Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in Romania (New York Convention and ICSID)

A foreign arbitral award is only as valuable as your ability to turn it into recovery. If the debtor has assets in Romania, the enforcement strategy should be built around three practical questions: which legal regime applies to the award, what Romanian court steps must be taken before execution can begin, and which refusal arguments the debtor is likely to raise. Romania is a contracting state to both the 1958 New York Convention and the 1965 ICSID Convention, but those instruments operate very differently at the enforcement stage (UNCITRAL NYC text; ICSID Convention PDF).

This guide is written from the creditor perspective. It explains the New York Convention pathway for most foreign commercial awards, including how it interacts with Romanian arbitration and civil procedure rules. It then covers the special regime for ICSID awards, where Article 54 requires enforcement of pecuniary obligations as if the award were a final judgment, while Article 55 preserves state immunity from execution (ICSID recognition and enforcement; ICSID Convention PDF). Finally, it maps the limited grounds to refuse enforcement and explains what practice materials say about how Romanian courts tend to approach them (NYC Article V guide; GAR Romania report).

How to classify your award before you do anything in Romania

Before drafting any Romanian application, classify the award in a way that a Romanian judge and an execution team can immediately use. The classification is not academic: it determines whether the Romanian court performs an Article V refusal analysis (New York Convention track) or whether the process is dominated by Article 54 of the ICSID Convention (ICSID track). Start with three facts: the arbitration framework (institutional or ad hoc), the seat of arbitration (relevant for set-aside and the status of the award), and whether the award was rendered under the ICSID Convention. Romania’s accession to the New York Convention is recorded in Decree No. 186/1961, including reservations, and the Convention text is also published on the official Romanian legislative portal (Decree 186/1961; Romanian NYC publication). Romania’s ratification of the ICSID Convention is recorded in Decree No. 62/1975 (Decree 62/1975).
A useful working decision tree looks like this. If the award is an ICSID Convention award, you prepare an Article 54(2) recognition package based on the Secretary-General certified copy and focus on execution planning, including immunity analysis for state debtors. If it is not an ICSID award, you enforce under the New York Convention, which means your Romanian court phase is built around the formal requirements of Article IV and the refusal grounds of Article V, implemented through Romanian procedural law. If you misclassify and file the wrong type of request, you can lose months, because you may need to refile with a different legal basis and a different document set.

New York Convention and Romanian Arbitration Law

The New York Convention is the global baseline for enforcing foreign commercial arbitral awards. It obliges contracting states to recognise and enforce awards, subject only to a closed list of refusal grounds in Article V (UNCITRAL NYC text; NYC Article V guide). Romania acceded to the Convention by Decree No. 186/1961, and the decree records Romania’s reservations, including a commercial reservation and a reciprocity reservation (Decree 186/1961). For a creditor, the practical message is that Romanian courts are expected to treat enforcement as the norm and refusal as an exception, but only if the file satisfies the documentary and procedural expectations of the Romanian system.
Romanian arbitration law and the mechanics of recognition and enforcement are embedded in the Code of Civil Procedure. The Code contains domestic arbitration rules as well as the procedural framework used by Romanian courts when giving effect to foreign awards (Romanian Code of Civil Procedure). Even though the Convention is a treaty instrument, the Romanian application you file will still follow domestic litigation mechanics: Romanian-language pleadings, evidence rules, certified translations, service on the debtor, and a court decision that enables you to move into Romanian execution. Practice guides that focus on Romania consistently describe this enforcement phase as an exequatur-type process, even when simplified by treaty obligations (ICLG briefing; Legal 500 overview).
From a strategy standpoint, treat the Romanian phase as a document-driven gateway. Romanian judges do not re-try the arbitration. Instead, they verify that the award is eligible for recognition and enforcement and that no refusal ground is triggered. Your objective is to provide a coherent, easy-to-audit record that lets the court reach that conclusion quickly. The debtor’s objective is usually to slow you down by turning the gateway into a mini-trial about notice, mandate, and public policy. That is why your initial filing needs to anticipate the likely refusal story and neutralise it with primary documents from the arbitration record.

What you must file and what you should file

The Convention itself sets out a minimum document package in Article IV: the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy, and the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy (UNCITRAL NYC text). Romanian procedure then adds practical requirements that are not controversial but can cause delay when overlooked: Romanian certified translations, and a filing that clearly identifies the debtor and the requested relief. Romanian practice materials also emphasise that Romanian courts are strict about formal completeness, even while being generally enforcement-oriented (GAR Romania report).
In addition to the minimum, creditors usually benefit from filing targeted supporting documents that address the predictable Article V points. This does not mean dumping the entire arbitration file. It means attaching the few documents that conclusively show: the respondent received notice of the proceedings and had an opportunity to present its case, the tribunal was constituted according to the parties’ agreement or applicable rules, and the dispositive part of the award stayed within the scope of the arbitration agreement. If there are ongoing set-aside proceedings at the seat, attach evidence of their status and explain why enforcement should proceed or why an adjournment should not be granted.

Timing: how to align Romanian court steps with asset recovery

Romanian enforcement is often won or lost on timing, not on doctrine. If the debtor has liquid assets (bank accounts or receivables), speed matters because funds can move quickly. If the debtor’s assets are mainly real estate or heavy equipment, the timing pressure is different, but you still need to anticipate defensive manoeuvres. Treat the Romanian court step and the execution planning step as parallel tracks: while the court file is prepared, you should be mapping likely execution routes so that once the enforcement gateway is obtained you can move without losing momentum.
Practice materials on Romania describe enforcement as relatively efficient when the file is clean and refusal grounds are weak, but the same materials warn that translation issues and procedural objections can extend timelines. The overall theme is consistent: a well-prepared documentary record is the fastest strategy (
Practice materials on Romania describe enforcement as relatively efficient when the file is clean and refusal grounds are weak, but they also note that translation issues and procedural objections can extend timelines. The overall theme is consistent: a well-prepared documentary record is the fastest strategy (Legal 500 overview; ICLG briefing).

Practical pre-filing checklist

Confirm the enforcement track: New York Convention or ICSID (NYC text; ICSID recognition and enforcement).
Confirm award status: final and binding, and whether any set-aside or suspension is pending.
Prepare the Article IV pack: certified award and certified arbitration agreement (NYC text).
Prepare Romanian certified translations: plan time and cost for translations of the core documents and any key procedural orders.
Build an Article V defence pack: notice evidence, tribunal constitution evidence, and a short scope map (claims versus dispositive part).
Map assets in Romania: pick the initial execution targets and sequence them.

ICSID Awards and Their Specific Regime

ICSID awards sit on a different legal foundation. Romania ratified the ICSID Convention by Decree No. 62/1975 (Decree 62/1975). Under Article 54(1), each contracting state must recognise an award rendered under the Convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations as if it were a final judgment of its own courts. ICSID summarises this mechanism on its recognition and enforcement page and the Convention text is available in the official PDF (ICSID recognition and enforcement; ICSID Convention PDF). Article 54(2) focuses the applicant’s task on furnishing a copy of the award certified by the ICSID Secretary-General to the competent court or authority designated by the state (ICSID recognition and enforcement; Norton Rose Fulbright).
For a creditor, the most important conceptual shift is this: the national court is not invited to run a New York Convention-style refusal analysis. The ICSID Convention creates a self-contained post-award review system (for example annulment), and the enforcement duty in Article 54 is designed to prevent re-litigation in domestic courts. That is why ICSID guidance emphasises recognition and enforcement of pecuniary obligations as if they were final domestic judgments, based on the certified copy requirement.
This does not mean that enforcement is frictionless. It means the friction moves. In practice, the Romanian phase becomes less about debating Article V-style refusal grounds and more about: (1) authenticity and certification, (2) identifying the correct competent authority in Romania, (3) ensuring the award is presented in a form usable for execution steps, and (4) dealing with execution barriers, especially where the debtor is a state or state-controlled entity. The ICSID recognition and enforcement materials also note that member states designate a competent court or other authority for Article 54(2) purposes, which can matter in routing the application ({a(“ICSID recognition and enforcement”, sources[6][1])}).
Article 55 is the second critical provision for creditor strategy. It clarifies that nothing in Article 54 shall be construed as derogating from the law in force in the enforcing state relating to immunity from execution. In plain terms: recognition and enforcement of the pecuniary obligation is required, but execution measures against state assets remain governed by the forum’s rules and applicable immunity principles (ICSID Convention PDF). This is why many ICSID enforcement campaigns are multi-jurisdictional and focus heavily on identifying non-immune commercial assets.
Romania is also a useful example of how investment arbitration enforcement can intersect with EU law debates. The Micula line of litigation is often cited in the broader European conversation about investment awards and EU state aid, but those issues are fact-specific and jurisdiction-specific. For this guide, the practical takeaway is narrower: in any investment award context, you should consider whether parallel proceedings, stays, or public law constraints could affect timing in the jurisdictions where you pursue execution, and build a sequencing plan that reduces the risk of a global stop (Norton Rose Fulbright).

Grounds to Refuse Enforcement and Court Practice

For New York Convention awards, Article V is the centre of gravity. It sets out refusal grounds that the debtor must prove (Article V(1)) and grounds the court may raise on its own motion (Article V(2)). The Convention treats these grounds as limited and exhaustive, which is why enforcement analysis is structured and does not become a merits appeal (UNCITRAL NYC text; NYC Article V guide). Your Romanian strategy should therefore be built around identifying which Article V arguments the debtor is most likely to raise and ensuring the record defeats them efficiently.
Because Romanian decisions on exequatur are not always easy to access in a single consolidated database, creditors often rely on published reference and practitioner materials to understand how Romanian courts tend to handle common arguments. Across Romania-focused reports, the recurring message is that Romanian courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement approach and apply refusal grounds narrowly, but they are attentive to procedural regularity and translations (Legal 500 overview; ICLG briefing; GAR Romania report). Use that as a planning assumption, not as a guarantee.

Article V(1)(a): Invalid arbitration agreement or incapacity

Debtors may argue that the arbitration agreement was invalid under the applicable law or that a party lacked capacity. These arguments often appear where the clause was incorporated by reference, where a group-of-companies theory was used, or where authority to sign is disputed. The creditor response should be documentary: show signature authority, corporate approvals if relevant, and the legal basis for binding the parties. If the tribunal addressed jurisdiction, attach the jurisdiction decision or the relevant reasoning excerpt and show how it aligns with the arbitration agreement.

Article V(1)(b): Notice and the right to be heard

Due process objections are common because they are easy to plead and can create fact-heavy hearings. Article V(1)(b) is concerned with whether the party against whom the award is invoked was given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator and of the arbitration proceedings, and whether the party was able to present its case (UNCITRAL NYC text). Your best defence is a short bundle of primary documents: notices of arbitration, courier or email confirmations, procedural timetables, and records showing opportunities to submit pleadings and evidence. If the respondent defaulted strategically, document that the tribunal offered participation opportunities and proceeded under the applicable rules.
Romanian practice materials stress that Romanian courts will expect Romanian certified translations for key documents and will focus on service and procedural regularity. In other words, even when the merits are not revisited, the procedural fairness record matters (GAR Romania report).

Article V(1)(c): Award beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration

Scope objections are often framed as ultra petita or as a mandate overreach. The creditor should create a simple mapping: claims submitted, issues framed in the terms of reference (if any), and the dispositive relief. If the award contains severable parts, remember that the New York Convention contemplates partial enforcement where separation is possible. Practically, a clean scope map helps the court see that the tribunal did not decide issues outside the arbitration agreement.

Article V(1)(d): Tribunal composition and procedural irregularities

Debtors may argue that the tribunal was not constituted as agreed or that the procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, with the law of the seat. These challenges can be neutralised by attaching the appointment correspondence and institutional confirmations and by showing that any procedural deviations were waived or cured during the arbitration. If the debtor raised procedural objections during the arbitration, anticipate that they will be recycled in the Romanian enforcement stage. Your filing should therefore include the procedural order or decision that disposed of those objections.

Article V(1)(e): Award set aside or suspended at the seat

If the award was set aside at the seat, Article V(1)(e) is the debtor’s strongest point. If set-aside proceedings are pending, courts may consider adjournment. This is where creditor strategy should be explicitly tactical: if Romanian assets are at risk of dissipation, you may prefer to push forward and resist delay, while also defending the award at the seat. If the set-aside case is strong and likely to succeed, you may want to avoid incurring Romanian costs before the award’s status is clarified. The New York Convention Guide provides background on how Article V operates in practice (NYC Article V guide).

Article V(2): Arbitrability and public policy

Article V(2) allows refusal if the subject matter is not arbitrable under the law of the enforcing state or if enforcement would be contrary to public policy. Public policy is frequently pleaded, but practice commentary generally describes it as a narrow safety valve reserved for serious conflicts with fundamental legal principles. Romania-focused practitioner overviews similarly describe Romanian courts as generally reluctant to refuse enforcement on public policy grounds absent a clear and serious incompatibility (Legal 500 overview; ICLG briefing). The practical creditor move is to keep the Romanian judge in the New York Convention frame: public policy is not an invitation to reconsider the contract dispute; it is a guardrail for exceptional cases.

What published practice materials say about Romanian court approach

Publicly available reference materials on Romania tend to converge on three points. First, Romanian courts generally accept that the New York Convention sets a limited refusal framework and do not approach enforcement as a merits review (NYC Article V guide). Second, Romanian courts are sensitive to procedural fairness and service issues and will scrutinise whether the respondent had an opportunity to present its case (GAR Romania report). Third, the most common practical bottlenecks are formal: missing certified translations, incomplete authentication, and an unclear presentation of the arbitration agreement and award status (ICLG briefing).
Treat these as operational lessons. If you want speed, you should design the Romanian filing to minimise the judge’s need to infer facts. Use a short chronology, cite the Convention articles, attach the decisive documents, and explain the award’s status at the seat in one paragraph. You are not writing a merits brief; you are building a verification pack.

Execution after recognition: how to turn enforceability into recovery in Romania

Once the Romanian court gateway is cleared, recovery becomes an execution problem. Execution steps are governed by Romanian procedure and executed through the Romanian enforcement system, under the baseline rules in the Code of Civil Procedure (Romanian Code of Civil Procedure). The enforcement plan should be built around asset type. For bank accounts and receivables, the key is speed and sequence: identify targets, prepare the execution instructions, and avoid giving the debtor time to move funds. For real estate, the key is documentation and patience: the process is typically slower but can deliver higher recovery values. For movable assets, the key is locating the assets and coordinating seizure logistics.
In ICSID scenarios where the debtor is a state, execution adds an immunity layer. Article 55 preserves immunity from execution, so the Romanian enforcement phase may turn on whether targeted assets are protected by immunity principles. Even where recognition is straightforward under Article 54, execution against state assets may be limited depending on the nature of the asset and the applicable immunity rules (ICSID Convention PDF). This is why ICSID creditors often treat Romania as one piece of a broader asset-based strategy.

Creditor workflow: an end to end checklist

Classify the award and select the regime: New York Convention or ICSID. Confirm Romania’s ratification acts (Decree 186/1961; Decree 62/1975).
Build the core document pack: for NYC, award plus arbitration agreement (Article IV); for ICSID, the Secretary-General certified copy (Article 54(2)) (UNCITRAL NYC text; ICSID recognition and enforcement).
Translate and authenticate: prepare Romanian certified translations for the core documents and verify any authentication requirements early.
Pre-empt refusal arguments: bundle decisive documents addressing notice, scope, tribunal constitution, and award status at the seat (NYC Article V guide).
Use Romania practice pointers: expect the Romanian phase to be document-driven and sensitive to procedural regularity (GAR Romania report; ICLG briefing).
Move to execution quickly: once enforceable, implement the asset plan through Romanian execution mechanisms.
For ICSID state debtors, plan for immunity at execution: Article 55 preserves immunity from execution (ICSID Convention PDF).

FAQ

Do I enforce a foreign arbitral award in Romania under the New York Convention or under Romanian domestic law? Most foreign commercial awards are enforced in Romania under the 1958 New York Convention, implemented domestically through Romanian procedural rules. Romania acceded to the Convention by Decree No. 186/1961, which also reflects Romania’s reservations.

What is the key difference between enforcing a New York Convention award and an ICSID award in Romania? New York Convention enforcement can be refused only on the limited grounds in Article V, while ICSID awards have a specific enforcement regime under Articles 53 to 55 of the ICSID Convention. Article 54(1) requires contracting states to enforce the pecuniary obligations as if the award were a final judgment of their courts.

Which documents are typically required for enforcement in Romania? Under the New York Convention, applicants typically submit the authenticated original award or a certified copy, the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy, and Romanian translations where required. Under the ICSID Convention, Article 54(2) focuses on providing a copy of the award certified by the ICSID Secretary-General to the competent court or authority designated by the state.

Can a Romanian court review the merits of the dispute when enforcing a foreign arbitral award? No. Under the New York Convention, courts are limited to the refusal grounds in Article V. Under the ICSID Convention, post-award review is handled within the ICSID system (for example annulment), and national courts should not revisit the merits when recognising the award.

What refusal arguments are most commonly raised by debtors under the New York Convention? Debtors most often rely on due process, jurisdiction and scope objections, public policy, and arguments that the award was set aside or suspended at the seat. These correspond to Article V(1) and V(2) of the New York Convention.

Does an ICSID award automatically bypass sovereign immunity issues in Romania? No. Article 55 of the ICSID Convention preserves state immunity from execution under the law of the enforcing state. Article 54 requires recognition and enforcement of pecuniary obligations, but execution measures against state assets remain governed by Romanian execution rules and applicable immunity principles.