with the existing rules of the ICC and other similar institutions, and seek to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of arbitration in Romania while at the same time sidestepping the formalism of domestic courts. This change has helped maintain the steady growth trend of national and international arbitration before CICA.

International arbitration is currently carried out under the auspices of the ICC, the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC), the LCIA and the Swiss Chamber of Commerce (SCC), but also under those of German (the German Arbitration Institute – Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit; DIS) and Italian institutions of arbitration.

.

The majority of international arbitration cases involve construction disputes in the context mentioned in 1.1 Prevalence of Arbitration, but various other contractual disputes are also referred to international arbitration, including a significantly rising number of energy-related disputes (in the context of the post-pandemic political context and the ongoing energy crisis).

The most frequently used international arbitral institutions in Romania are the ICC, mostly for international arbitrations seated in Romania or disputes with an international component, and CICA, mainly for local arbitral disputes. VIAC has become also an increasingly popular choice in Romania in the past several years.

No new arbitral institutions have been established in Romania in the past year. On the contrary, the number of arbitral institutions has decreased in the last year after the Romanian High Court issued a binding interpretation decision limiting the types of Romanian entities that can administer arbitration in Romania.

There are no national courts that only hear disputes related to international or domestic arbitration matters. The national courts’ intervention is limited to adjudicating claims aimed at removing impediments arising during the organisation phase or the arbitration itself (eg, aiding the process of appointing arbitrators, as detailed in 4.3 Court Intervention, or challenging arbitrators), or to other applications such as issuing interim measures to aid the arbitral proceedings or granting protective measures and interim relief, at the parties’ request, before or during the arbitral proceedings. Such applications are adjudicated by the local court (tribunal) whose jurisdiction covers the seat of the arbitration. National courts – namely the Court of Appeal whose jurisdiction covers the seat of the arbitration – also adjudicate the set-aside proceedings.

The main body of law governing international arbitration is included in the Code of Civil Procedure, which came into force on 15 February 2013. Title IV of Book VII (International Arbitration and the Effects of Foreign Arbitral Awards) sets out specific legal provisions regarding international arbitration and the effects of foreign arbitral awards, which are supplemented by a general set of provisions included in Book IV of the Code of Civil Procedure (On Arbitration); these are applicable to international arbitration whenever the parties have not agreed on certain aspects by means of the arbitration agreement and have not vested the arbitral tribunal with settling those aspects either.

Romania does not have UNCITRAL Model Law-based legislation. However, the institutions within the newly enacted legislation follow the outline and spirit of the Model Law, but a specific analysis of each provision would have to be performed in order to determine the exact influence of the Model Law.

As the applicable legislation is relatively recent (the new Code of Civil Procedure was enacted on 15 February 2013), no significant changes have been implemented in regard to international arbitration law, and no reforms are expected in the near future. Discussions are ongoing around the need to broaden the scope of arbitrable disputes.

A development that is worth noting, albeit not a legislative one, relates to the enactment of a revised set of arbitration rules by CICA, which entered into force on 1 January 2025. The most notable changes set remote hearings and party-appointed experts as default rules (previously, experts were, as a rule, appointed by the arbitral tribunal), introduce disclosure of third-party funders, clarify the procedure for challenging arbitrators and experts, streamline case management and set clearer boundaries between the written and oral phases of arbitration proceedings. With the revised rules, CACI has also revised its fee scales by increasing the costs of CACI arbitration proceedings.

Under Romanian law, a valid arbitration agreement must be concluded in writing. However, the Code of Civil Procedure broadly defines this requirement to include electronic communications or any means of communication establishing the text of the agreement.

Concerning requirements other than the form of the contract (such as the capacity to conclude agreements and consent), the arbitration agreement is valid provided that it fulfils the validity requirements stipulated under one of the following laws:

• the law agreed by the parties;
• the law governing the subject matter of the dispute;
• the law applicable to the contract comprising the arbitration clause; or
• Romanian law.

A dispute can be referred to international arbitration provided that:

• it is patrimonial in nature, meaning that the dispute refers to an economic relation that can be evaluated monetarily;
• it deals with rights the parties may freely dispose of (this excludes disputes over personal civil status and legal capacity, inheritance and family matters, and labour law disputes); and
• it falls outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts pursuant to the law of the seat of arbitration.

Under these circumstances, exempt from arbitration are any disputes that are not of a patrimonial nature, such as civil status litigations, litigations in respect of capacity, inheritance litigations and family litigations, as well as litigations regarding rights that the parties cannot dispose of (eg, in matters of labour and employment litigation where the law expressly provides that a party cannot waive the legal rights established in their favour).

While the procedural rules regulating domestic proceedings may still occasionally raise questions regarding the capacity of public and state-owned bodies to conclude arbitration agreements, no such limitations are imposed in respect of international arbitration. Thus, international arbitration parties may not seek to evade arbitration to which they have previously agreed by invoking internal law provisions that purport to prohibit entering into arbitration agreements.

National courts in Romania recognise arbitration agreements and their effects. As far as is known, there are no cases of anti-arbitration injunctions or any other similar form of court denial of arbitration agreements.

Provided that the arbitration agreement meets the legal requirements of validity and the dispute is arbitrable, the national courts respect the will of the parties and proclaim that the agreement has the force of law among them.

The national courts usually determine the law governing the arbitration agreement in case they are vested with a dispute in respect of which an arbitration agreement has been concluded and at least one of the parties invokes the existence of the arbitration clause. If the arbitration clause is valid, the national courts defer jurisdiction to a national arbitral institution or reject the claim as not being in scope of the Romanian state courts’ competence (versus an international institution). If the arbitration clause is null or inoperable, the national courts will retain jurisdiction. To determine the validity of the arbitration clause, the courts need to determine the law governing the arbitration agreement, which is the law chosen by the parties. In the absence of the parties’ agreement in this respect, the courts will apply the provisions of international private law, depending on the object of the agreement, in order to determine the applicable law.

The Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides for the separability of arbitration agreements, to the effect that the validity of the arbitration clause is independent from the validity of the contract containing it.

Party autonomy to select arbitrators is recognised and well established in Romania. The parties are free to agree whether disputes should be submitted to a sole arbitrator or an arbitral tribunal, and also to select the arbitrators. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for the nullity of an arbitration clause, which allows one of the parties privileged participation in the nomination of the arbitrator(s) or provides a party’s right over the other party to nominate the arbitrator(s), or to have more arbitrators than the other party.

If the parties’ chosen method for selecting arbitrators fails, institutional or ad hoc arbitration rules usually provide default procedures for appointing arbitrators. If the parties have not opted for a set of arbitration rules to govern their arbitration and they are unable to agree on the appointment of arbitrators, the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the interested party/parties may request the local courts to appoint the sole arbitrator, the arbitrator for a defaulting party or the presiding arbitrator.

There are no default provisions on selecting arbitrators in multiparty arbitrations in the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, where the parties have not chosen a set of arbitration rules, their failure to constitute the arbitral tribunal will be dealt with in accordance with the general default procedure, as described in the foregoing.

Many arbitration rules have specific provisions on how arbitrators are appointed in multiparty arbitrations. The usual approach in arbitration rules in case of a three-member tribunal is that the side of the claimant and the side of the respondent shall each jointly nominate an arbitrator (Article 10(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules, Article 19(4) of the CICA Rules, Article 12(6) of the ICC Rules, Article 18(2) of the VIAC Rules). In case of the parties’ failure to constitute the arbitral tribunal in a multiparty arbitration, the approach varies from obligatory appointment of all of the arbitrators by the arbitral institution in some arbitration rules (Article 19(4) CICA Rules) to a more nuanced approach where the institution appoints only the arbitrator for the defaulting party/parties, but exceptionally can appoint co-arbitrators or all the arbitrators (Article 18(4) VIAC Rules).

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that a local court, namely the tribunal whose jurisdiction covers the seat of arbitration, may intervene in the selection of arbitrators by appointing an arbitrator or the presiding arbitrator only in cases where (i) the parties do not agree on the appointment of the sole arbitrator; (ii) a party fails to nominate an arbitrator; or (iii) in the case of a three-panel arbitral tribunal, the two arbitrators do not agree on whom they should appoint as presiding arbitrator. The local courts render a decision regarding the appointment of the arbitrators after hearing the parties.

According to the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties may agree on a procedure for challenging the appointment of, and replacing, the arbitrator by means of the arbitration agreement, including at a time subsequent to that agreement being made. In the absence of an agreement, the parties may ask the local court, namely the tribunal whose jurisdiction covers the seat of arbitration, to rule on the challenge and removal of arbitrators.

Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, the arbitrator may be challenged on the following grounds:

• the arbitrator does not meet the qualifications provided in the arbitration agreement;
• a reason for the challenge is provided for in the rules of arbitral procedure agreed on by the parties or, in the absence of an agreement, by the arbitrators; or
• the circumstances cast legitimate doubt regarding the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality.

A party may challenge an arbitrator who it has appointed only after the appointment. Otherwise (for example, if the arbitration agreement provides for institutional arbitration), the rules of the arbitral institution will govern the whole procedure and – in the majority of cases – will cover any issues related to the challenge and replacement of arbitrators.

The CICA Rules provide specific grounds for challenge in cases of incompatibility, namely where the arbitrator finds himself or herself in one of the following situations of incompatibility provided for judges in the Code of Civil Procedure: (i) the arbitrator previously expressed his or her opinion regarding the solution in the dispute he or she was appointed to settle; (ii) there are circumstances that justify doubting that he or she, their spouse, ancestors or descendants does not have a benefit related to the dispute; or (iii) his or her spouse or previous spouse is a relative (maximum fourth-degree) of one of the parties, etc.

One the following reasons casting doubt on the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality can also be grounds for a challenge:

• the arbitrator does not meet the qualifications or other requirements regarding arbitrators provided in the arbitration agreement;
• the arbitrator is a partner of, has a co-operative relationship with or is a member of the management bodies of an entity without legal personality, or of a legal person that has an interest in the case, is controlled by one of the parties or is under joint control together with this party;
• the arbitrator has employment or work relations with one of the parties, or with a legal person controlled by one of the parties, or is under joint control together with this party; or
• the arbitrator provided advisory services to – or assisted or represented – one of the parties, or testified in the preliminary stages of the dispute.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the arbitrator is required to be independent and impartial, and to disclose any conflicts of interest. Most of the arbitration rules, including the CICA Rules, provide the same.

According to the Code of Civil Procedure, a person aware of a ground for challenging himself or herself is bound to inform the parties and the other arbitrators before accepting the office of arbitrator or – should such grounds occur after his or her acceptance of the office – as soon as he or she has knowledge of them. In this case, the arbitrator may not participate in the arbitral proceedings unless the parties, apprised thereof, notify the arbitral tribunal in writing that they do not intend to challenge the arbitrator. Even in this case, the arbitrator has the right to refrain from adjudicating the dispute.

In a similar manner, according to the CICA Rules, within five days from the date when the appointment proposal was communicated to him or her, the arbitrator shall fill in and sign the statement of acceptance, independence, impartiality and availability, where he or she shall indicate any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts with respect to his or her impartiality or independence. An arbitrator shall immediately inform the parties and the other arbitrators in writing if any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence arise during the course of the arbitration.

In common with other jurisdictions, Romanian law does not explicitly define these concepts but merely provides for the general principle, with the case law being left to consider these matters on a case-by-case basis.

The principle of competence-competence is fully recognised under Romanian arbitration law. Once a dispute has been referred to arbitration, the arbitral tribunal is competent to decide on its own jurisdiction, and will do so even if identical disputes are pending before the courts or other arbitral tribunals – except if the arbitral tribunal finds it appropriate to suspend the proceedings. Further, according to the default provisions, the arbitral tribunal’s ruling confirming jurisdiction may not be challenged before the courts during the arbitral proceedings, but only by means of an action to set aside the arbitral award. The arbitral tribunal’s negative ruling on jurisdiction is not subject to review by the courts. 

A state court vested with a dispute in respect of which an arbitration agreement has been concluded will check its own competence; if at least one of the parties invokes the existence of the arbitration agreement, it will decline jurisdiction.

The state courts will also adjudicate actions to set aside an arbitral award brought on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

According to the default provisions, the arbitral tribunal’s ruling that it has jurisdiction may not be challenged before the courts during the arbitral proceedings. Such decision may be subject to judicial review by state courts only by means of an action to set aside the arbitral award. Therefore, arbitration law provides no procedural grounds allowing a party to ask the local courts, during the arbitral proceedings, to determine whether an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction. However, there is case law from courts reviewing partial awards on jurisdiction issued under institutional rules that allows arbitral tribunals to dispose of jurisdictional objections in partial awards.

Romanian law does not define the standard of judicial review for jurisdiction/admissibility. It also does not provide for the concepts of deferential or de novo as standards of review. In matters of jurisdiction, courts most often will proceed to a de novo review.

A state court vested with a dispute in respect of which an arbitration agreement has been concluded will check its own competence and declare that it lacks competence if at least one of the parties invokes the existence of the arbitration clause. In the case of a domestic arbitration, the court will defer its jurisdiction to the arbitral institution mentioned in the arbitration agreement or will reject the claim as not being under the Romanian courts’ competence in the case of ad hoc arbitration. With regard to an international arbitration, the court will admit the lack of competence plea and reject the claim as not being under the Romanian courts’ competence.

The court will retain its jurisdiction in settling the dispute only in three exceptional situations, namely:

• if the respondent has submitted its defence without invoking the existence of the arbitration agreement;
• if the arbitration clause is null or inoperable; or
• if the arbitral tribunal cannot be constituted from causes clearly attributable to the defendant in the arbitration.

If none of the three exceptions are applicable, the court will admit the lack of competence plea.

As a rule, Romanian law does not allow an arbitral tribunal to assume jurisdiction over individuals or entities that are not part of an arbitration agreement.

However, since the entering into force of the Code of Civil Procedure in 2013, a provision was introduced stating that third parties may take part in arbitral proceedings following the general civil procedure rules on this aspect, but only if such third party and all the parties agree. Only an accessory joinder claim – meaning that a third party bearing an interest voluntarily joins an ongoing procedure to support one of the parties’ positions – is admissible, even in the absence of the consent of all the other parties. However, depending on the applicable arbitration rules, this possibility may be limited. For example, according to the new CICA Rules, even the accessory joinder claim is admissible only if all the parties agree.

Matters such as the extension of the arbitration clause to non-signatories – following direct involvement in the negotiation and/or performance and/or termination of a contract containing an arbitration clause, the “group of companies” doctrine or other issues of debate in international arbitration regarding the ambit of the arbitration agreement – are subject to debate according to case law but are not addressed in any way by Romanian law.

The arbitration law does not distinguish between foreign and domestic third parties. Thus, the provisions are applicable to both of them.

During the arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may grant, at the parties’ request, protective (conservatory) measures and interim relief, as well as acknowledge matters of fact, unless the contrary is stipulated in the arbitration agreement. This provision is similar both in the Code of Civil Procedure and in the rules of the main Romanian arbitral institution (CICA) – however, neither defines, except for protective measures, what types of relief can be awarded on a provisional basis. Despite this, and taking into account the general civil procedure rules as an interim remedy, the interested party may apply for freezing measures on goods, provisional measures or conservatory measures regarding evidence (ie, acknowledgement of matters of fact).

The CICA Rules provide for the possibility of the arbitral tribunal bifurcating the proceedings and rendering partial awards as case management techniques aimed at increasing the efficiency of the proceedings, by reducing the duration and costs of the arbitration.

The protective measures and interim reliefs are merely recommended for the parties, as the decision issued by the arbitral tribunal is not directly enforceable under Romanian law. However, according to Article 1117 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the arbitral tribunal can request the intervention of the national courts.

If the parties do not comply voluntarily with the interim relief rendered by the arbitral tribunal, the latter may request the involvement of the state courts.

The local tribunal whose jurisdiction covers the seat of arbitration may grant protective measures and interim relief, at the parties’ request, before or during the arbitral proceedings. Since a similar order for protective measures or interim relief issued by the arbitral tribunal is not enforceable under Romanian law, the courts play a significant role in obtaining such measures and are preferred by the parties for the reason that the courts issue enforceable decisions.

Interim Relief in Aid of Foreign-Seated Arbitrations

Under Romanian law, there are no express provisions regarding the possibility of the national courts granting interim relief in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations. The Code of Civil Procedure only regulates the possibility of granting such relief with respect to arbitration seated in Romania.

However, Book VII of the Code of Civil Procedure – International Civil Trial, Article 1075 – provides that national courts are competent to grant interim relief regarding individuals and goods located in Romania at the moment of the request, even if, according to national law, the Romanian courts are not competent to render an award with respect to the merits of the case. Although the legal provisions do not directly address international-seated arbitrations, they can be included in the notion of international civil trial.

Emergency Arbitrators

The Code of Civil Procedure contains no provisions with respect to emergency arbitrators. The availability of such proceedings would depend on the applicable arbitration rules, if any.

The CICA Rules enable the parties to resort to an emergency arbitrator when they are in need of interim relief before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. According to Article 4 of Annex 2 of the CICA Rules, upon receiving the request, the president of the court will appoint an emergency arbitrator within 48 hours, who will deliver a decision in a maximum of ten days.

Emergency arbitrators can allow the same types of interim relief granted by the constituted arbitral tribunal: freezing measures on goods, provisional measures or conservatory measures regarding evidence (ie, acknowledgement of matters of fact). Likewise, the protective measures and interim relief are not enforceable under Romanian law.

As noted, if the parties do not comply voluntarily with the interim relief rendered by the emergency arbitrator, the emergency arbitrator may request the involvement of the state courts.

The Code of Civil Procedure does not include the concept of security for costs.

Security for costs is an interim measure – although it has never been defined as such – that in practice has been granted only by arbitral tribunals. As far as is known, no Romanian court of law has ever been requested to render a decision on such a measure.

The arbitration procedure is governed by specific chapters of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, parties may establish the procedure of arbitration as such, or by reference to the set of rules applicable to a particular arbitral institution. The parties may also choose any procedural law to govern the procedure of arbitration. If the parties fail to establish such a procedure, the arbitral tribunal will do so.

Regardless of the chosen procedure of arbitration, the arbitral tribunal has to guarantee certain fundamental principles, such as parties’ equality and their right to be heard.

Romanian law does not provide for any specific procedural steps in respect to filing an arbitration claim.

To commence arbitration, a party must submit a written request for arbitration to the arbitral tribunal. If the parties have agreed on ad hoc arbitration, the first step is to establish the composition of the arbitral tribunal. If the composition is not stipulated in the arbitration agreement, the party requesting arbitration shall invite the other party in writing to proceed with the procedure to appoint the arbitrators. Where the arbitration is held under the purview of an arbitral institution, the parties shall follow the procedural rules of that institution.

In the majority of cases (including before CICA), the party that wishes to commence arbitration must first file a request for arbitration with the secretariat of the arbitral institution. A fixed filing fee is generally required.

Arbitrators enjoy the powers agreed by the parties (eg, the power to determine the procedural rules applicable in the proceedings), but these are subject to the limitations provided under the arbitration law, where applicable. Regarding the powers conferred by law, an arbitrator can:

• decide on his or her own jurisdiction;
• assess the case according to his or her “intimate belief”;
• determine the place of arbitration and the law applicable to the substance of the dispute, in the absence of the parties’ agreement; and
• determine the language of arbitration in certain circumstances, and in the absence of the parties’ agreement.

Similarly, the arbitrators’ obligations may be agreed in the arbitration agreement subject to the limitations imposed by law. Regarding statutory duties, an arbitral tribunal is obliged to determine a dispute within six months of its constitution (although this time limit may be re-adjusted). Further, the arbitrators have a duty to act impartially and independently and must disclose any circumstances that may prevent them from doing so.

There are no particular qualifications or requirements for legal representatives appearing in front of an arbitral tribunal. An authorised legal professional may duly represent a party in arbitration proceedings.

Each party has the burden of proof as to the facts based on which it makes a claim or raises a defence. According to the default rule, the parties submit the evidence on which they intend to rely on in limine litis (at the start of the procedure).

The most common means of evidence are documents, expert evidence and witness evidence. In arbitrations conducted under the CICA Rules, arbitral tribunals may also allow party interrogatories – ie, questions addressed to parties aiming at the admission of facts.

All pieces of evidence are of equal value and subject to the arbitral tribunal’s evaluation and conviction.

However, the rules on evidence are flexible in international arbitration, which makes it possible in procedures such as ad hoc arbitration. The procedure and timing regarding the taking of evidence depend on the applicable arbitration rules (if any) and may be agreed by the parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal after hearing the parties.

A particular rule is that witnesses are not heard under oath, as would happen before a local court. The arbitral tribunal can also order a party to produce certain evidence.

In arbitral proceedings seated in Romania, the applicable rules of evidence are those provided by Romanian law as lex loci, namely the Code of Civil Procedure.

As a matter of principle, the rules on evidence are flexible when it comes to international arbitration, and parties may thus derogate from them. Parties are allowed to choose means of administering the evidence that are different from the ones provided by national law (Code of Civil Procedure). As such, parties have the possibility of using any type of rules, such as the ICC Rules or the Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration adopted by the International Bar Association. The CICA Rules stipulate that the arbitral tribunal, following the parties’ agreement, may apply the Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration adopted by the International Bar Association.

The arbitral tribunal does not have any powers to compel witnesses or experts who refuse to appear before the arbitral tribunal, or to apply any sanctions. For any such measures, the parties must file an application to this effect before the local court whose jurisdiction covers the seat of arbitration.

The arbitral tribunal can also order a party to produce certain evidence. The arbitral tribunal cannot order the production of documents from non-parties. For example, the arbitral tribunal might request written information from a public authority regarding its documents and actions, but if the public authority refuses to comply with such a request and submit the information, the parties or the arbitrators have recourse to local courts to request the enforceable court’s order for the production of documents.

The local courts might also play a role in acknowledging certain matters of fact prior to or during the arbitration proceedings, such as the state of certain assets or the statement of a certain witness where there is urgency due to the risk the evidence might get lost.

The procedural rules established by the Code of Civil Procedure leave the matter of confidentiality to the parties’ agreement or choice of institution.

The CICA Rules name “confidentiality” as one of the core principles of the arbitration procedure (Article 3 (3)). Unless the parties agree otherwise (in writing), the confidentiality of the arbitral proceedings is protected by the court, its president, management board and secretariat; the arbitral tribunal and arbitral assistants; and all those directly involved in organising the proceedings (Article 4 (1)).

The CICA Rules provide that the award may, for scientific or academic purposes, be published in part without revealing the name of the parties or prejudicial data. Also, the case file may be studied for academic purposes, after the award is communicated to the parties, in compliance with the confidentiality obligation.

Under the ICC Rules, confidentiality is not implied, although arbitral tribunals may, upon the request of a party, make orders concerning the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings.

Article 567 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that, unless the parties provided otherwise, the arbitration tribunal must render an award within six months of the constitution of the tribunal for local arbitration and, according to Article 1115, within a year with respect to international arbitration.

According to the Code of Civil Procedure, the arbitral award shall be written, reasoned and dated, and it shall bear the signatures of all members of the arbitral tribunal. The provisions of Articles 602 and 605 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulate that the delivery of the award can be delayed for a period of 21 days and require the decision to be communicated to the parties within a month of its delivery.

There is no specific provision in the arbitration law as to the types of remedies available to the parties. Therefore, there is no limitation on the types of remedies that an arbitral tribunal may grant, other than the limitation imposed by the parties’ claims in the sense that the arbitral tribunal can only grant what was requested, regardless of the nature of the claim.

However, to a large extent the admissibility of the remedies depends on the substantive and procedural law applicable to the dispute. For example, if the arbitral tribunal applies Romanian procedural law, it may consider a request for a declaratory judgment (such as acknowledgement of a debt) to be inadmissible to the extent that the claimant has the option to bring a claim to enforce its rights (such as obliging the defendant to pay the debt).

The parties are entitled to recover interest on the principal claim upon such request.

The default rule provided in the Code of Civil Procedure is that the legal costs of the arbitral proceedings are incumbent on the parties, according to their agreement. In the absence of any such agreement, the legal costs are incumbent on the party that lost the case in proportion to the admission/rejection of the claim/defence.

With respect to the arbitrators’ fees and expenses, according to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless the parties agreed otherwise, each shall bear the costs of its appointed arbitrator, whereas the costs incurred by a sole arbitrator or by the presiding arbitrator are to be equally shared by the parties.

The parties may appeal an arbitral award by means of a set-aside claim, on one of the following grounds:

• the dispute was non-arbitrable;
• the arbitration agreement did not exist or was invalid or ineffective;
• the constitution of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the arbitration agreement;
• the party requesting the setting aside of the award was not duly notified of the hearing when the main arguments were heard and was absent when the hearing took place;
• the arbitral award was rendered after expiry of the time limit, even though at least one party submitted its intention to object to the late issuance of the award and the parties opposed the continuation of the proceedings after expiry of the time limit;
• the award granted something that was not requested (ultra petita) or more than was requested (plus petita);
• the award failed to mention the tribunal’s decision on the relief sought and did not include the reasoning behind the decision, the date and place thereof or the signatures of the arbitrators;
• the award violated public policy, mandatory legal provisions or morality; or
• subsequent to issuance of the final award, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the legal provisions challenged by a party during the arbitral proceedings or other legal provisions included in the challenged piece of legislation that are closely related to, and inseparable from, those challenged.

The request to set aside the arbitral award may be filed within one month of service of the award to the parties, unless the request is grounded on the subsequent issuance of the Constitutional Court, in which case the time limit is three months after publication of that court’s decision. Certain reasons for setting aside an arbitral award may be deemed waived if they are not raised before the arbitral tribunal at the start of the process (particularly those relating to the jurisdiction and constitution of the arbitral tribunal). A request to set aside is subject to a fixed court fee under the law.

The jurisdiction to settle the set-aside claim belongs to the Court of Appeal of the county where the arbitration took place. The ruling issued by the Court of Appeal is subject to a higher appeal.

The parties cannot waive the right of appeal or challenge to an award by agreement before the dispute arises. The Code of Civil Procedure provides that any agreement to the contrary is null and void. The parties may waive the right to appeal only after the award is rendered.

The parties cannot expand the scope of appeal.

Romanian law does not provide for the concepts of deferential or de novo as standards of review.

The merits of the case may be reviewed by the Court of Appeal subsequent to the admission of a set-aside action in the following cases:

• the dispute was non-arbitrable;
• the arbitration agreement did not exist or was invalid or ineffective; and
• the arbitral award was rendered after expiry of the time limit, even though at least one party submitted its intention to object to the late issuance of the award and the parties opposed the continuation of the proceedings after expiry of the time limit.

In all other cases of set-aside, the Court of Appeal will refer the litigation to the arbitral tribunal for a new judgment to take place, if at least one of the parties requests it. If not, the court will make a decision on the merits of the case.

Romania ratified the New York Convention in 1961 by means of Decree No 186/1961, which came into force on 24 July 1961.

Romania reserved the right to apply the Convention only to:

• the recognition and enforcement of awards made in the territory of another contracting state;
• awards made in non-contracting states subject only to reciprocity (to the extent to which those states grant reciprocal treatment); and
• disputes arising from legal relationships – whether contractual or not – that are considered commercial under national law.

Furthermore, Romania has signed multiple bilateral conventions with countries including Albania, Algeria, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, North Korea, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Syria and Tunisia.

Domestic arbitral awards are treated and enforced in the same way as court decisions, whereas foreign arbitral awards are subject to recognition and enforcement proceedings before the Romanian courts. As a matter of principle, any foreign arbitral award is recognised and may be enforced in Romania as long as the dispute is arbitrable according to Romanian law, and the award does not contain measures contrary to the public order of Romanian private international law.

For recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, the parties must comply with certain formal requirements – they must file a request to this effect before a competent court and attach legalised or apostille-certified copies of the translated award and arbitration agreement. The court vested with hearing a request for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is prohibited from reviewing the merits of the dispute, with its examination being limited to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement set out in the Code of Civil Procedure.

The grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of the foreign award provided in the Code follow those established in the New York Convention, such as the parties did not have the capacity to conclude the arbitration agreement, the arbitration agreement was not valid or the award is in regard to a dispute that was not included in the arbitration agreement or exceeds the limits set by the arbitration agreement.

As a matter of principle, filing a set-aside claim does not influence the enforcement procedure in any way. In other words, the enforcement procedure may commence and be continued even if a request to set aside the award was filed. However, following a request thereto, the court may suspend the enforcement of the award challenged with a set-aside claim if the debtor is about to suffer imminent and irreparable damage arising from the enforcement (eg, the debtor carries out a public interest activity that would be affected if the enforcement continued). The enforcement is withheld only until the ruling of the first court is issued.

The courts in Romania have a positive approach to the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards and rarely refuse recognition and enforcement requests – in these cases, refusal is generally caused by procedural non-compliance rather than substantial law infringement, such as public policy grounds.

The Code of Civil Procedure refers to public policy in Article 1124, which sets out the legal grounds for the public policy exception as follows. Romanian legislature explicitly adopted the concept of international public policy, which is addressed as the “public order of the Romanian private international law”. In regard to the notion of public order of private international law, the Romanian courts overtly approach it as part of the Romanian legal order.

No provision under Romanian arbitration law addresses class-action or group arbitration.

Counsel admitted to Romanian bars are subject to strict requirements under Romanian legislation and codes of conduct regarding lawyers’ practice. Regarding arbitrators, there is no specific body of law or rules regarding their ethical obligations.

Third-party funding is not expressly regulated under Romanian law. Therefore, in the absence of any provision to interdict such procedure, third-party funding of the proceedings is permitted.

Although the arbitration law does not exclude the consolidation of arbitral proceedings, it makes no specific provision for it. The traditional view is that the parties’ consent is required for the consolidation of separate arbitral proceedings where the arbitral tribunals are constituted of different arbitration panels. Otherwise, constitution of the arbitral tribunal may be considered to breach the arbitration agreement.

However, the approach to consolidation may vary depending on the applicable arbitration rules (if any).

For example, the CICA Rules provide that any party may request the consolidation of the new proceeding with another existent matter during the request for arbitration or the answer to the statement of defence. The arbitral tribunal might admit the consolidation if:

• all the parties agree with the consolidation;
• all the claims are submitted based on the same arbitration agreement; or
• the claims are made under more than one arbitration agreement, the relief sought arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions, and the arbitral tribunal considers the arbitration agreements to be compatible.

In deciding whether to consolidate, the arbitral tribunal shall consult with the parties and may have regard to, inter alia, the stage of the pending arbitration, whether the arbitrations raise common legal or factual issues, and the efficiency and expeditiousness of the proceedings.

Under Romanian law, the arbitration agreement and the award may not impose obligations on third parties. Debate is ongoing over the extension of the arbitration agreement to non-signatories – eg, following their direct involvement in the negotiation, performance or termination of a contract containing an arbitration clause – but existing law provides no such remedy. Conventional or legal successors of the signatory are generally bound by the arbitration agreement.