Romania - Market Insights

2025 – Year in Review: Disputes in Romania

The year 2025 has been a busy year for disputes in Romania. This overview highlights the most relevant developments, with a focus on recent investment treaty awards and large energy and infrastructure projects, which are generating both new investment opportunities and disputes.

Recent investment treaty arbitrations concerning Romania

Two recent International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) awards have touched upon the issue of Romania’s liability under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) in connection with its green certificate support scheme for renewables.

In January 2025, an ICSID tribunal chaired by Lucy Reed, with co-arbitrators Donald McRae and James Spigelman, found in favour of Romania in Fin.Doc et al. v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/35).

The case concerned a claim of around EUR 250 million brought in 2020 by a group of 44 claimants (both corporate and individual) from several EU countries and Turkey, who had invested in multiple solar energy projects in Romania. The dispute related to regulatory measures introduced in the context of Romania’s evolving renewable energy support scheme based on tradable green certificates. The claimants alleged that these measures detrimentally affected their investments in breach of Romania’s obligations under the ECT.

The tribunal dismissed Romania’s intra-EU jurisdictional objection (with regards to the EU claimants) and confirmed jurisdiction, reiterating the position taken by other tribunals that the CJEU’s judgments in Achmea and Komstroy are not binding on an ICSID tribunal and cannot be interpreted as amending a state’s consent to arbitration expressed in the ECT — which is the basis of the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

On the merits, the tribunal rejected all claims and found no breach of the ECT by the Romanian Government. It found that the ECT’s core investment protection clause (Article 10(1)), while requiring states to offer foreign investors stable, fair and transparent conditions, and to avoid unreasonable or discriminatory measures that harm those investments, does not “freeze” the regulatory framework or guarantee a particular level of return.

On the facts, the tribunal held that Romania honoured its only clear stabilisation-type commitment (to maintain the number of green certificates per MWh for existing plants) and did not fundamentally alter the statutory price band for green certificates. Given the market-based design of the scheme, Romania’s repeated warnings about avoiding overcompensation, the sharp fall in solar costs and the surge in installed capacity, investors could not legitimately expect fixed quotas and prices at the top of the band to be maintained over time. Against that background, the move to annually set quotas and later adjustments were characterised as a reasonable and proportionate response to changing conditions and consumer cost concerns, rather than unfair or inequitable treatment. As the projects remained profitable and no unreasonable or discriminatory impairment was established, the tribunal found no breach of the ECT and did not award any damages to the claimants.

In March 2025, a decision on jurisdiction, liability and selected quantum issues was issued in EP Wind Project v. Romania, another ECT arbitration, this time brought by a Cypriot investor. An ICSID tribunal chaired by Maxi Scherer, with Charles Poncet and Joe Smouha as co-arbitrators, found in favour of the investor, holding that Romania frustrated the investor’s legitimate expectations by altering its green certificate scheme.

The tribunal again dismissed the intra-EU jurisdictional objection, on similar grounds to Fin.Doc, finding that the CJEU’s Komstroy decision is not binding on the tribunal. Romania’s consent to arbitration derives from the ECT, an international treaty that must be interpreted in accordance with international law.

On the merits, the tribunal found that the investor had relied on a legal framework under which renewable energy producers received a specified number of green certificates for each unit of electricity generated. Electricity suppliers were required to buy a defined number of these certificates, and the resulting costs were ultimately passed on to consumers. A national regulator monitored compliance and had the power to set the minimum and maximum trading prices for the certificates.

In 2013, the Romanian government altered this scheme. The tribunal identified three changes which, taken together, breached the ECT’s fair and equitable treatment standard and undermined EP Wind’s legitimate expectations:

• postponement of one of the two green certificates to which the investor was entitled;
• changing the allocation method from actual production to the lower of actual or projected output; and
• reducing the statutory maximum trading price of the certificates.

A key distinction drawn by the tribunal was temporal: EP Wind had invested before the material 2013 changes, whereas the investors in the abovementioned case of Fin.Doc had invested later, after those amendments. This difference in timing was presented as a fundamental distinction between the factual and legal contexts of the two cases.

At the same time, the tribunal rejected EP Wind’s claims that Romania had violated its obligations of transparency and consistency, finding no “pattern” of such conduct, and also held that Romania’s actions did not amount to unreasonable or discriminatory measures, nor did they breach the ECT’s non-impairment clause. The tribunal has reserved its decision on damages, interest and costs for a later stage.

Romania continues to be involved in multiple ICSID proceedings. According to the ICSID website, there are currently ten pending cases involving Romania. The most recent case was filed in November 2025 by the shareholders of a major Bulgarian insurance company that went bankrupt in a high-profile scandal which shook the Romanian motor insurance market. This case will revive debates around intra-EU investment arbitration, given that both Bulgaria and Romania terminated their intra-EU bilateral investment treaties several years ago.

Also pending are annulment proceedings initiated by the investor in the high-profile Gabriel Resources v. Romania case concerning a large gold mining investment in the Roșia Montană project, in which Romania prevailed, and the claims were dismissed by a majority of the tribunal in March 2024.

Large energy and infrastructure projects remain key drivers of economic growth and generate opportunities for foreign investors

Romania’s macroeconomic backdrop remains broadly positive, despite growing pressures. According to the EBRD’s 2025–2030 strategy for Romania, the country has rapidly narrowed its income and productivity gap with the EU, with real output per capita and labour productivity now close to 80% of the EU average. Growth over the past decade has been fuelled by strong domestic demand, backed by expansionary fiscal policy, rising wages and significant capital inflows in the form of EU funds, remittances and FDI. At the same time, the EBRD highlights persistent structural vulnerabilities: twin fiscal and current account deficits, skills and labour shortages, pronounced regional disparities and institutional capacity constraints that may hamper the absorption and implementation of EU-funded projects.

Within this macroeconomic setting, one of the main engines of growth is the continued development of large energy and infrastructure projects. The EU National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) and cohesion policy funds under the 2021–2027 EU budget cycle are central to this. Together, they channel substantial resources into:

• transport (motorways, rail and multimodal logistics);
• energy transition (renewables, grid modernisation, efficiency); and
• social infrastructure (healthcare, education, urban regeneration).

In addition, the new EU Security Action for Europe (SAFE) instrument, which Romania will access in Q2 2026, is expected to finance major defence-related and dual-use infrastructure, including key motorway links in the Moldova region and investments in the domestic defence industry

The EBRD strategy likewise envisages using its own instruments to support Romania’s green transition, sustainable infrastructure, digitalisation and connectivity with neighbouring markets — all areas that depend on sizeable, long-term capital projects and offer clear entry points for foreign investors and contractors.

Renewable energy projects are a particularly active part of this picture. There is a strong pipeline of utility-scale wind, solar and hybrid projects at various stages of development, driven by EU decarbonisation targets, corporate demand for green power purchase agreements and the need to replace ageing conventional capacity. This translates into intensive market activity around permitting, land securing, grid connection, Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and EPC/Balance of Plant (BoP) contracts.

Recent sector data confirms the centrality of infrastructure. Romania’s construction sector returned to growth in 2025 after a sharp contraction in 2024, with civil engineering and EU-funded infrastructure emerging as the main driver, while classic residential development remains subdued. There is a visible shift from “new build” to renovation and energy-efficiency upgrades, supported by EU and national programmes, while higher financing costs, tax changes and softer household demand weigh on the housing market. Looking ahead to 2026–2027, infrastructure is expected to remain the backbone of the sector, sustained by the PNRR and cohesion funds, even as fiscal consolidation and execution risks cloud the outlook.

Against this backdrop, large public works inevitably generate disputes. At the tendering stage, most significant infrastructure contracts in Romania attract challenges from dissatisfied bidders.

Once projects move into the implementation phase, the familiar spectrum of construction disputes arises: delays, variations and scope changes, price adjustments in an inflationary environment, claims for additional works, performance issues, defects and termination scenarios. In the case of renewable energy projects, these are increasingly accompanied by regulatory disputes; for example, challenges relating to permitting decisions or grid connection issues. These risks may be exacerbated in the coming years by tighter fiscal policy, evolving tax rules and the possibility of delays or shortfalls in EU disbursements if absorption targets are not met. Any funding gap or reprioritisation of public spending can quickly translate into payment disputes, renegotiations or attempts to rebalance contractual risk allocations.

In this environment, robust contractual structuring and credible dispute-resolution mechanisms — particularly international arbitration — become key for both contractors and public stakeholders. As Romania continues to rely on EU-funded energy and infrastructure projects to drive convergence, the combination of high project volume, complex regulatory overlays and tightening fiscal constraints suggests that the dispute pipeline will remain active, even as the country continues to present attractive opportunities for foreign investors.