CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION DESIGNATED BY SUB-CLAUSE 20.6 OF FIDIC CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER THE ARBITRAL CASES RESULTED FROM EXECUTION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE ROMANIAN LAW

From 2010 to 2017 the execution of public works in Romania took place by virtue of the General Conditions of Contract of FIDIC Yellow Book or Red Book approved by Government Decision no. 1405/2010. In 2011 the Romanian Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure issued Order no. 146/2011 whereby...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Cristian Răzvan RUGINĂ
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nicolae Titulescu University Publishing House 2019-05-01
Series:Challenges of the Knowledge Society
Subjects:
Online Access:http://cks.univnt.ro/download/cks_2019_articles%252F2_private_law%252FCKS_2019_private_law_026.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1846143873455226880
author Cristian Răzvan RUGINĂ
author_facet Cristian Răzvan RUGINĂ
author_sort Cristian Răzvan RUGINĂ
collection DOAJ
description From 2010 to 2017 the execution of public works in Romania took place by virtue of the General Conditions of Contract of FIDIC Yellow Book or Red Book approved by Government Decision no. 1405/2010. In 2011 the Romanian Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure issued Order no. 146/2011 whereby it approved standard forms of Particular Conditions of Contract, Appendix to Tender and Contract Agreement for execution of such public works. In particular, the Appendix to Tender modified the provisions of Sub-Clause 20.6 regarding the arbitral institution empowered to administer the disputes resulted from public procurement contracts based on FIDIC Conditions of Contract. The mention included in the Appendix to Tender in this regard referred to ”the Court of International Commercial Arbitration”, apparently an incomplete reference to the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania. Encouraged by a subjective interpretation of the contractual provisions, a significant number of contractors submitted their disputes with the National Company for Administration of Road Infrastructure in Romania to the ICC International Court of Arbitration. Recently, the Bucharest Court of Appeals decided that this approach was wrong, setting aside the final partial awards issued under the auspices of the ICC International Court of Arbitration. In an attempt to clarify which arbitral institution has jurisdiction to administer such arbitral cases, this paper analyzes the controversial contractual provisions, the soundness of the various interpretation and arguments brought by the involved parties under the rules of interpretation provided by the Romanian Law and internationally applicable custom in arbitration, and the recent jurisprudence of Romanian Courts related to this matter.
format Article
id doaj-art-7d2d456f69224f9489ad8a468a27e06a
institution Kabale University
issn 2068-7796
language English
publishDate 2019-05-01
publisher Nicolae Titulescu University Publishing House
record_format Article
series Challenges of the Knowledge Society
spelling doaj-art-7d2d456f69224f9489ad8a468a27e06a2024-12-02T09:47:11ZengNicolae Titulescu University Publishing HouseChallenges of the Knowledge Society2068-77962019-05-01131378385CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION DESIGNATED BY SUB-CLAUSE 20.6 OF FIDIC CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER THE ARBITRAL CASES RESULTED FROM EXECUTION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE ROMANIAN LAWCristian Răzvan RUGINĂ0PhD Candidate Faculty of law, Nicolae Titulescu University, e-mail: razvanrugina@gmail.comFrom 2010 to 2017 the execution of public works in Romania took place by virtue of the General Conditions of Contract of FIDIC Yellow Book or Red Book approved by Government Decision no. 1405/2010. In 2011 the Romanian Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure issued Order no. 146/2011 whereby it approved standard forms of Particular Conditions of Contract, Appendix to Tender and Contract Agreement for execution of such public works. In particular, the Appendix to Tender modified the provisions of Sub-Clause 20.6 regarding the arbitral institution empowered to administer the disputes resulted from public procurement contracts based on FIDIC Conditions of Contract. The mention included in the Appendix to Tender in this regard referred to ”the Court of International Commercial Arbitration”, apparently an incomplete reference to the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania. Encouraged by a subjective interpretation of the contractual provisions, a significant number of contractors submitted their disputes with the National Company for Administration of Road Infrastructure in Romania to the ICC International Court of Arbitration. Recently, the Bucharest Court of Appeals decided that this approach was wrong, setting aside the final partial awards issued under the auspices of the ICC International Court of Arbitration. In an attempt to clarify which arbitral institution has jurisdiction to administer such arbitral cases, this paper analyzes the controversial contractual provisions, the soundness of the various interpretation and arguments brought by the involved parties under the rules of interpretation provided by the Romanian Law and internationally applicable custom in arbitration, and the recent jurisprudence of Romanian Courts related to this matter.http://cks.univnt.ro/download/cks_2019_articles%252F2_private_law%252FCKS_2019_private_law_026.pdfarbitrationjurisdictionthe court of international commercial arbitrationfidicpublic worksg.d. no. 1405/2010order no. 146/2011sub-clause 20.6appendix to tender
spellingShingle Cristian Răzvan RUGINĂ
CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION DESIGNATED BY SUB-CLAUSE 20.6 OF FIDIC CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER THE ARBITRAL CASES RESULTED FROM EXECUTION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE ROMANIAN LAW
Challenges of the Knowledge Society
arbitration
jurisdiction
the court of international commercial arbitration
fidic
public works
g.d. no. 1405/2010
order no. 146/2011
sub-clause 20.6
appendix to tender
title CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION DESIGNATED BY SUB-CLAUSE 20.6 OF FIDIC CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER THE ARBITRAL CASES RESULTED FROM EXECUTION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE ROMANIAN LAW
title_full CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION DESIGNATED BY SUB-CLAUSE 20.6 OF FIDIC CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER THE ARBITRAL CASES RESULTED FROM EXECUTION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE ROMANIAN LAW
title_fullStr CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION DESIGNATED BY SUB-CLAUSE 20.6 OF FIDIC CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER THE ARBITRAL CASES RESULTED FROM EXECUTION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE ROMANIAN LAW
title_full_unstemmed CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION DESIGNATED BY SUB-CLAUSE 20.6 OF FIDIC CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER THE ARBITRAL CASES RESULTED FROM EXECUTION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE ROMANIAN LAW
title_short CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARBITRAL INSTITUTION DESIGNATED BY SUB-CLAUSE 20.6 OF FIDIC CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER THE ARBITRAL CASES RESULTED FROM EXECUTION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER THE ROMANIAN LAW
title_sort controversies regarding the arbitral institution designated by sub clause 20 6 of fidic conditions of contract to administer the arbitral cases resulted from execution of public works under the romanian law
topic arbitration
jurisdiction
the court of international commercial arbitration
fidic
public works
g.d. no. 1405/2010
order no. 146/2011
sub-clause 20.6
appendix to tender
url http://cks.univnt.ro/download/cks_2019_articles%252F2_private_law%252FCKS_2019_private_law_026.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT cristianrazvanrugina controversiesregardingthearbitralinstitutiondesignatedbysubclause206offidicconditionsofcontracttoadministerthearbitralcasesresultedfromexecutionofpublicworksundertheromanianlaw