Revised Arbitration Rules of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania in effect from 1 January 2025



The Board of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania (“CCIR Court”) has recently adopted a revised set of arbitration rules in force as of 1 January 2025 (the “2025 CCIR Rules”)[1]. The 2025 CCIR Rules replace the previous version of the arbitration rules in force as of 1 January 2018 (the “2018 CCIR Rules”).
In presenting the key areas of change, the President of the CCIR Court noted that the revised rules are adapted to the needs and requirements of the business environment and in line with the new trends at international level[2]. The revision thus aimed to improve case management and widen the authority of presiding arbitrators, establish clear rules for multi-party arbitration, set clear boundaries between the written and oral phases of arbitration proceedings, encourage the use of the expedited procedure for small claims and when parties so agree, as well as strengthen the role of the emergency arbitrator[3].
The 2025 CCIR Rules are not completely new but a revision of their previous version. However, they contain significant changes that will impact the conduct of CCIR arbitrations. In our view, the most important changes are centred around a wider adoption of electronic and remote means in conducting arbitrations and a shift in the approach of the CCIR Court to expert evidence, with party-appointed experts becoming the primary source of expert evidence under the 2025 CCIR Rules.
The 2025 CCIR Rules apply to cases submitted to the CCIR Court from 1 January 2025 onwards, but the parties can agree to apply them in arbitrations commenced under the 2018 CCIR Rules as well.
In this article, we briefly discuss the key changes in the 2025 CCIR Rules, as we see and understand them from our perspective as arbitration lawyers.
Arbitrator appointments
The 2025 CCIR Rules contain some changes in the procedure for the appointment of arbitrators.
The slightly revised rule in Article 19 (2) now clarifies that, in the absence of an agreed procedure for the nomination of arbitrators or another deadline agreed by the parties or granted by the President of the CCIR Court, the parties are expected to submit any joint nomination of a candidate for the appointment as a sole arbitrator within 30 days from receipt of the claimant’s request for arbitration by the counterparty (or counterparties). The former Article 19 (2) provided that the CCIR Court would grant the parties 30 days to jointly nominate a sole arbitrator. However, in practice, this deadline was closely related to the 30-day deadline for the respondent’s answer to the request for arbitration, which included (and still includes under the 2025 CCIR Rules) the respondent’s answer to the claimant’s proposal regarding the number of arbitrators and the individual nominated by the claimant. Therefore, this change will not substantially alter the way sole arbitrators have been appointed under the former 2018 CCIR Rules.
In the absence of a joint nomination of a sole arbitrator by the parties, the nominating authority remains the President of the CCIR Court. However, it seems that the 5-day period provided in the previous version of the rules for such a default appointment by the President of the CCIR Court has not been maintained in the 2025 CCIR Rules. Notably, however, the 2025 CCIR Rules do maintain the 5-day period for default appointment by the President of the CCIR Court of a co-arbitrator (in the absence of nomination by a party) and of the presiding arbitrator (in the absence of a joint nomination by the co-arbitrators). Therefore, a similar timeframe will probably be observed in the procedure for appointing a sole arbitrator, even in the absence of express provision.
As regards the arbitrator appointment procedure, a notable amendment is the removal of the former Article 21 (4), which provided that the statements of acceptance, independence, impartiality and availability filled out by the arbitrators (including any disclosures with regard to circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts with respect to their impartiality or independence) were communicated to the parties and to the other arbitrators by the Secretariat of the CCIR Court, and that original copies of those statements were kept in the case file. Considering that Article 21 (1) which requires the arbitrators to fill out such statements remains unaltered in the 2025 CCIR Rules, it goes without saying that, at a minimum, those statements have to be part of the record in the case file kept by the CCIR Court and that the parties must have access to the disclosures and other information provided by the arbitrators in the said forms. As reflected in Article 21 (4) of the 2025 CCIR Rules, the arbitrators’ ongoing duty to disclose exists primarily towards the parties. Therefore, the parties will need to be informed of the content of any disclosures made by the arbitrators in their statements of acceptance, independence, impartiality and availability.
Disclosure of third-party funders
Article 21 (5) of the 2025 CCIR Rules contains a new provision which directs the parties to promptly disclose the existence and identity of any third-party funder, if a third-party funding agreement for financing the costs of the arbitration is entered. Such a disclosure is required for the purpose of allowing the arbitrators to comply with their duty of independence and impartiality. This new rule reflects the growing interest of arbitration users in various third-party funding arrangements and the increased vigilance of arbitral institutions towards disclosure of funding arrangements in light of concerns over conflicts of interests.
Challenge of arbitrators (and experts)
The new Article 23 (3) of the 2025 CCIR Rules refines the timeframe for submitting a challenge against an arbitrator. According to the new version of this provision, a challenge of an arbitrator must be submitted, under the pain of preclusion, within 10 days from the date when the party making the challenge becomes aware of the arbitrator’s appointment (as opposed to the date of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, under the previous version of Article 23). If the circumstances giving rise to the challenge occur or become known to the party later, the challenge must be submitted within 10 days from the date when the party making the challenge becomes aware of the circumstances on which the challenge is based.
The new Article 23 (9) of the 2025 CCIR Rules expressly clarifies that the provisions on the challenge of arbitrators apply with regard to experts and arbitral assistants accordingly, and that the arbitral tribunal will rule on their challenge. This welcome clarification codifies a practice previously adopted by arbitral tribunals and recognised by the CCIR Court under the former version of the rules. Notably, the new provision does not distinguish between party- and tribunal-appointed experts. It will be interesting to see whether and how Article 23 (9) of the 2025 CCIR will apply to party-appointed experts, especially in view of the newly reversed rule in favour of party-appointed experts. By comparison, the scope of similar provisions in other arbitration rules is limited to experts appointed by the arbitral tribunal[4] (as opposed to party-appointed experts).
Case management
The amended Article 26 of the 2025 CCIR Rules seems to reinforce boundaries between the written and oral phases of the proceedings compared to the previous version of the rules. While paragraph (4) is roughly a reproduction of the former Article 31 (4), the new paragraph (5) clarifies that the oral phase of the proceedings takes place during hearings.
The provisions regarding case management conferences have been slightly amended in Article 31 of the 2025 CCIR Rules. These provisions now require the parties to inform the arbitral tribunal at or before the case management conference not only whether they raise any objections or defences that render the review of the merits unnecessary, or make any request for joinder, but also whether they maintain any such objections, defences and requests previously raised or made (e.g. in the answer). In addition, the same provision now provides that the parties have a duty to inform the arbitral tribunal at or before the case management conference whether they consider that a bifurcation of the proceedings is useful. This latter requirement is not overly surprising, as under the 2018 CCIR Rules the parties likewise would have been expected to request any bifurcation at or before the case management conference, when the provisional procedural timetable was discussed and confirmed by the arbitral tribunal. Noteworthy, before or at the case management conference the parties are also under the duty to inform the arbitral tribunal if they wish hearing sessions to be organised in person and, if so, provide reasons that justify in-person sessions (Article 31 (4) e)). Overall, all these changes emphasise the importance of the first case management conference, when the procedural framework of the arbitration is discussed, and the structure of the proceedings is decided.
With the new approach to expert evidence (as will be discussed below), parties no longer have a duty to inform the arbitral tribunal whether they opt in favour of a tribunal-appointed expert or prefer to submit expert reports prepared by party-appointed experts, as was the case under the previous Article 31 (6) e) of the 2018 CCIR Rules.
Noteworthy, the 2025 CCIR Rules have added the term “consultation with the parties” to the list of definitions provided in Article 2. The term is defined as inviting the parties to provide their views on measures the tribunal is considering, by using any means of communication, in accordance with Article 5 (2) of the rules. As in the previous version of the rules, Article 5 (2) of the 2025 CCIR Rules allows communication with and between the parties by registered mail, courier, email, fax or any other means of communication providing proof of communication and of the content communicated, and it even recognises telephone communications recorded by arbitral assistants. The newly added definition of the “consultation with the parties” in Article 2 item 3 is a welcome reminder of the importance of using the allowed means of communication for such consultations in the interest of efficiency. Many arbitral tribunals already routinely use email communications to consult the parties on various procedural and organisational matters even in arbitrations conducted under the 2018 CCIR Rules.
Last but not least, it is worth noting that the 2025 CCIR Rules seem to increase the focus on the parties’ procedural discipline by widening the scope of preclusions in case of the parties’ failure to observe their procedural obligations. Thus, Article 38 of the 2025 CCIR Rules now explicitly provides that the parties’ failure to observe any provisions or requirements of the rules or any direction given by the arbitral tribunal may be sanctioned by preclusion of rights (Romanian: decădere), in addition to the previously allowed stay of the proceedings or other adequate measures. Practice will tell how often arbitral tribunals will apply such sanctions and if the users will welcome this restrictive approach for the sake of increasing the efficiency of arbitral proceedings.
As a particular case of preclusion, Article 39 (2) of the 2025 CCIR Rules now provides that any objections with regard to failure to comply with the directions of the arbitral tribunal will have to be raised within 10 days from the date when the interested party (raising the objection) becomes aware (of the relevant circumstances). In addition, Article 39 (1) of the 2025 CCIR Rules maintains the previously existing 10-day time limit for raising objections with regard to any failure to observe the arbitration rules or other applicable procedural rules, under the pain of preclusion.
Changes in the written phase of the arbitration
The written phase of the proceedings continues to consist, as a rule, of two main stages: (i) the filing of the request for arbitration and of the answer; and (ii) the subsequent filing of detailed memorials (Article 26 (4) of the 2025 CCIR Rules).
A new provision in Article 26 (6) of the 2025 CCIR Rules empowers the arbitral tribunal, after consulting the parties, to skip the procedural stage of the detailed memorials and, thus, reduce the written phase to the initial request for arbitration and answer. While this can be seen as a rather far-reaching authority of arbitral tribunals, surely arbitrators will take into account the circumstances of the case and the views of the parties when deciding to simplify the written phase in this manner. Most often, the parties expect to be granted an opportunity to present a fully detailed statement of their claim or defence subsequently to the filing the initial request for arbitration and answer.
Article 10 (1) h) of the 2025 CCIR Rules now clarifies that the request for arbitration may be signed electronically by using an extended (i.e. advanced) electronic signature. Although when it comes to the answer to the request for arbitration Article 14 g) does not specifically allow signing it electronically, it is expected that the provision of Article 10 (1) h) will apply by analogy. Articles 10 (2) and Articles 14 (2) maintain the requirement to submit the request for arbitration in both electronic form and hardcopies for each of the claimants and respondents respectively and one additional hardcopy for the case file kept by the CCIR Court. Embracing the trend of electronic filings, the amended Article 32 (4) now also provides that the arbitral tribunal may allow the submission of memorials in electronic format. This provision codifies a widely used practice under the previous version of the rules.
The 2025 CCIR Rules have also extended the time limit for filing the answer to counterclaim from 20 days to 30 days (Article 14 (6)). Thus, the time limit for the answer to counterclaim is now equal to the time limit for submitting the answer to the request for arbitration.
The amended Article 32 (3) provides that parties may submit, alongside the request for arbitration, the answer or their fully detailed memorials, any expert reports prepared by experts of their choice. As will be seen below, this provision complements the amended rules on expert evidence, which is primarily given by party-appointed experts under the 2025 CCIR Rules.
Amended provisions on taking of evidence
The amended wording in Article 35 of the 2025 CCIR Rules conveniently clarifies that witness statements “shall” be submitted in the form of notarized depositions, with a legalization of the signature of the witness, or with a certification of his/her identity by a lawyer. The word “may” in the previous version of the rules (formerly Article 36) left room for interpretation as to whether and, if so, which part of the provision was a requirement. As under the previous 2018 CCIR Rules, the witnesses will appear for examination at the hearing, unless the arbitral tribunal decides otherwise after consulting the parties (Article 35 (2)).
A new provision in Article 35 (4) of the 2025 CCIR Rules indicates the possibility to examine witnesses using means of remote communication.
Perhaps the most notable change in the 2025 CCIR Rules concerns the provisions dealing with expert evidence. According to Article 36 (1) of the 2025 CCIR Rules, the parties are directed to submit expert reports prepared by party-appointed experts alongside their requests for arbitration, answers, detailed memorials or in another manner authorised by the arbitral tribunal. Paragraph (2) further provides that the arbitral tribunal may, when it considers that the reports submitted by the parties are insufficient for establishing the relevant factual situation, appoint one or more independent experts after consulting the parties. Thus, under the new Article 36, expert evidence is primarily given by party-appointed experts and, only if the arbitral tribunal finds such evidence insufficient, it may appoint its own expert. This approach is widely used in international arbitration and places on the parties the responsibility to instruct experts of their choice and to introduce expert evidence into the proceedings. To recall, in proceedings organised under the 2018 CCIR Rules, expert evidence is given, as a rule, by experts appointed by the arbitral tribunal, unless the parties agree with expert evidence being given by party-appointed experts.
Remote hearings
The new Article 37 of the 2025 CCIR Rules confirms that arbitral tribunals may, after consulting the parties and taking into account the circumstances of the case, decide to hold any hearings by remote means of communication. Under the 2018 CCIR Rules, the possibility to conduct hearings remotely was expressly provided only in the case of procedural hearings and in the rules governing expedited proceedings. However, even under the 2018 CCIR Rules, arbitral tribunals held merits or evidentiary hearings remotely if the parties so agreed. In fact, the CCIR Court had also issued guidelines under the 2018 CCIR Rules for the conduct of arbitrations in virtual format which primarily dealt with remote and hybrid hearings.
The new Article 31 (4) e) of the 2025 CCIR Rules suggests that online hearing sessions will actually become the norm, considering that the parties now need to specifically inform the arbitral tribunal before or at the first case management conference if they wish to request the in-person organisation of hearing sessions, as well as to indicate the circumstances that justify such a request.
Emergency arbitrator
The rules on emergency arbitrator proceedings remain roughly unchanged in Annex II of the CCIR 2025 Rules, allowing any party to request the appointment of an emergency arbitrator who will decide on an application for provisional or conservatory measures prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings or prior to the transmission of the file to the arbitral tribunal. However, we note that there is a welcome clarification in Article 2 item 13 of the CCIR 2025 Rules, which specifically includes any applications for provisional and conservative measures in the definition of arbitration proceedings and, thus, leaves behind any controversy regarding the regime of the emergency arbitrator proceedings or the status of emergency arbitrators.
Schedule of arbitral fees and expenses
With the entry into force of the 2025 CCIR Rules, the CCIR Court has also revisited its arbitral cost scales and rules, which came into effect on 1 January 2025 as well.
The new cost scale continues to be based on the monetary value of the claims (i.e. ad valorem), however both, the administrative fee of the institution and the arbitrators’ fees have increased. For claims valued in EUR, the minimum arbitrator fee for an amount in dispute below EUR 20,000 is now EUR 500 (as opposed to EUR 400 in the previous fee scale) and the administrative fee of the institution is now EUR 1000 (as opposed to EUR 800 previously charged). At the opposite end of the scale, for claims exceeding EUR 2,000,000, fees per arbitrator will be in amount of EUR 29,800 plus 0.4% of what exceeds EUR 2,000,000 in the amount in dispute. The respective administrative fee charged by the institution will be EUR 30,300 plus 0.4% of what exceeds EUR 2,000,000 in the amount in dispute.
For challenges against arbitrators, experts or arbitral assistants, parties will pay a fee of RON 3,000 per challenge (double the fee provided in the former cost schedule). In addition, the CCIR Court has increased the arbitral fees payable by parties for applications for provisional, conservatory and declaratory measures from RON 1,500 to RON 15,000 in new cost schedule. The new cost schedule of the CCIR Court now also includes a provision that for any application not expressly addressed in the cost schedule, the parties will pay double the minimum arbitral fee provided in the schedule.
In a flexible approach towards arbitral fees, the CCIR Court has maintained the provision according to which the President of the CCIR Court may allow the arbitration to proceed upon request of a party based on compelling reasons, if at least ½ of the arbitral fee has been paid. In this case, the balance will be paid in accordance with the decision of the arbitral tribunal. In the former cost schedule, the arbitration could similarly proceed if at least 1/3 of the arbitral fee was paid upfront.
Conclusion
In our view, overall, the new 2025 CCIR Rules will be favourably received by the arbitration users and community, as they adopt solutions that better answer the expectations of the users with regard to the efficiency and flexibility of arbitral proceedings. Many of the revisions confirm the prevailing arbitration practice and therefore create a sense of predictability for international users in the way arbitration proceedings are conducted under the 2025 CCIR Rules.
[1] The Arbitration Rules of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania in force as of 1 January 2025 are available on the website of the CCIR Court (https://arbitration.ccir.ro/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Reguli-CICA-2025.docx.pdf ).
[2] Note of the President of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania dated January 2025 available on the website of the CCIR Court (Curtea de Arbitraj Comercial Internațional | Reguli de Arbitraj).
[3] Idem.
[4] See e.g. Article 29 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2021 and Article 23 of the VIAC Rules of Arbitration of 1 July 2021; see also Article 6.2 of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (2020).
Cosmin Vasile, Managing Partner Zamfirescu Racoți Vasile & Partners
Violeta Saranciuc, Partner Zamfirescu Racoți Vasile & Partners
Andreia Moraru, Senior Associate Zamfirescu Racoți Vasile & Partners