A European technology company had obtained an arbitral award against a Romanian counterparty through proceedings conducted under ICC Rules (the procedural rules of the International Chamber of Commerce). The award was final and binding. Yet enforcing it in Romania proved far more demanding than the client anticipated. Romanian civil procedure rules, the applicable international treaty regime, and local court practice each imposed distinct requirements. Together, they created a layered recognition process that had to be addressed methodically.
Award enforcement in Romania requires a formal recognition procedure before Romanian courts, regardless of whether the underlying decision originates from an arbitral tribunal or a foreign state court. The process is governed by Romania's civil procedure legislation and, for arbitral awards, by Romania's obligations under the New York Convention (the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards). Recognition proceedings typically take several months, and success depends on satisfying specific procedural and documentary conditions from the outset.
This case study traces the strategy, key milestones, and complications encountered in one such matter. Three transferable lessons for parties facing comparable cross-border enforcement challenges in Romania are drawn at the close.
Client profile and the challenge presented
The client was a mid-sized technology business incorporated in a Western European jurisdiction. It had entered a commercial services agreement with a Romanian entity. A dispute arose over non-payment of a substantial contract sum. The client pursued arbitration at a recognised international institution, with the seat of arbitration (the legal domicile of the proceedings) located outside Romania.
The UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model Law principles underpinned the procedural conduct of the arbitration, supplemented by the institutional rules chosen by the parties. The arbitral tribunal issued an award in the client's favour. The Romanian counterparty did not voluntarily comply. The client then needed to enforce the award against the counterparty's assets held in Romania.
The core challenge had three dimensions. First, the Romanian courts had to formally recognise the award before any enforcement steps could proceed. Second, the counterparty indicated it would resist recognition by raising grounds of opposition under Romanian civil procedure rules. Third, the client needed to move quickly. There was credible intelligence that the counterparty was restructuring its asset position. Delay carried a direct financial risk.
For clients facing related disputes, our team's approach to litigation and arbitration in Romania covers both recognition proceedings and parallel asset-preservation measures.
Legal strategy: sequencing and rationale
The strategy rested on two parallel tracks. The first track was the formal recognition application under Romanian civil procedure legislation. The second was a precautionary asset-preservation measure, filed simultaneously to prevent dissipation before the recognition ruling was obtained.
Under Romania's civil procedure rules, recognition of a foreign arbitral award proceeds through an application to the competent Romanian court. The court examines whether the award satisfies the conditions set out under the New York Convention, which Romania has ratified. The examination is not a re-hearing of the merits. It focuses on procedural regularity, proper notice, public policy compatibility, and the validity of the arbitration agreement.
The team prepared a comprehensive recognition dossier from the outset. This included the original award, certified translations into Romanian, the arbitration agreement, proof of proper service on the counterparty during the arbitral proceedings, and a legal memorandum addressing each potential ground of opposition in advance. Anticipating and neutralising objections before they are formally raised is a critical discipline in Romanian recognition proceedings. Courts appreciate a well-organised application and are more likely to proceed efficiently when the record is complete.
The asset-preservation track targeted identified bank accounts and receivables. Under Romanian civil procedure legislation, a creditor may seek a precautionary measure before enforcement title is formally obtained, provided the claim is credible and urgency is demonstrated. The arbitral award itself served as strong prima facie evidence of the claim. The urgency argument drew on documented evidence of asset movements by the counterparty.
Where the underlying dispute also involved questions of shareholder conduct, our work on corporate disputes in Romania offers a complementary analysis of the tools available to creditors in those situations.
Key milestones and complications encountered
The recognition application was filed within two weeks of the client's instruction. The precautionary measure was filed on the same day. The court granted the asset-preservation order within a short period, citing the combination of a final arbitral award and documented urgency.
The recognition proceedings moved through several distinct phases. The counterparty filed a formal opposition, raising two grounds. It argued, first, that proper notice during the arbitration had not been established under Romanian procedural standards. Second, it contended that enforcing the award would be contrary to Romanian public policy.
The notice argument required the team to produce a detailed chronology of the notification steps taken during the arbitral proceedings. Romanian courts apply their own procedural standards when assessing notice, even where the arbitration was seated abroad and conducted under international rules. The record assembled during the ICC Rules proceedings was thorough, which allowed the team to reconstruct the notification chain precisely. The court ultimately rejected this ground.
The public policy argument was broader but less specific. Romanian courts apply the public policy exception narrowly, consistent with the prevailing interpretation under the New York Convention across signatory states. A well-prepared submission demonstrating that the award did not conflict with any fundamental principle of Romanian law was sufficient to address this objection. The court dismissed it.
One complication arose from a translation issue. A certified translation of one exhibit had been prepared using a translator not formally registered under Romanian requirements. The court raised this deficiency at an interim hearing. The team remedied the issue promptly by obtaining a compliant translation. However, this caused a delay of several weeks. It reinforced a point that practitioners working in Romania consistently note: translation and certification requirements are applied strictly, and non-compliance – even on peripheral documents – creates procedural friction.
The recognition order was ultimately obtained. Enforcement proceedings then commenced against the preserved assets. A comparative perspective on a parallel recognition matter in a neighbouring civil law jurisdiction is available in our case study on foreign judgment enforcement in Portugal.
Transferable lessons for cross-border enforcement in Romania
Three lessons from this matter apply broadly to parties considering award enforcement or foreign judgment recognition in Romania.
Lesson one: Build the recognition file before filing, not after objections arise. The most efficient recognition applications are those where every potential ground of opposition has been addressed in the initial submission. Romanian courts do not proactively assist applicants in remedying gaps. A counterparty that identifies a documentation weakness will exploit it. Practitioners engaged in the arbitral proceedings should document notification steps, procedural compliance, and the validity of the arbitration agreement with Romanian recognition requirements in mind. even if enforcement in Romania seems uncertain at the time.
Lesson two: Run asset preservation in parallel from day one. The gap between obtaining a recognition order and commencing enforcement is a window of risk. A debtor who anticipates enforcement proceedings has an incentive to restructure assets. Romanian civil procedure legislation permits precautionary measures on the basis of credible claims and demonstrated urgency. An arbitral award provides strong support for both conditions. Waiting until recognition is granted before seeking preservation measures is a common and costly error.
Lesson three: Translation compliance is a technical discipline, not an administrative formality. Romanian courts require translations prepared by translators meeting specific registration conditions. This requirement applies to the award itself, to supporting exhibits, and to procedural documents. A non-compliant translation will be challenged. Building translation compliance into the file-preparation timeline – rather than treating it as a last step – avoids the delays and procedural friction that a mid-proceedings deficiency creates.
To discuss how these principles apply to your enforcement situation in Romania, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
About Ferraz & Whitmore
Ferraz & Whitmore is an international law firm based in Lisbon, advising business clients across 46 jurisdictions. Our team combines Portuguese civil law expertise with English common law tradition to deliver cross-border legal solutions in foreign judgment and arbitral award enforcement. We assist international businesses, institutional investors, and in-house legal teams in managing recognition proceedings, asset preservation measures, and enforcement strategy across European civil law systems. Our litigation and arbitration practice covers proceedings before Romanian courts, international arbitral tribunals operating under ICC Rules and UNCITRAL procedures, and enforcement bodies across the EU. As a law firm with deep experience in Romania and across 15 practice areas, we bring the analytical rigour that cross-border enforcement demands. Engaging a lawyer in Romania with both international arbitration experience and local procedural knowledge is essential when a counterparty contests recognition. To explore how we can support your enforcement matter, contact us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.