Arbitration in Moldova: existing procedures and transition to reform

Two existing regimes and a future reform

As at 28 October 2026, this guide distinguishes Law 23-XVI of 22 February 2008 on arbitration from Law 24-XVI on international commercial arbitration. Domestic and international regimes cannot be merged simply because both permit institutional and ad hoc proceedings. Article 1 of the international statute links applicability to the seat and defines internationality; specified provisions also apply where the seat is abroad.

Law 198 of 25 August 2026 has been published, but Article 49 of the complete unofficial copy sets commencement at 1 March 2027. Article 50 distinguishes the law governing existing proceedings and their challenge, subject to the permitted party agreement, from enforcement law tied to the award date. The official publication is Monitorul Oficial 466–469, entry 485 of 22 September 2026. Before commencement of the reform, procedural steps are assessed under the 2008 regimes.

The arbitration agreement

For domestic arbitration, Article 8 of Law 23/2008 requires a written agreement on pain of invalidity, either as a clause or a separate agreement. International Law Article 7 explains recording of content, electronic exchanges and other permitted forms in greater detail. Retain the contract, correspondence, signatory authority and applicable rules, rather than just the page naming the chosen institution.

Domestic Article 9 and international Article 8 govern timely invocation of the clause in state-court proceedings. The first substantive statement and objections to validity or operability matter. CSJ Plenum Resolution 2/2015 maps interaction with courts. A clause does not remove the need to check arbitrability, capacity and the scope of submission.

Models, appointments and challenges

Domestic Articles 12–14 distinguish the agreed procedure from fallback mechanisms. A specified appointment failure engages the state court in ad hoc arbitration and the institution’s president in institutional arbitration; Article 13(2) separately governs appointment of the third arbitrator. This is a specific model difference, not a promise that a court will resolve every organisational issue. Challenge grounds and procedure require a separate assessment.

In the international regime, Articles 6(1) and 11–14 of Law 24/2008 assign fallback functions to the head of the body, institution, union or association designated by the parties or rules. A state court cannot automatically replace that authority by analogy with domestic ad hoc arbitration. Article 6(2) assigns judicial functions to the court competent under the Code. Identify the appointing authority, tribunal size and replacement mechanism in the agreement.

Evidence: from tribunal approval to judicial assistance

For international arbitration seated in Moldova, Law 24/2008 Article 27 permits the tribunal, or a party with its approval, to request help obtaining evidence. It contains no Russian-style ad hoc exclusion. Article 1(1) extends Articles 8, 9, 38 and 39 to a foreign seat, but not Article 27: the presence of a document in Moldova does not itself open this mechanism to a foreign-seated tribunal. Under paragraphs 25–27 of CSJ Plenum Resolution 2/2015, the tribunal is advised to issue an order identifying the evidence, relevant facts, obstacles to obtaining it independently and its location. This converts a general request to “obtain documents” into an assessable procedural application.

The Plenum describes treatment under judicial-assistance rules, notifying participants and returning the resulting materials to the tribunal. Code Articles 119 and 125–126 govern requests for evidence and execution of judicial requests. Obtaining evidence, recording a fact and preserving a document serve different purposes. The domestic mechanisms and the limits of foreign-seat assistance are compared in the court-assistance guide.

Tribunal measures and court protection

For domestic arbitration, consult Articles 10 and 23 of Law 23/2008; for international arbitration, Articles 9 and 17 of Law 24/2008. Applying for court protection does not itself reject the arbitration agreement. Identify the property, amount and risk addressed, and distinguish granting relief from enforcing a tribunal-ordered measure.

In CSJ case 2r-449/23 of 31 January 2024, attachment of Komaksavia’s interest in Avia Invest was maintained up to EUR 216,678.75 plus expenses pending consideration of foreign-award recognition. This illustrates protection of prospective recovery, but is neither final recognition nor authority to seize any affiliate’s assets automatically.

Setting aside an award

Domestic Article 31 provides three months from the applicant’s receipt. International Article 37(3) likewise sets no more than three months but separately accounts for an Article 35 request for correction, interpretation or an additional award. Do not mechanically count from the date printed on the first page: establish receipt and any relevant application to the tribunal.

International Article 37(2) addresses the statutory protected-status defect or agreement defects, notice and the opportunity to present a case, excess of submission, constitution and procedure; the court separately examines non-arbitrability and public policy. This is specialised supervision, not an ordinary merits appeal. The domestic statute refers to the Code; check grounds and standing under the applicable version, not future Law 198/2026.

Enforcement and consumer protection

For domestic awards, Article 33 of Law 23/2008 provides voluntary performance and a court-issued enforcement instrument. For foreign awards, Article 38 of Law 24/2008 refers to the Code; Article 39 governs refusal, and paragraph 2 addresses possible adjournment and security while an award is challenged. Compare the award, agreement, authentication and required translation with New York Convention Article IV as well.

CSJ Opinion 106/2019 explains the court’s own review of unfair consumer terms under Code Article 485(2). Moldova Constitutional Court Decision 72/2024 addresses the burden of proving notice objections without deciding enforcement on its merits. In the applicable Code provisions, 6 August 2026 edition, Articles 482–486 govern the domestic enforcement instrument, while Articles 475–476, including Articles 475¹–475³, govern foreign-award recognition. The competent court level and required documents differ; the detailed routes appear below.

How refusal grounds operate in individual cases

In case 2r-570/23 of 23 July 2024, CSJ upheld recognition of a Russian ICAC award: it examined refusal grounds and documents while preserving the prohibition on re-deciding the contract dispute. Translation, certification, delivery and representation costs were assessed separately against supporting evidence. Successful enforcement required preparation for the state-court application as well as the award.

In case 2r-525/2020 of 21 October 2020, the objection concerned notice in a Belarusian arbitration. The court found compliance with service rules and did not treat unclaimed correspondence as evidence of a defect on those facts. Notice analysis therefore requires separate examination of the address, delivery method, document contents and opportunity to present a case.

Moldova: a domestic agreement requires fuller drafting

Under Law 23/2008, Article 8(2) requires written form on pain of invalidity. Article 8(3) separately requires the appointment method, provision for appointment by an authorised person, the place and acceptance of arbitration rules. For a submission of an existing dispute, Article 2 expressly connects validity with identification of the dispute’s subject matter and arbitral institution.

Address these matters expressly or make them ascertainable through the chosen rules. Articles 12 and 18 also provide supplementary appointment and place mechanisms. The practical response is to configure the clause fully; treating every omitted term as automatically incurable would go beyond the statute. Article 11(6) invalidates a term allowing one party to appoint for the other or to have more arbitrators.

Moldova: international agreements and default machinery

Determine the applicability of Law 24/2008 under Article 1 and written form under Article 7. Recorded content and electronic communications accessible for subsequent reference are expressly recognised. The entire domestic Article 8(3) list should not be transplanted as the universal minimum for an international clause.

Article 10 provides three arbitrators if no number is chosen; Articles 11 and 6(1) govern appointment. The tribunal may supply procedure, seat and language under Articles 19–20 and 22. An ad hoc agreement should identify the authority performing Article 6(1) functions: the international statute uses the parties’ chosen authority or institutional mechanism, which differs from domestic court assistance under Article 12(7).

The Moldovan Chamber model illustrates precise institutional designation and incorporation of rules; tribunal size, language, seat and law appear as additional provisions. The AIFC IAC model concerns a separate legal framework. Different institutions sharing the abbreviation IAC must not be treated as interchangeable.

Law 24/2008 Article 7(7) permits a form defect to be cured by a defence without timely objection. Judicial annulment cannot be waived in advance: Code Article 477(2) permits waiver after the award.

Transition to Law 198/2026

The two Law 23/2008 and Law 24/2008 frameworks must be distinguished from the future rules of Law 198/2026. The new Act commences on 1 March 2027; Articles 49–50 separately address repeal and transition. Agreements, proceedings and awards spanning different dates require a chronology of the applicable rules.

Three post-award applications: different courts and documents

An award made in Moldova is challenged before the court that would have jurisdiction over the civil dispute without the arbitration clause: Code Article 477(1). Article 482(1) uses the same connection for a domestic enforcement instrument. That does not merge annulment and enforcement: they have different applicants, requests and review grounds.

For a foreign award, Article 475¹(1) selects a different court: the court of appeal for the debtor’s domicile, residence or registered office, or, if that address is absent or unknown in Moldova, the location of assets. Article 475¹(6) provides three years from when the award became binding under the law of the country of arbitration; Article 116 governs restoration. This differs from Kazakhstan’s starting point at expiry of voluntary performance time.

For a domestic writ, Article 483(4) requires the award, agreement, evidence of the statutory payments, an application copy and signing authority. A permanent institution’s chair certifies its award copy; an ad hoc copy is notarised. The foreign procedure has its own Article 475¹(3)–(5) package: award, agreement, a statement of prior performance where needed, proper certification and Romanian translation. Apostille, legalisation and exemptions must be assessed with the applicable treaty, including New York Convention Article IV.

Domestic annulment: the eight Article 480 grounds

For the domestic framework, Code Article 480(2) lists eight grounds for the applicant to substantiate. First, the dispute is legally non-arbitrable; second, the arbitration agreement is invalid.

Third, the award lacks the operative part and reasons, place and date, or arbitrators’ signatures; fourth, its operative provisions cannot be executed. Defects in the award’s text are therefore considered separately from dissatisfaction with its conclusions.

Fifth, tribunal formation or procedure did not comply with the agreement. Sixth, inadequate notice of appointment or proceedings, including the hearing’s place, date and time, or other justified reasons prevented explanations.

Seventh, the dispute or questions decided exceeded the agreement; a severable portion alone may be annulled. Eighth, the award infringes Moldova’s fundamental legislative principles or good morals. Domestic Article 480 must not be presented as a verbatim reproduction of international Law 24/2008 Article 37.

International annulment and refusal of enforcement: the differences

Under Law 24/2008 Article 37(2)(a), the applicant proves a defect concerning protected status or the agreement, notice and opportunity to explain, the agreement’s scope, or tribunal formation and procedure. Following the 2018 amendment, the protected-status limb specifically addresses a judicial protection measure and an agreement made without the prescribed assistance of a curator or representation by a guardian. The mere existence of a protection measure is not described as automatically invalidating every agreement.

The court independently checks arbitrability and public policy under Article 37(2)(b). Excess of mandate may result in partial annulment. Under Article 37(4), on a party’s request and if appropriate, the court may adjourn to allow the tribunal to resume proceedings or take steps to eliminate the ground. This is a judicial power, not an automatic obligation to give the tribunal another opportunity.

For a foreign award, Code Article 476(1) provides five groups of objections: capacity or agreement validity; proper notice and opportunity to defend; the agreement’s scope; tribunal or procedure; and lack of binding effect, annulment or suspension. Article 476(2) adds the court’s own arbitrability and public-policy review. Separate paragraphs govern partial recognition, timely objections and adjournment.

I would first identify the award and the requested outcome—annulment, a writ or recognition abroad—and then collect evidence for the relevant list. Shared expressions such as public policy or notice do not make the procedures interchangeable.

How participation affects later objections

International Article 7(7) permits a defect of agreement form to be cured by submitting a defence without raising that defect no later than the defence. This concerns form; it is not a general permission to arbitrate prohibited categories of disputes.

At foreign-award recognition, Code Article 476(3) limits reliance on agreement invalidity where the party participated in constituting the tribunal. If it did not participate in constitution, its participation in the arbitration and failure to raise that jurisdictional objection before the defence matter. Paragraph 4 separately concerns lack of notice of an arbitrator’s appointment: participation without a pre-defence jurisdictional objection based on constitution contrary to the applicable law has the specified consequence. Paragraph 5 connects loss of an excess-of-mandate objection with participation, awareness of the excess and failure to object. Each ground has its own conditions; participation alone does not forfeit every right.

A clause cannot waive judicial annulment in advance: Article 477(2) permits waiver after the award. This differs from certain finality arrangements in other countries. Such a drafting choice must be checked under the law of the seat, not imported from a foreign template.

Enforcement while annulment is pending and preservation of the file

Annulment and enforcement are separate proceedings. For a domestic writ, Code Article 484(5) permits an appropriate adjournment and, at the creditor’s request, security for possible loss. For foreign awards, Article 476(7)–(9) governs adjournment or suspension pending competent annulment proceedings and the later lifting of that pause after hearing the other party.

Under Law 24/2008 Article 36, at the parties’ joint request the file, original award and proof of communication are deposited with the court for the tribunal’s location. A permanent institution keeps its own archive and supplies copies to authorised bodies. Record keeping should therefore cover service, the complete file and custody arrangements, as well as the final award.