Questions and Answers
This is an authoritative way to resolve a dispute. As in a state court, parties use arbitration to obtain an award (a judgment) that determines their rights and obligations.
Ad hoc (intended to hear a given case), before a permanent arbitration court (institutional) or administered (when the arbitration institution uses its resources to conduct ad hoc arbitration.
Unlike in arbitration, in mediation, the parties want to reach a compromise. They do not seek to authoritatively resolve the dispute. The parties conduct talks that may end in a settlement before a mediator. The parties may also enter into an arbitration agreement. However, if they fail to do so, the arbitrators will issue an award.
When we want a quick resolution of the case, we want to have a greater influence on shaping the rules of procedure and we want it to be confidential. It is commonly used in cross-border disputes. There are no obstacles to conducting proceedings in languages other than the native one.
No. The provisions of national law determine what matters may be resolved before an arbitration court (arbitrability). It is worth checking the statutory restrictions in this area.
This is a faster type of dispute resolution, the parties can establish the applicable substantive law and procedural rules, matters are resolved confidentially, and the parties can appoint professionals and experts in a given field as arbitrators. It is also easier to maintain relationships between trading partners who decide to arbitrate.
Yes.
You can ask an arbitrator to resolve the dispute. The relevant provisions of national law should specify the consequences of failure to consent to resolve the dispute.
An arbitration summons (filing a statement of claim—lawsuit) should be submitted to the appropriate arbitration institution. If the arbitration agreement specifies that a given arbitration court has jurisdiction, the proceedings should continue to be brought before it.
It is largely like the one before a state court. Arbitrators issue procedural decisions and awards. However, it is the parties who choose the procedural rules, which can significantly reduce formalism. There is greater flexibility in communication with arbitrators. The atmosphere is less formal (e.g. you don’t have to wear a gown).
It does not have to be only one arbitrator. In practice, disputes are usually resolved by an odd number of arbitrators. However, the more arbitrators there are, the higher their remuneration and the costs of the dispute.
According to the arbitration agreement. This is a simple clause that is either included separately or in the commercial contract (main contract) to which it applies. Legal defects of the main contract do not result in legal defects of the arbitration agreement. The contract may cover disputes that have already arisen or future disputes.
It is not worth directly referring to the provisions of the procedural act in each legal order. Arbitration should be simpler. In ad hoc arbitration, the rules may be set by, for example, the so-called UNCITRAL regulations. Permanent courts of arbitration have their own rules which, with their consent, may be used in institutional arbitration.
It is usually in a written or electronic form. This matter is governed by applicable national laws.
No. In arbitration, the substantive law of the place where the arbitration award is issued is more important than national law. It generally determines whether the judgment issued is domestic or foreign.
Usually, the consequences of such an omission are determined by national law. The rule is that in the absence of such a choice, this right is passed to the arbitrators.
Yes.
It may be cheaper. It takes much less time, so you should consider not only the costs of arbitrators’ remuneration and fees (in institutional arbitration) but also the lower costs of attorneys and lower interest on the claimed claim.
No, arbitration is a supplement to the state courts. Depending on national regulations, state courts exercise control over the decisions of arbitration courts.
It may have the same effect as a state court judgment if the state court recognizes or confirms the enforceability of the arbitration award. If it does not do so, it is up to the losing party whether he voluntarily behaves following its content.
This depends on national law. The state court may interfere with the arbitration proceedings (e.g. when the arbitrators are examining their jurisdiction, when there is a need to provide security for a claim, or when there is a request for the arbitrator’s removal from the case). After issuing the award, the state court decides whether the arbitrators’ award was justifiably challenged (e.g. by a complaint to set aside, a request for amendment, etc.). The state court also decides on the recognition of the arbitrators’ award and whether it declares its enforceability.
