In this post I analyze the most recent decisions of the Bucharest Court of Appeal (between June 2024 and June 2025) in cases where the setting aside of arbitral awards issued under the rules of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Romanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“CICA-CCIR”) was requested.
This post highlights the arguments or claims that were raised by the parties to obtain the setting aside of arbitral awards, as well as the reasons based on which the Bucharest Court of Appeal considered them well-founded or rejected them. In only two cases in the analyzed period setting aside requests were allowed.
Preliminary aspects
Even though Romania has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, most of the grounds for setting aside of arbitral awards are similar to those in the Model Law.
The Romanian law provides few additional reasons for setting aside, such as (a) if the award was not reasoned, (b) if the award has been rendered after the time limit provided by the law, or (c) if the Constitutional Court declares as unconstitutional a legal provision relevant to the arbitration, in cases where the unconstitutional plea that was raised during the proceedings was allowed after the award was rendered.
According to the Romanian Civil Procedural Code (“CPC”), the grounds for setting aside of an arbitral award do not entitle the courts to investigate the way the merits of the case were resolved by arbitral tribunals.
Courts can only verify whether the legal conditions of arbitration were observed, respectively those regarding the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the possibility for the dispute to be solved through arbitration, the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, observance of due process, or compliance with the mandatory provisions of the law, public policy or morality principles.
Extra petita ground for setting aside
The extra petita ground for setting aside of arbitral awards is regulated by article 608 para (1) letter f) of the Romanian CPC.
The decisions of the Bucharest Court of Appeal in the period analyzed reflect what courts consider extra petita ground or not. As such, there is no extra petita:
- where the parties increased only the value of the claims. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 95 of 10 October 2024, case no. 5653/2/2022]
- where the arbitral tribunal ruled on some claims or defenses with an impact on the solution on the merits of the case, even if there was no distinct claim regarding the finding of the validity or invalidity of a document, but only arguments or defenses regarding the respective document. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 119 of 4 December 2024, case no. 6357/2/2024, Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 123 of 12 December 2024, case no. 4136/2/2024]
- the arbitral tribunal’s ruling based on a different legal provision, or on certain rules not invoked by one of the parties, was not considered a case of extra petita since the said grounds do not constitute, in themselves, a concrete claim, but only aspects set out in support of the claim. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 55F of 23 May 2025, case no. 195/2/2025, Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 58 of 2 June 2025, case no. 2593/2/2025]
Award not reasoned ground for setting aside
This ground for setting aside is regulated by article 608 para (1) letter g) of the Romanian CPC. It essentially requires that an arbitral award includes factual and legal reasons for the award.
This obligation to state reasons for the award is a component of the right to a fair trial established by Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). However, according to well-established practice of courts of law, a detailed response cannot be given to each argument, the reasoning of the decision being not a matter of volume, but of content.
Consequently, an arbitral award complies with the requirements concerning reasoning when it responds to the essential issues raised during the solving of the case. It is not necessary to include a response for each argument invoked by the parties.
The fact that certain arguments of the parties have not received a response from the arbitral tribunal, or that certain rulings of the tribunal have not been amply argued or are wrong do not trigger the incidence of article 608 (1) letter g) of the CPC, which sanctions the lack of reasoning, not the insufficient or erroneous reasoning of the arbitral award.
The decisions of the Bucharest Court of Appeal from the analyzed period are consistent with these principles and in majority of cases it was established that this ground for setting aside is not grounded.
The only exception was in a case where the Bucharest Court of Appeal found that an argument brought in defense by the respondent, and which should appear as essential, namely the incidence of an instruction in a construction contract, had not been dealt with at all by the arbitral tribunal. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 168 of 15 October 2024, case no. 2775/2/2024]
Breach of public policy or of imperative provisions of the law ground for setting aside
The ground most frequently invoked in practice for the setting aside of arbitral awards before the Bucharest Court of Appeal was in the analyzed period the ground concerning breach of public policy, good morals or imperative provisions of the law (art. 608 para. (1) letter h) of the Romanian CPC).
According to art. 541 of the CPC, arbitration is an alternative jurisdiction of a private nature. According to paragraph (2) of art. 541 of the CPC, the parties and the arbitral tribunal may establish procedural rules derogating from the law, provided that the said rules are not contrary to public policy and the imperative provisions of the law.
Imperative provisions that could trigger the setting-aside
The Bucharest Court of Appeal considered the following provisions to be imperative provisions whose breach could trigger the setting aside of arbitral awards:
- the provisions that prohibit parties from exceeding the initially agreed price in construction contracts with public entities, in the absence of an agreement by the contracting authority. The Court of Appeal considered that these provisions are imperative as their purpose is of public interest, namely the budgets destined for public interest projects must be respected. However, in the specific case where this ground was raised, the court found that the public institution gave its tacit approval for the additional works, so the imperative provisions were not breached. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 100 of 24 October 2024, case no. 3975/2/2022]
- the provisions regulating the procedure and deadline for modifying the initial claim, regulated by article 204 para. (2) item 2 of the CPC. In the specific case where this ground was raised, the court found that the increase only of the value of the claim after the finalizing of the first stage of the procedure after bifurcation did not breach such imperative provisions. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 95 of 10 October 2024, case no. 5653/2/2022]
- the provisions regulating the mandatory preliminary procedure to be carried out prior to filing a claim in certain cases concerning public procurement contracts (article 193 para. (1) of the CPC, article 235 para. (4) of Law no. 98/2016 as well as articles 1-2 of Government Decision no. 1/2018). However, in the case where this ground was raised, the Court of Appeal found that the way the arbitral tribunal established the facts and applied the contractual clauses pertain to the merits of the case and cannot be discussed in setting aside proceedings. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 41 of 30 April 2025, case no. 7966/2/2024]
- the provisions of the law that regulate the right of the court to reduce the lawyer fees to be covered by the losing party (article 452 para. (2) of the CPC) are imperative as the courts must apply them, the case law of the ECHR being directly applicable in the Romanian legal system and mandatory for courts of law. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 119 of 4 December 2024, case no. 6357/2/2024]
- the provisions of article 14 para. (5) of the CPC and article 6 of the ECHR, motivated by the alleged breach of the party’s right to present its views on certain documents submitted between hearings by the other party. However, in the case where this objection was raised, the Court of Appeal found that the party was awarded the possibility to present its case both in writing and orally after the submission of the respective documents. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 2 of 4 16 January 2025, case no. 7430/2/2024]
- the provisions of article 240 para. (1) letter b) of Law no. 99/2016 are imperative as they regulate the conditions for a sectorial contract to be amended without the possibility for derogation. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 41 of 30 April 2025, case no. 7966/2/2024]
- the provisions of articles 8 and 13 para. (1) of the CPC, articles 16 para. (1) and 124 para. (2) of the Constitution, article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 6 of the ECHR represent imperative norms as they regulate fundamental principles of the civil trial, such as the principle of equality, right of defense, and the right to a fair trial, without derogation being permitted. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 41 of 30 April 2025, case no. 7966/2/2024]
- Res judicata principle, regulated by the provisions of articles 430-431 of the CPC, regardless of whether it is the negative or positive effect thereof, are imperative provisions as well. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 65 of 12 June 2024, case no. 529/2/2024]
Imperative conditions that triggered the setting aside
It was the non-observance of res judicata trat triggered the setting aside of an award, namely for breach of res judicata in a second arbitral case where the findings of the first tribunal were disregarded on certain aspects.
In the first arbitral case the arbitral tribunal had rejected as ungrounded the claimant’s arguments concerning the existence of a contractual obligation, whereas in the second arbitral case the tribunal found that the respondent had an obligation to pay the respective amounts, contrary to what the first tribunal found.
The solution was maintained by the High Court of Cassation and Justice that rejected the second appeal [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 65 of 12 June 2024, case no. 529/2/2024, High Court of Cassation and Justice, decision no. 991 of 4 June 2025]
Provisions that are not imperative and cannot trigger the setting aside
On the other hand, the Bucharest Court of Appeal held that certain provisions are not imperative, therefore cannot trigger the setting aside of an arbitral award:
- the provisions of article 1270 of the Civil Code: even though this article regulates a principle concerning the mandatory force of contracts, it is not an imperative provision in the sense of article 608 para. (1) of the CPC, as the legal relationships between the parties are private, governed by the principles of freedom of the parties. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 2 of 16 January 2025, case no. 7430/2/2024]
- the fact that the tribunal did not raise ex officio aspects of public order. In the analyzed case, the claimant argued that the tribunal failed to invoke ex officio the absolute nullity of a contractual clause, but the Court of Appeal found that the arbitral tribunal is not obliged to invoke ex officio public order aspects that the parties themselves did not argue before it.
- closely related, the active role of the judge is not among the principles of the Rules of arbitration of CICA-CCIR, without this representing a breach of public order or imperative provisions of the law. In any event, the provisions of article 22 para. (2) of the CPC concerning the active role of the judge should not be construed in an absolute manner. [Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 2 of 16 January 2025, case no. 7430/2/2024], Bucharest Court of Appeal, decision no. 70 of 21 June 2024, case no. 528/2/2024]
Final remarks
The above grounds were the main ones invoked by parties in the analyzed period, and the limited number of situations where a setting aside claim was allowed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal confirms the quality of the arbitration conducted under the CICA-CCIR Rules, as well as the pro-arbitration stance of Romanian courts of law.
This blog post is based on the author’s article “Requests for Setting Aside Arbitral Awards: Overview of Recent Case Law of the Bucharest Court of Appeal” published in the Romanian Arbitration Journal no. 3/2025, pp. 139-158. Romanian Arbitration Journal is a Wolters Kluwer publication indexed in Kluwer Arbitration database.
