Contract warrant procedures must comply with section 108 of the Housing, Construction and Recovery Act. Originally, the Construction Act did not mention how to manage costs. However, the amendments to the Construction Act, introduced by the Democracy, Economy and Municipal Construction Act 2009, which came into force on 1 October 2011, provide that any contractual provision to allocate the costs of adjudation between the parties is invalid, unless it comes after the appointment of the adjur. This applies to both the contracting officer`s burden-sharing agreements and the fee-paying agreements. Parties to a construction contract may be able to refer disputes to the decision to resolve problems at a lower cost and more quickly. Adjudation is a dispute resolution procedure without the need for lengthy and costly litigation. For the purposes of this guide, the assessment is a reference to the procedure introduced in the United Kingdom in 1996 by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act (Construction Act). The adjudication procedures are not regulated by Latvian law, but the parties can agree on the use of an adjudicator (independent expert) in the construction contract. Each party has the right to expel a treaty-compliant dispute in a decisive manner. These conditions are generally included in major construction contracts and/or in which FIDIC contracts are used (which already provide for warrant provisions), in which an intermediate solution to a dispute is required in order to maintain supply chain cash flows. Under a law passed in 1996, each party to a construction contract has the right to require that a dispute be referred to the decision before being dealt with by the courts or an arbitral tribunal.

The process of judging construction disputes is defined in the law and the basic rule is that an independent adjudicator makes a decision within 28 days of the date of the cases before him. There must be a disagreement between the parties in which a party seeks to redeem itself. Since FIDIC contracts are often used in large projects in Romania, adjudication procedures are often used as a means of dispute resolution. However, in non-FIDIC contracts, the parties generally do not refer to such a warrant procedure. When a dispute arises under a FIDIC contract, the parties generally comply with the FIDIC regulatory procedure for the appointment of the Litigation Commission (a three-member dispute resolution body or a member of the committee) and the procedure that follows. Parties must agree on a specific timetable, the types of evidence that are provided (verification, certificates and technical expertise, local location/research process) and hold adjudication meetings. After reviewing the relevant evidence, the dispute resolution body deliberates and the proceedings conclude with a final decision from the board. The judge`s decision is not fully acceptable, as would be the case with an arbitral award, and it does not have the status of a court decision. The decision is binding only on the contract between the parties.

If one party is dissatisfied with the decision, the party must inform the other party. The application must contain the subject matter of the dispute and the reason for the discontent. No party has the right to initiate arbitration proceedings if such notification has not been made.