|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. R. V. Ltda, Espólio de G. de R. I. e N. M. B. I. v. C. de P. de C., A. e Á do E. de S. P., Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo, Apelação Cível nº 2024.0000905137, 24 September 2024 |
|
| |
|
The Court of Appeal of the State of São Paulo annulled an arbitral award on the grounds that, in the absence of informed consent regarding the shared and contemporaneous interests between the presiding arbitrator and the opposing party’s lawyers, the arbitrator presiding the Tribunal was compromised due to legitimate doubts about his impartiality.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Joao Bosco Lee, Lee, Taube, Gabardo Sociedade de Advogados |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Brazil |
|
| |
|
Brazil |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interpretative Decision No. 1, Supreme Court of Cassation of Bulgaria, Interpretative Case No. 1/2023, 21 February 2024 |
|
| |
|
The General Assembly of the Commercial Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria issued an interpretative decision, binding for all Bulgarian courts, by which it clarified two important issues. The Supreme Court decided that in the event of an assignment of a receivable, the arbitrators shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes between the assignee of the receivable and the debtor of that receivable pursuant to the arbitration agreement/clause concluded between the assignor of the receivable and the debtor. The Supreme Court also decided that an authorization to conclude a substantive contract is sufficient for the conclusion of an arbitration agreement that is incorporated in this contract, and there is no need for an express authorization for the conclusion of the arbitration agreement.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Assen Alexiev, Independent Arbitrator and Domain Name Panelist |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Bulgaria |
|
| |
|
Bulgaria |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OLG Köln – 19 Sch 19/23, Higher Regional Court of Cologne, 19 Sch 19/23, 11 October 2024 |
|
| |
|
As a private law contract, an arbitration agreement is generally effective only between the contracting parties. However, in recognized constellations (contracts to the benefit of a third party, corporate succession), the personal scope of the arbitration agreement can extend to a third party. The Higher Regional Court of Cologne affirmed the inclusion of a third party in the arbitration agreement based on a (mere) similarity with such recognized constellations.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Harry Nettlau, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; Fabrice Vollborn, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Germany; Germany |
|
| |
|
Germany |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BayObLG – 102 SchH 135/24 e, Highest Regional Court of Bavaria, 102 SchH 135/24 e, 07 November 2024 |
|
| |
|
When assessing an arbitrator challenge, a court may consider circumstances that occurred or were known to the applicant outside the time limit for filing the challenge if such circumstances are part of an overall set of facts. An arbitral tribunal’s preliminary assessment of the facts and law of the case, or a simple procedural error, which are unfavorable to one of the parties, generally do not give rise to a justified concern of bias. Additional evidence of bias is required.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Harry Nettlau, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; Fabrice Vollborn, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Germany; Germany |
|
| |
|
Germany |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BGH – I ZB 48/24, Federal Court of Justice of Germany, I ZB 48/24, 09 January 2025 |
|
| |
|
Filing a request for arbitration does not preclude the Applicant from subsequently applying to German court to declare arbitration proceedings inadmissible due to invalidity of the arbitration clause. The invalidity of parts of an arbitration clause that set forth special procedural provisions does not automatically lead to the invalidity of the arbitration clause.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Harry Nettlau, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; Fabrice Vollborn, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Germany; Germany |
|
| |
|
Germany |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BayObLG – 102 Sch 250/23, Highest Regional Court of Bavaria, 102 Sch 250/23, 15 January 2025 |
|
| |
|
It is possible to request a declaration of enforceability of only parts of a (foreign) arbitral award if these parts are distinct and separable from the rest of the subject matter of the dispute. A party is not precluded from raising objections against a declaration of enforceability of a foreign award in Germany, if it did not initiate set-aside proceedings at the foreign seat of arbitration. The court does not re-examine the merits of the arbitral award (prohibition of révision au fond), which generally also concerns the arbitral tribunal’s taking of evidence.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Harry Nettlau, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; Fabrice Vollborn, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Germany; Germany |
|
| |
|
Germany |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. K. v. N. S.a.r.l., Supreme Court of Poland, II CSKP 897/22, 19 January 2024 |
|
| |
|
The Polish Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) ruled that the “objective financial inability” to bear arbitration costs does not invalidate the arbitration clause under art. 1168 § 2 of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (the “PCCP”). Instead, it may render the arbitration clause unenforceable under art. 1165 of the PCCP.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Karolina Czarnecka, Kozminski University |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Poland |
|
| |
|
Poland |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X v. Y, Court of Cassation of Turkey, 3rd Civil Law Chamber, 2024/3865, 26 November 2024 |
|
| |
|
The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (“Court of Cassation”) upheld the 35th Civil Chamber of Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal’s (“Regional Court of Appeal”) decision, confirming that if annulment reasons pertain solely to the counterclaim, the decision can be split, annulling only the counterclaim while upholding the main claim.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Ismail Esin, Esin Attorney Partnership; Stephan Wilske, Gleiss Lutz |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Turkey; Turkey |
|
| |
|
Turkey |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X v. Y, Court of Cassation of Turkey, 11th Civil Law Chamber, 2024/7745, 05 November 2024 |
|
| |
|
The 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (“Court of Cassation“) upheld the 6th Civil Chamber of Konya Court of Appeal’s (“Regional Court of Appeal“) decision, affirming that the Law No. 805 on the Compulsory Use of Turkish in Economic Enterprises (“Law No. 805“) would not apply to contracts concluded by foreign companies with Turkish companies, and therefore the fact that the arbitration agreement was not executed in Turkish would not constitute a ground for annulment.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Ismail Esin, Esin Attorney Partnership; Stephan Wilske, Gleiss Lutz |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Turkey; Turkey |
|
| |
|
Turkey |
Full text |
|
Full text as PDF |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X v. Y, Court of Cassation of Dubai, Case No. 756 of 2024 [Commercial], 19 November 2024 |
|
| |
|
This case revolves around significant issues considered in an appeal before the Dubai Court of Cassation in respect to an application to set aside a final arbitral award issued under the arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”). In summary, the Dubai Court of Cassation (a) confirmed, unlike previous rulings of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, that the ADGM Courts lack jurisdiction to hear set-aside applications relating to ICC Awards seated in Dubai, regardless of the presence of the ICC Representative Office in Abu Dhabi International Financial Centre (“ADGM”), (b) confirmed, unlike previous rulings of the Dubai Court of Cassation, that Article 38 of the ICC Rules authorises arbitral tribunals to rule on legal costs, including counsel fees, and (c) confirmed that an arbitration clause may extend from a subsidiary company to its parent company, and vice versa.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Malak Nasreddine, Al Tamimi & Company; Khushboo Hashu Shahdadpuri, Al Tamimi & Company |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United Arab Emirates; United Arab Emirates |
|
| |
|
United Arab Emirates |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X v. Y, Court of Cassation of Dubai, Case No. 299 of 2024 [Civil], 31 October 2024 |
|
| |
|
This case involved an application before the Dubai Court of Cassation to challenge the enforcement of an arbitral award issued under the arbitration rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”). The Appellant contended that the Execution Judge erred in granting exequatur for the arbitral award, arguing (amongst other things) that the arbitral award violated public policy and the Appellant’s right to a fair defence. The Dubai Court of Cassation rejected these claims, upholding the final award’s validity and confirming that the procedures followed were in accordance with United Arabic Emirates (“UAE”) law and the New York Convention. In its judgment, the Court confirmed that the conditions of reciprocity and the lack of jurisdiction of the enforcing state’s courts are not applicable in this context, since the UAE has not made a reservation on reciprocity. The Court further confirmed that the non-jurisdiction of the UAE courts is a more onerous condition that is not required when ratifying domestic arbitral awards.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Malak Nasreddine, Al Tamimi & Company; Khushboo Hashu Shahdadpuri, Al Tamimi & Company |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: United Arab Emirates; United Arab Emirates |
|
| |
|
United Arab Emirates |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decision No.11 of 01.07.2024 on constitutional case No.11/2024 of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court |
|
| |
|
The Bulgarian Constitutional Court issued its Decision No.11 of 01.07.2024 on constitutional case No.11/2024, by which it declared as unconstitutional the provisions of the Bulgarian Civil Procedure Code and of the Bulgarian Law on Mediation for compulsory mediation in pending court cases. As a result, these provisions will no longer be applicable, and the parties will not be obliged to participate in mediation during the pendency of court cases. The decision of the Constitutional Court does not affect the legal regime of voluntary mediation, and parties are free to resort to it at any time.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Assen Alexiev, Independent Arbitrator and Domain Name Panelist |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Bulgaria |
|
| |
|
Bulgaria |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EODID Arbitration and Mediation Rules 2023 |
|
| |
|
EODID, the Athens-based Organization for Arbitration and Mediation, which is incorporated as a private entity under Greek Law, on the initiative of Nomiki Bibliothiki Publishing Group officially published the English version of the EODID Rules in 2019, which were amended in 2023.
Said set of Rules is the outcome of meticulous work performed by prominent academics, judges and lawyers specializing in arbitration in Greece and abroad.
The main aim of the drafters was to align the Rules with the best practices of the most successful international arbitration institutions worldwide, as well as to provide interested parties with appropriate flexible guidelines to resolve their disputes through ADR mechanisms. Prior to their publication, the Rules have been thoroughly reviewed by a number of legal counsels and businesspeople, so as to ensure that they correspond to the real needs of the international legal and commercial community.
The EODID Rules offer realistic and affordable dispute resolution schemes, while making sure that proceedings are administered in a transparent and reliable manner.
Moreover, what makes them even more appealing to clients is that they are business-oriented, they offer privacy and guarantee confidentiality, since they provide for an institutional framework focused on resolving disputes on good terms and preserving working relations. Indicatively, by virtue of the Rules, all those involved in the arbitral proceedings under any capacity are, in principle, bound by confidentiality requirements; this duty remains even after the conclusion of the proceedings.
It is expected that more businesses will begin to incorporate in their contracts clauses providing for dispute resolution under the EODID Rules, especially following their translation to English, which bolsters the institution’s international outlook.
|
|
| |
|
Author(s): Angeliki Giannakli, Ioannis Vassardanis & Partners; Ioannis Vassardanis, Ioannis Vassardanis & Partners |
|
| |
|
Source: A contribution by the ITA Board of Reporters
Date: 17 Apr 2025 |
|
| |
|
Reporter for: Greece; Greece |
|
| |
|
Greece |
|
|
Full text |
|
| |
|
