Moldova: ICAC award recognition and the limits of judicial review

What the court considered

BelgorhimpromEnergo sought recognition in Moldova of ICAC at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry award M-162/2021 of 6 June 2022 against Moldavskaia GRES. The dispute arose from a services and works contract. The parties had chosen ICAC proceedings under its rules. On 8 November 2023, the Chișinău Court of Appeal authorised enforcement, provided for a writ and allocated costs. The debtor appealed that determination to the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ).

Review of refusal grounds

On pages 9–11, CSJ connected review with the New York Convention and Articles 475–476 of the Moldovan Civil Procedure Code. It examined document formalities and translations, the agreed arbitration, notice, the scope of submission and the award’s binding effect. The award had not been set aside and enforcement had not been suspended; non-arbitrability and public-policy grounds were not established either. The debtor’s opposition lacked evidence of a statutory impediment.

The court stressed the limited nature of this procedure: it does not re-decide the dispute, alter the arbitrators’ conclusions or retake evidence on the contractual merits. Examination of a particular refusal ground remains available. The statement about the debtor’s evidential burden must be read with Article 476’s distinction between party-invoked grounds and non-arbitrability and public policy assessed by the court.

Documents and enforcement costs

Pages 12–13 address the separate question of costs in the state-court proceedings. Translation, apostille, delivery and legal-assistance expenses were documented. For representation, the court applied the criteria of reality, necessity and reasonableness. This was an assessment of the evidence, rather than a mandatory tariff. The reference to an apostille describes the documents submitted in this case; its necessity elsewhere depends on the applicable rules.

Disposition and significance

Code Article 475³(4), reproduced in the judgment, connects issuance of a writ with the award and the final recognition determination. Authorising enforcement and taking subsequent collection measures remain different stages: this CSJ decision determines judicial permission to enforce.

On 23 July 2024, CSJ dismissed the appeal and maintained the determination of 8 November 2023. This was the outcome of recognition and enforcement review in Moldova. The Russian decisions on challenges to the award formed part of the facts but did not replace the Moldovan court’s own examination. See the comparison of enforcement models.