The International Arbitration Review: Bulgaria


Bulgaria has traditionally been an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, both for domestic and international disputes. Arbitration as a means of dispute resolution was implemented in Bulgaria at the end of the 19th century with the first Civil Procedure Act (1892). In the first half of the 20th century, arbitration was widely used to resolve both civil and commercial cases, and the arbitrators had extensive powers, including powers to resolve disputes ex aequo et bono. During the socialist period (1944–1989), arbitration was allowed only in respect of legal disputes between Bulgarian socialist organisations and foreign enterprises or entities. The transition to a market economy at the end of the 1980s led to the considerable development and modernisation of both domestic and international commercial arbitration, which gradually come back as a widely used dispute resolution mechanism.

i National legislation

Arbitration in Bulgaria is regulated mainly by the International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA).2 Adopted in 1988, the ICAA is largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), thus rendering Bulgaria one of the first Model Law jurisdictions. The 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law have not yet been implemented in Bulgaria, and at present there are no plans in this respect.

In addition to the ICAA, provisions of the Civil Procedure Code3 (in respect of the scope of arbitration agreements, arbitrability and the seat of arbitration) and the Private International Law Code4 (in respect of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards) are also applicable to arbitration proceedings.

ii International conventions concluded by Bulgaria

Bulgaria is party to the most significant international conventions in the field of arbitration. In respect of recognition and enforcement, Bulgaria is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York 1958) (New York Convention 5 and the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (Geneva 1961).6

In the field of international investment law, Bulgaria is party to the ICSID Convention7 and the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).8 Bulgaria has also concluded 71 bilateral investment treaties (BITs),9 including with all major investors' jurisdictions. In respect of investment protection, Bulgaria has been a Member State of the European Union since 1 January 2007, and thus all legal issues arising in respect of the validity of intra-EU BITs would be relevant (see Section III).

iii The ICAA scope and structure

Despite its name, the ICAA applies to both domestic and international arbitrations having a seat in Bulgaria. An arbitration is deemed international if one or all of the parties to it are seated (for legal entities) or resident (for individuals) outside of Bulgaria. Respectively, an arbitration is domestic when all parties are seated or resident in Bulgaria.

The ICAA is applicable also to arbitrations with a seat outside Bulgaria, but only in respect of the effects of an arbitration agreement (i.e., the duty of state courts to terminate a case if the dispute is subject to arbitration), the possibility to request interim measures in support of an arbitration seated outside Bulgaria and the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Both institutional and ad hoc arbitration are regulated by the ICAA. It applies to private parties, as well as to state or public entities having concluded arbitration agreements. The ICAA follows the Model Law's structure and covers arbitration agreements, the composition of arbitral tribunals, their jurisdiction and the compétence-compétence principle, the conduct of the proceedings, arbitral awards and their effects, set aside proceedings and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

iv Arbitrability under Bulgarian law

The conditions of arbitrability under Bulgarian law are primarily addressed in Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Code. The parties to a dispute involving a pecuniary right that is disposable (i.e., a right that parties may dispose of between themselves by way of a settlement) may agree that the dispute be settled by arbitration, with the exception of the following:

  1. disputes in respect of absolute rights over immovable property or possession of immovable property (disputes involving relative contractual rights in respect of immovable property, such as lease agreements, are arbitrable);
  2. disputes in respect of alimony (financial obligation arising out of divorce);
  3. employment disputes (disputes under management agreements between companies or shareholders and their directors are arbitrable);
  4. disputes involving non-pecuniary rights;
  5. administrative and other public law disputes;
  6. disputes involving non-transferable personal rights and disputes in relation to personal or marital status and origin;
  7. civil law disputes that may be initiated by a prosecutor or where the participation of a prosecutor is required;
  8. some disputes in relation to insolvency proceedings (such as disputes for declaratory judgments establishing the existence of receivables from an insolvent company that have not been accepted in the insolvency proceedings);
  9. disputes to which one of the parties is a consumer under the meaning found in the Consumer Protection Act;
  10. hardship and adaptation-of-contract disputes under Article 307 of the Commercial Act arising under privatisation contracts;10 and
  11. concession agreements without trans-border interests (within the meaning of EU law).

v Arbitration agreements

The ICAA requires arbitration agreements to be in written form.

An arbitration agreement is considered to be in writing when the agreement is contained in a document signed by both parties, in an exchange of letters, faxes, telegrams or other means of telecommunication, or in general terms and conditions to which the parties have referred in their contract. Any of the parties may raise an objection as to the form or existence of an arbitration agreement by the end of the first hearing. If no objection is made, it will be considered that there was a valid arbitration agreement.

The ICAA provides that an arbitration agreement may be concluded before a dispute arises or afterwards, and could cover both contractual and non-contractual disputes.

Under Bulgarian law, the doctrine of the separability of an arbitration agreement is fully recognised, and the ICAA provides that an arbitration agreement included in a contract is independent of the other terms of a contract. The nullity of a contract does not automatically render the arbitration agreement in it also invalid.

vi Mandatory principles applicable to arbitral proceedings

Under the ICAA and case law, only a very limited number of mandatory procedural provisions could lead to setting aside an arbitral award, such as the following:

  1. the parties must be treated equally (according to the principle of equal treatment of the parties);
  2. each party must be given an equal opportunity to present its case;
  3. the arbitrators must be impartial and independent;
  4. the parties must be notified of the arbitration and the hearings; and
  5. the requirements for the form and the requisites of arbitral awards provided for in the ICAA should be met (i.e., written form of the award, motives, signatures of the arbitrators).

vii Intervention by state courts

The ICAA strictly limits the possibility of intervention by state courts in arbitration proceedings only to the following:

  1. if a dispute, subject to arbitration, is referred to a state court and no party objects to the state court proceedings by a reply to the statement of claim;
  2. to impose interim or conservatory measures (such as the freezing of assets, collection of evidence, etc.) in support of a future or pending arbitration case;
  3. there is a challenge to the arbitrators;
  4. there is a need to assist the parties or an arbitral tribunal to collect evidence;
  5. in set aside proceedings;
  6. in proceedings for the issuance of a writ of enforcement for an arbitral award rendered in an arbitration seated in Bulgaria; and
  7. in proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Requests for interim measures or the collection of evidence may be made before any competent Bulgarian court, and the Civil Procedure Code will apply.

In respect of the issuance of writs of enforcement on the basis of arbitral awards rendered in arbitrations seated in Bulgaria, the competent court would be the respective district court at the place of residence of the debtor. The procedure is conducted ex parte and is relatively quick and efficient.

Set aside proceedings against an arbitral award rendered in Bulgaria may be initiated before the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation within three months of the serving of the arbitration award to the respective party. The filing of a set aside request does not stop the enforceability of the respective arbitral award unless a specific order in this respect is made by the Supreme Court of Cassation and the requesting party establishes security for the whole amount of the award. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation on a set aside request is not subject to appeal.

Requests for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are to be brought before the Sofia City Court. Such requests follow the standard claim procedure, and first instance judgments are subject to appeals before the Sofia Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Cassation.

viii Local arbitration institutions

In Bulgaria, more than 40 arbitral institutions are active. This considerable number is due to the possibility until 2017 to include arbitration agreements in consumer contracts. This led to a proliferation of institutions specialised in consumer disputes, such as disputes arising out of utilities contracts (electricity distribution, heating, mobile phones, water supply, etc.) and consumer finance contracts. Some of these institutions administered several thousand cases per year with, however, low individual values.

For commercial disputes, there are three major national arbitration institutions.

The oldest and most prominent Bulgarian arbitral institution is the Arbitration Court (AC) at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI),11 which recently marked its 120th anniversary. The AC at the BCCI has considerable experience in dealing with domestic and international commercial disputes in a number of sectors, such as the sale of goods, construction, electricity trade and distribution, leases, loan agreements, agriculture, public procurement and IT sectors. It has a permanent secretariat with a specialised staff and hearing facilities in Sofia. The AC at the BCCI Rules of Arbitration,12 the arbitration fees and costs tariffs,13 the recommended arbitration clause14 and other documents are available in different languages, and the institution has considerable experience in administering disputes in English, Russian and German. The AC at the BCCI implemented an online document management system, allowing parties to proceedings to have full access to all documents in the proceedings (all parties' submissions, orders or awards by the tribunal, correspondence and delivery receipts, transcript from hearings, etc.) via secure access on its website. The AC at the BCCI is by far the busiest arbitral institution in Bulgaria; for example, in 2018 it registered approximately 200 domestic and 30 international new arbitration cases. In addition to institutional arbitration, the AC at the BCCI may act as appointing authority, provide administrative support to ad hoc arbitrations and provide mediation services.

Other major Bulgarian arbitral institutions are the Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Industrial Association,15 the recently established KRIB Court of Arbitration16 and the Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian–German Chamber of Commerce.17

ix Trends or statistics relating to arbitration

Since 1990, arbitration in Bulgaria has been widely used both by local companies and international businesses. A considerable number of commercial contracts provide for arbitration, and such disputes are very common. Arbitration is the most commonly used means to resolve commercial disputes in business transactions with an international element.

The exact proportion of disputes settled through arbitration is unknown due to the lack of official statistics published by the various arbitration institutions in the country.

Regarding foreign arbitral institutions, Bulgarian parties most often opt for ICC, VIAC, SCC or LCIA arbitration.

The year in review

i Developments affecting international arbitration

Legislative developments: 2017 amendments

The most important legislative development in the field of arbitration in Bulgaria in recent years are the amendments to the Civil Procedure Code and the ICAA of 2017 (2017 amendments).18 They were initiated by the Ombudsman with the aim of enhancing the rights of consumers.

Consumer disputes not arbitrable

The first major development introduced by the 2017 amendments was a prohibition on the arbitration of consumer disputes. This was achieved by extending the scope of Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Code:19 the legislator added all disputes involving consumers to the list of disputes that are not arbitrable. Under Bulgarian law, a consumer is considered any natural person who acquires products or uses services for purposes that do not fall within his or her commercial or professional activity, and any natural person who acts outside his or her commercial or professional capacity. Thus, arbitration is no longer available in respect of most of the contracts entered into by physical persons, such as utilities contracts (water, electricity, gas, heating, waste), telecom contracts and consumer finance contracts, or in the purchase of, inter alia, goods by consumers or travel packs.

To ensure the effectiveness of the new provision, the new legislation also provides that:

  1. arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are null and void;
  2. arbitral awards rendered in disputes that are not arbitrable shall be considered null and void;
  3. an express provision has been adopted obliging district courts to refuse issuance of writs of enforcement of arbitral awards that are rendered in disputes that are not arbitrable; and
  4. arbitrators who render arbitral awards involving a consumer may be subject to financial sanctions amounting to up to 2,500 leva, and the arbitration institution involved could be fined up to 5,000 leva.

Control over arbitral institutions

Another major development is the introduction for the first time in Bulgarian law of a mechanism for control over arbitration institutions to ensure the compliance of their practices with the ICAA. Such control is exercised by an inspectorate within the Ministry of Justice. The inspectorate may initiate an inspection ex officio by way of decision by the Minister of Justice or upon complaints by interested parties. During an inspection, the arbitral institution shall ensure access to its premises and archives. Following the inspection, the inspectors may issue mandatory recommendations to the arbitral institution, and non-compliance may lead to fines amounting to up to 2,500 leva. Obviously, this mechanism applies exclusively to arbitral institutions seated in Bulgaria. Notwithstanding that at first sight it may seem a threat to the independence of arbitral institutions, the mechanism is intended primarily to ensure compliance with the provisions protecting consumers that until now had not been enforced in practice.

Minimum conditions for appointing arbitrators

The 2017 amendments introduced for the first time into Bulgarian law conditions to be met by arbitrators. Under the new Article 11(3) of the ICAA, any natural person may be appointed as an arbitrator as long as he or she:

  1. has not been convicted of a premeditated crime;
  2. holds a university degree;
  3. has at least eight years of professional experience; and
  4. has high integrity.

Similar conditions existed under some of the institutional arbitration rules, but were not provided for in the ICAA. This requirement should be considered also when appointing arbitrators for arbitrations with a seat in Bulgaria under foreign arbitration rules (for instance, in cases of an ICC arbitration seated in Bulgaria).

Obligation to ensure online access to case files

Following the 2017 amendments, parties in arbitration proceedings should have online access to the case file. Although such options have existed for arbitration at the AC at the BCCI for a long time, applying this condition could create some practical issues in respect of ad hoc arbitration or arbitrations administered by other institutions.

Breach of public policy no more a ground for set aside

Perhaps the most unexpected change introduced by the 2017 amendments was the reduction of the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award. The Bulgarian legislator deleted Item 3 of Article 47(1) of the ICAA, which provided that a breach of public policy is a ground for setting aside an arbitral award.

Since the adoption of the ICAA in 1988, a breach of public policy was one of the grounds for setting aside, as it is also under Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law. The provision was widely used by the Supreme Court of Cassation and recognised by legal doctrine.

This amendment was unexpected, as it was not discussed by doctrine and was not related to the main purpose of the 2017 amendments (i.e., to enhance the protection of consumers), but on the contrary seems to reduce the possibility for state courts to control arbitral awards.

Deleting a breach of public policy as a ground for setting aside immediately produced effects: the Supreme Court of Cassation extended the scope of other grounds for setting aside in order to prevent arbitral awards from producing unacceptable results.20

The 2017 amendments did not affect the application of the public policy grounds in matters of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, which are governed by the New York Convention or the Bulgarian Private International Law Code (if the New York Convention is not applicable).

Amendments to the BCCI Rules of Arbitration

Some minor amendments to the AC at the BCCI Rules of Arbitration also entered into force in 2017. They imply, among other things:

  1. provisions clarifying the rules on the constitution of an arbitral tribunal;
  2. rules in respect of registration and conservation of the originals of arbitral awards;
  3. modalities for serving an arbitral award to the parties; and
  4. a provision allowing the publication of anonymised parts of arbitral awards upon a decision by the chair of an arbitration.

ii Arbitration developments in local courts

In recent years, Bulgarian courts have published a number of judgments with importance for various aspects of arbitration. The following are of particular interest.

Ruling No. 313 of 12 July 2019 under commercial case No. 1558/2019 of the Supreme Court of Cassation

Under Article 48(1) ICAA, a party may bring a claim for the setting aside of an award within three months of its entry into force (i.e., the date on which the award was served to the respective party). However, it was unclear whether this time limit is also applicable to claims for declaratory judgments that the award is null pursuant to Article 47(2) ICAA.

The Court declared that in order to review such a claim, it has to be admissible and admissibility depends on compliance with the relevant time limits. Hence, the Court considered that the time limits of Article 48(1) ICAA are applicable to all claims under Article 47 ICAA, including such for declaratory judgments for the nullity of an award. Therefore, any party who wishes to obtain such judgment must strictly follow the time limit and file a claim within three months of the entry into force of an award.

Judgment No. 171 of 22 January 2018 under commercial case No. 1791/2016 of the Supreme Court of Cassation

In its original wording, the ICAA provides that arbitral tribunals may resolve disputes concerning filling gaps in a contract or its adaptation to newly arisen circumstances. Although this power of arbitral tribunals is undisputed, by this judgment, the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation established that the adaptation of a contract is possible only if the arbitral tribunal is explicitly empowered by the parties in this regard. In other words, the adaptation of a contract, including in the case of hardship, is possible only if the wording of the arbitration clause provides it expressly.

The practical implication of this judgment is that drafters of arbitration agreements should carefully consider whether to include such wording. Standard clauses of the Bulgarian arbitral institutions usually contain such wording, but if the parties intend to use a standard international clause (such as the ICC model clause or the VIAC model clause), they should consider the possible inclusion of such wording.

Judgment No. 91 of 26 July 2019 under commercial case No. 251/2019 of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Bulgaria

In this judgment, the Supreme Court of Cassation addressed two important questions: whether Bulgarian parties may agree to an institutional arbitration seated abroad, and whether an assignment of contractual receivables affects the rights under the arbitration clause included in a contract.

Under Article 19(2) of the Bulgarian Civil Procedure Code,21 the seat of an arbitration may be seated abroad if at least one of the parties to the arbitration agreement has its seat abroad. Although disputed in the doctrine, this provision remains in force and prevents Bulgarian parties from referring their disputes to an arbitration seated outside Bulgaria. This is particularly relevant for Bulgarian subsidiaries of foreign companies, which are thus obliged, when dealing with Bulgarian companies, to agree exclusively to arbitrations seated in Bulgaria.

By interpreting this provision, the Court reached the conclusion that arbitration agreements between Bulgarian parties that refer to foreign arbitral institutions (in this case, the ICC), are valid as long as the place of arbitration is in Bulgaria. With this judgment, the Supreme Court adopted a more liberal approach, in a way changing its previous position from Ruling No. 468 of 14 August 2017 under private commercial case No. 596/2017. Therefore, Bulgarian parties are free to agree on having their disputes resolved by a foreign arbitral institution as long as the place of arbitration is in Bulgaria.

In relation to the second question, the Court ruled that the replacement of the previous contractor applies to the arbitration agreement as well, since it is incorporated in the contract and the replacement refers to all terms and conditions of the contract. This judgment takes the exact opposite position from the previous, highly criticised judgment No. 261 of 1 August 2018 under commercial case No. 624/2017.22

Judgment No. 117 of 31 May 2018 under commercial case No. 2592/2017 of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Bulgaria

Under Article 301 of the Bulgarian Commercial Act, a trader (natural person – merchant or commercial legal entity) is considered to have accepted a transaction that was concluded on its behalf by an unauthorised person if the trader does not object to the transaction immediately after it becomes aware of it. This way of acceptance of contracts is widely used in practice, and the question arose whether this implies also the acceptance of an arbitration agreement.

The Supreme Court of Cassation followed its previous case law23 and ruled that, since the arbitration agreement is independent from the main contract and is subject to specific requirements for validity, it cannot be validated by non-objection as provided for under Article 301 of the Bulgarian Commercial Act for commercial contracts. This confirms that under Bulgarian law, tacit acceptance of an arbitration agreement is not admissible.

Judgment No. 189 of 9 November 2017 under commercial case No. 1675/2017 of the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation24

This judgment addressed the arbitrability of hardship disputes related to privatisation agreements. The Supreme Court of Cassation considered that since the Privatisation Act prohibited the renegotiation of privatisation agreements (unless in very specific circumstances), claims for hardship under privatisation agreements may not be brought to arbitration.

iii Investor–state disputes

Bulgaria is currently involved in a number of investment arbitrations. At present there is public information available about five pending ICSID cases, but there are indications that the state is a respondent in at least one further confidential investment arbitration.

EVN AG v. Republic of Bulgaria25

This case was initiated by the Austrian utility company EVN on the basis of the Austria–Bulgaria BIT and the ECT. The dispute arose after regulatory changes in the electricity sector were initiated in 2012. Although its main objective was to reduce the burden of renewable energy sources generation on the electricity system, it had considerable adverse effects on electricity distribution and supply companies.

The arbitral tribunal rendered its award in April 2019, and it seems that the claims of the investor were rejected.

Energo-Pro v. Republic of Bulgaria26

The case was initiated following a dispute similar to that in the EVN case. The claim was based on the Czech Republic–Bulgaria BIT and the ECT.

The arbitral tribunal has been constituted and the case is still pending. The parties filed their submissions on costs in April 2020 and an award is expected soon.

State General Reserve Fund of the Sultanate of Oman v. Republic of Bulgaria27

This claim, based on the Bulgaria–Oman BIT of 2007, was initiated following the collapse of the fourth-largest Bulgarian bank, the Corporate Commercial Bank. The State General Reserve Fund of the Sultanate of Oman was one of the minority shareholders of the Bank. It claims that Bulgarian authorities (mainly the Bulgarian National Bank and the administrative courts) have prevented the Fund from implementing rescue measures in respect of its investment, and thus breached several investment protection standards. After the initial difficulties of the Bank, it not only faced considerable losses, but was also denied the right to appeal in justice the decision of the Bulgarian National Bank to impose an administrator on the Bank.

The case has been concluded by an award rendered on 13 August 2019. According to publicly available Information, the state prevailed in this dispute.

ČEZ, as v. Republic of Bulgaria28

This case was initiated following a dispute similar to those in the EVN and Energo-Pro cases. The claim is based on the Czech Republic–Bulgaria BIT and the ECT.

The case is still pending.

ACF Renewable Energy Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria29

This case was initiated in 2018 on the basis of the ECT. The investor owns and operates a photovoltaic power plant in Bulgaria. The dispute arose out of changes to the regulatory framework in the electricity sector that began in 2012 and continued until 2018.

The case is still pending. The arbitral tribunal issued a decision on jurisdiction on 20 December 2019 by which it rejected the objections to jurisdiction based on Achmea.

Moti Ramot and Rami Levy v. Republic of Bulgaria30

This case was initiated in 2018 on the basis of the Israel–Bulgaria 1993 BIT. It concerns real estate and construction investments in Bulgaria by Israeli nationals.

The case is still pending. The claimants filed a memorial on the merits on 16 March 2020.

Outlook and conclusions

Arbitration remains a widely used and reliable tool for dispute resolution in Bulgaria. The jurisdiction is arbitration-friendly, and the local legislative framework and court practice are predictable in respect of arbitration. 2018 and 2019 were been successful years in this respect, confirming the previous trend.

In respect of commercial arbitration, the limitation of consumer disputes, although limiting the number of cases, may have positive effects in terms of the credibility and integrity of arbitration. Lower fees for arbitration compared with fees in the state courts, the faster arbitration process and the considerable workload of the state courts, which often impedes judges from going into the details of a dispute, are favourable conditions for commercial arbitration to expand in Bulgaria across sectors, including the electricity and gas trade, construction and FIDIC disputes, and possibly post-M&A disputes.

Investment arbitration also may experience growth. Although the CJEU Achmea case raises a number of questions in respect of intra-EU BITs and related arbitration, and could cause hesitation in some claimants, the recently adopted legislative measures in the energy sector in Bulgaria could generate a considerable number of investment claims. This trend is already noticeable in the Czech Republic, Italy and Spain, and Bulgaria may follow.


1 Anna Rizova-Clegg is a partner and Oleg Temnikov is counsel at Wolf Theiss.

2 International Commercial Arbitration Act, published in State Gazette issue No. 60 5 August 1988, as amended from time to time, last amendment published in State Gazette issue No. 8 of 24 January 2017.

3 Civil Procedure Code, published in State Gazette issue No. 59 of 20 July 2007, as amended from time to time, last amendment published in State Gazette issue No. 38 of 10.05.2019.

4 Private International Law Code, published in State Gazette No. 42 of 17 May 2005, as amended from time to time, last amendment published in State Gazette issue No. 100 of 21 December 2010.

5 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), signed on 10 October 1961, entered into force on 8 January 1962, published in the State Gazette Issue No. 57/1964. Note that Bulgaria made a reciprocity reservation under Article 1 of the New York Convention.

6 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (Geneva, 1961), signed on 21 April 1961, entered into force on 13 May 1964, published in State Gazette issue No. 57/1964.

7 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, signed on 21 March 2000, entered into force on 12 May 2001.

8 1994 Energy Charter Treaty, signed on 17 December 1994, entered into force on 16 April 1998.

9 For a full up-to-date list, see UNCTAD's Investment Policy Hub at the following link:

10 This limitation to arbitrability is not expressly provided in law, but has been established in the courts' practice.

18 Act for amendment and supplementation of the Civil Procedure Code, published in State Gazette issue No. 8/2017.

19 Arbitration Agreement – Article 19.

(1) The parties to a property dispute may agree that the said dispute be settled by an arbitration court, unless the said dispute has as its subject matter any rights in rem or possession of a corporeal immovable, maintenance obligations or rights under an employment relationship, or is a dispute one of the parties to which is a consumer within the meaning of § 13, Item 1 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2) The arbitration may have a seat abroad if one of the party has his, her or its habitual residence, registered office according to the basic instrument thereof or place of the actual management thereof abroad.

20 For instance, judgment No. 189 of 9 November 2017 under commercial case No. 1675/2017 of the Supreme Court of Cassation, where an arbitral award was set aside on the ground that the award was dealing with matters outside the arbitration agreement, where before the amendments the SCC would probably have used the provision on breach of public policy.

21 Article 19(2) of the Civil Procedure Code: 'The arbitration may have a seat abroad if one of the parties has his, her or its habitual residence, registered office according to the basic instrument thereof or place of the actual management thereof abroad.'

22 MSD v. Credo Consult 55 OOD.

23 Judgment No.157 of 11.01.2013 in commercial case No. 611/2012.

24 Privatisation Agency of the Republic of Bulgaria v. KG Maritime Shipping AD.

25 ICSID case No. ARB/13/17.

26 ICSID case No. ARB/15/19.

27 ICSID case No. ARB/15/43.

28 ICSID case No. ARB/16/24.

29 ICSID case No. ARB/18/1.

30 ICSID case No. ARB/18/47.

Get unlimited access to all The Law Reviews content