KlauseggerKleinKremslehnerPetschePitkowitzPower Welser Zeiler (Editors)

The Content

The Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2009 is a collection of articles on dome-stic and international arbitration by leading practitioners.

The third edition particularly reflects the history and importance of Viennaas a place of arbitration for disputes relating to Central and EasternEurope as well as the increasing importance of investment arbitration. Aswith the last edition, this volume is supplemented by an annex summari-zing the most recent publications on Austrian arbitration law and an exten-sive index referring not only to the current edition, but also to the prior edi-tions of the Austrian Arbitration Yearbook. All the contributions are likely tobe of relevance to academics, practitioners or persons who may becomeinvolved in arbitration in Austria or in any other place in the world.

The Austrian Arbitration Yearbook is published annually.

The Editors

Christian Klausegger, Peter Klein, Florian Kremslehner, Alexander Petsche,Nikolaus Pitkowitz, Jenny Power, Irene Welser, Gerold Zeiler

The Authors

Amelie Abt, Gordon Blanke, Stavros Brekoulakis, Nael G. Bunni, Delyan Dimitrov,Thomas Eilmansberger, Todd J. Fox, Richard M. Franklin, Florian Haugeneder,Werner Jahnel, Reto M. Jenny, Christian Klausegger, Christina Knahr, MichaelKramer, Christoph Liebscher, Mark Mangan, Alexandr Mares, Michael Molitoris,Klaus Oblin, Veit Öhlberger, Gunnar Pickl, Marek Procházka, Jörg Risse, NoahRubins, Markus Schifferl, Laurence Shore, Alfred Siwy, Christoph Stippl, Anna-Maria Tamminen, Guido E. Urbach, Eva M. Vázquez Pozón, Irene Welser, MichaelWietzorek, Stephan Wilske

Austrian Arbitration Yearbook

2009

Austrian ArbitrationYearbook 2009

ISBN 978-3-214-00767-6

www.manz.at

C.H.BECK . STÄMPFLI

ISBN 978-3-406-58961-4 ISBN 978-3-7272-2752-3

C.H.BECK STÄMPFLI

Klausegger Klein

Kremslehner PetschePitkowitz

Power WelserZeiler

(Editors)

Klausegger-Austrian Yearbook 09_40 27.01.2009 15:01 Uhr Seite 1

Austrian ArbitrationYearbook 2009

The Editors

Christian Klausegger, Peter Klein, Florian Kremslehner,Alexander Petsche, Nikolaus Pitkowitz, Jenny Power,

Irene Welser, Gerold Zeiler

The Authors

Amelie Abt, Gordon Blanke, Stavros Brekoulakis, Nael G. Bunni,Delyan Dimitrov, Thomas Eilmansberger, Todd J. Fox, Richard M. Franklin,

Florian Haugeneder, Werner Jahnel, Reto M. Jenny, Christian Klausegger,Christina Knahr, Michael Kramer, Christoph Liebscher, Mark Mangan,

Alexandr Mareš, Michael Molitoris, Klaus Oblin, Veit Öhlberger, Gunnar Pickl,Marek Procházka, Jörg Risse, Noah Rubins, Markus Schifferl, Laurence Shore,

Alfred Siwy, Christoph Stippl, Anna-Maria Tamminen, Guido E. Urbach,Eva M. Vázquez Pozón, Irene Welser, Michael Wietzorek, Stephan Wilske

Wien 2009

Manzsche Verlags- und UniversitätsbuchhandlungVerlag C.H. Beck, München

Stämpfli Verlag, Bern

To be cited as:Author [first and last name], Title of Work, in AUSTRIAN ARBITRATION YEAR-

BOOK 2009 [first page on which work appears, pincite] (Klausegger, Klein,Kremslehner, Petsche, Pitkowitz, Power, Welser & Zeiler eds., 2009)

Printed in Austria

Disclaimer

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,

without prior written permission of the publisher. Permission to use this content must beobtained from the copyright owner. Please apply to: Manz’sche Verlags- und

Universitätsbuchhandlung, Kohlmarkt 16, 1010 Vienna, Austria.

While all reasonable care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this publication,the publisher cannot accept responsibility for any errors or omissions. The views expressed

by the authors are entirely their own, unless otherwise specified, and do not reflectthe opinions of the publisher, editors or their respective law firms.

ISBN 978-3-214-00767-6 (Manz)ISBN 978-3-406-58961-4 (Beck)

ISBN 978-3-7272-2752-3 (Stämpfli)

© 2009 Manz’sche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung GmbH, ViennaTelephone: +43 1 531 61-0E-Mail: verlag@MANZ.at

World Wide Web: www.MANZ.atData Conversion and Type Setting: Zehetner Ges. m. b. H., 2105 Oberrohrbach

Printed by: Novographic, 1230 Vienna

Introduction

After a successful launch in 2007, and a well-received second edition in 2008,we are pleased to present the third edition of the Austrian Arbitration Yearbook.The current edition will coincide with the second Vienna Arbitration Days takingplace in Vienna in February 2009.

In line with our objectives in previous years, we have continued our efforts toprovide practitioners with an international source of relevant and up to date in-formation, as well as provide a catalyst for further discussions of international ar-bitral trends.

We are particularly fortunate to have contributions from distinguished prac-titioners and academics from all over the world. Some of the articles compiled inthis volume are based on presentations at the Vienna Arbitration Days 2008.These reflect not only the speakers’ experiences and thoughts on a variety ofhighly relevant topics in international arbitration, but also the discussions held atlast year’s conference.

While the first edition of the Austrian Arbitration Yearbook was focused onthe Austrian Arbitration Act introduced in 2006, the scope of the second editionwas far broader and included articles dealing with arbitration in the Russian Fed-eration and Turkey and arbitration in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Thethird edition particularly reflects the history and importance of Vienna as a placeof arbitration for disputes relating to Central and Eastern Europe as well as the in-creasing importance of investment arbitration.

As with the last edition, this volume is supplemented by two tools to assistreaders: first, an annex summarizing the most recent publications on Austrian ar-bitration law; and second, an extensive index referring not only to the current edi-tion, but also to the prior editions of the Austrian Arbitration Yearbook.

Vienna, January 2009 The Editors

Overview

Chapter I The Arbitration Agreement and Arbitrability

Gordon BlankeEC Competition Law Claims in International Arbitration

Richard M. FranklinSpecial Considerations in Drafting an Arbitration Clause and Conductingan Arbitration with a U. S. Counterparty

Veit ÖhlbergerChina-Related Contracts: What to Consider When Agreeingon CIETAC Arbitration

Chapter II The Arbitrator and the Arbitration Procedure

Michael Kramer/Guido E. Urbach/Reto M. JennyEqual Treatment in Multi-Party Arbitration and the Specific Issueof the Appointment of Arbitrators

Laurence Shore/Delyan DimitrovThe Public Interest in Private Dispute Resolution

Michael Molitoris/Amelie AbtOral Hearings and the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration

Klaus OblinHearsay and International Arbitration

Christoph Stippl/Gunnar PicklLimiting Costs in Arbitration

Stavros BrekoulakisThe Negative Effect of Compétence-Compétence: The Verdict has to be Negative

Irene Welser/Christian KlauseggerFast Track Arbitration: Just fast or something different?

Anna-Maria TamminenThe Obligation to Pay the Advance on Costs under the Vienna Rulesand Austrian Law

Mark ManganSports Arbitration: Citius Altius Fortius?

Alexandr Mareš“.EU Arbitration”: Solving .eu domain names disputes in Prague

Marek ProcházkaReview of an Arbitral Award by Other Arbitrators –Appeal to an Appellate Arbitral Tribunal under Czech and Slovak Law

Michael WietzorekArbitration in Serbia

Stephan Wilske/Todd J. FoxThe Global Competition for the “Best” Place for International Arbitration –Myth, Prejudice, and Reality Bits

Chapter III The Award and the Courts

Markus SchifferlRecent Decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court on Arbitration

Werner Jahnel/Eva Vázquez PozónSpecific Issues Regarding the Recognition and Enforcementof Foreign Arbitral Awards in Spain: Can arbitrators still use registered letterswith acknowledgment of receipt?

Chapter IV Alternative Dispute Resolution

Jörg RisseProcedural Risk Analysis: An ADR-Tool in Arbitration Proceedings

Nael G. BunniCase Study: Splitting the Cake by Submitting Partial Issuesto Expert Determination/Conciliation

Chapter V Investment Arbitration

Noah RubinsOpening the Investment Arbitration Process: At What Cost, for What Benefit?

Christina KnahrFair and Equitable Treatment and its Relationshipwith other Treatment Standards

Thomas EilmansbergerBilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law

Florian Haugeneder/Christoph LiebscherCorruption and Investment Arbitration: Substantive Standards and Proof

Annex

Alfred SiwyRecent Publications on Austrian Arbitration

Index 2007–2009

VI Overview

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIOverview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VThe Editors and Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI

Chapter I The Arbitration Agreement and Arbitrability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Gordon BlankeEC Competition Law Claims in International Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3A. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3B. Articles 81 and 82 EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1. Article 3 (1)(g) of the EC Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52. Article 81 of the EC Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

a) General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6b) The Impact of Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Article 82 of the EC Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84. Behavioral and Structural Remedies under Articles 81 and 82 EC . . . . . . . . . . 8

a) Structural v. Behavioral Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8b) Article 9 of the Modernization Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9c) The Relevance of International Arbitration in the Remedy Context . . . . . 10

5. Relevant Constitutional Principles of the Community Legal Order . . . . . . . . . 11a) The Principle of Direct Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11b) The Doctrine of Supremacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12c) The Duty of Loyal Co-operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13d) The Commission’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction as “Guardian

of the Treaties” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13C. The Dispute Resolution Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Arbitration over Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142. Mediation over Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

a) General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16b) The Impact of the EU Mediation Directive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3. Other ADR Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18II. Arbitrating EC Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

A. Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19B. Arbitrability of EC Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1. Arbitrability in the US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222. Arbitrability in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

a) Articles 81 and 82 EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23b) Arbitrability of Article 81 (3) EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28c) Arbitrability of Article 9 under Regulation 1/2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

C. The Arbitrator’s Ex Officio Duty to Raise EC Competition Law ofHis Own Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371. The Arbitrator’s Ex Officio Duty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

a) The Arbitrator’s Duty to Render an Enforceable Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37b) Competition Law as “Public Policy” under the New York Convention . . . 39c) The Arbitrator’s Implicit Duty to Raise and Decide Antitrust Issues

of His Own Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42d) The Commission as “Guardian of the Treaties” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46e) The Will of the Parties v. the Parties’ Obligations under EC Law . . . . . . . . 47f) Conclusion: The Arbitrator’s Implicit Duty to Raise and Decide

Competition Law Issues of His Own Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502. Experience from Actual Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

a) Actual Practice of Arbitration Tribunals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51b) Actual Practice of Member State Supervisory Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3. The Arbitrator’s Liability in Case of Non-Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55a) The Arbitrator’s Potential Complicity in the Prohibited Infringement . . . 55b) Potential Ways for the Arbitrator to Minimise the Risk of Complicity . . . 55

D. The Status of Previous Commission Decisions or Decisions of NationalCompetition Authorities and Parallel Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571. Status of Commission Decisions in “Follow-on” Arbitrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582. Status of Commission Decisions in Subsequent Enforcement/Setting

Aside Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593. Status of Commission Decisions in Parallel Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

E. The Arbitrator’s Co-operation with the Competition Authoritiesand the Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621. Preliminary References under Article 234 EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622. Co-operation with the European Commission and National Competition

Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64a) Potential Request by the Arbitrator to the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64b) The Commission as Amicus Arbitri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65c) Co-operation under Article 9 Commitment Decisions and

Article 81 (3) EC Individual Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65F. The Arbitrator’s Mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

1. The Determination of the Applicable Antitrust Law(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662. Declarations of Nullity and Voidness of the Main Contract and Findings

of Behavioral Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67a) Article 81 EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67b) Article 82 EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68c) Article 9 Commitment Decisions and Article 81 (3) EC Individual

Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683. The Arbitrator’s Powers to Award Civil Law Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

a) Compensatory Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69b) Extra-compensatory Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71c) Injunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4. Other Procedural Issues: Fact-Finding and Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73a) Fact-Finding by the Arbitrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73b) Allocation of the Burden of Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74c) The Provision/Production of Requisite Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

G. Review of EC Competition Law Awards by the Member State Courts . . . . . . . . . 751. The “Second Look” in the US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752. The “Second Look” in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

a) Variations of the “Second Look” Across Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77b) The “Minimalist” and “Maximalist” Schools of Thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78c) The Arbitrator’s Ex Officio Duty in Light of the Second Look . . . . . . . . . . 85

VIII Table of Contents

d) The Principle of Procedural Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87e) Public Policy Review under the Brussels Regulation and the

New York Convention Contrasted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883. Consequences of Non-Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

III. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Richard M. FranklinSpecial Considerations in Drafting an Arbitration Clause and Conducting anArbitration with a U. S. Counterparty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93II. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

A. Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941. Exclusivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942. Tort and Statutory Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

B. Arbitrator Selection, Rules, Venue and Governing Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961. Arbitrator Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972. Applicable Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973. Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974. Governing Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

C. Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 981. The European Party may Benefit from the Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982. The U.S. Party is Likely to Comply with Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 993. The U.S. Party and its Attorneys will be Skilled and Adept

in Requesting and Responding to Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994. The U.S. Party may Make Expansive Discovery Requests,

Particularly for Electronic Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005. Discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

D. Expert Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021. What are the U.S. Practices? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022. What can the European Party do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

E. The Arbitration Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1041. Witness Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042. Witness Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053. Cross-examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1054. Evidentiary Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

F. Exorbitant Damages Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107G. Settlement/Costs and Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108H Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

III. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Veit ÖhlbergerChina-Related Contracts: What to Consider When Agreeingon CIETAC Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113II. Why arbitration in China and why CIETAC? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

III. What to Consider When Drafting a CIETAC Arbitration Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117A. Place of Arbitration and Place of Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117B. The Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118C. Form Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119D. Content Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table of Contents IX

1. Intention to Arbitrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1202. Matters Subject to Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1203. Arbitration Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

E. Arbitration Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122F. Arbitrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123G. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126H. Amicable Settlements and Conciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127I. Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129J. Record of Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131K. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132L. Multi-Party Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132M. Fast Track Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

IV. Model Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134V. Other Distinctive Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

A. Who Decides on the Validity of an Arbitration Agreement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136B. Additional Remarks on CIETAC Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137C. Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138D. Interim Measures of Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139E. Setting Aside of an Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140F. Enforcement of an Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

VI. Final Remarks & Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Chapter II The Arbitrator and the Arbitration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Michael Kramer/Guido E. Urbach/Reto M. JennyEqual Treatment in Multi-Party Arbitration and the Specific Issueof the Appointment of Arbitrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149II. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

A. Multi-Party Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150B. The Principle of Equal Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

III. Overview of Possible Issues of Equal Treatment in Multi-Party Arbitration . . . . . . 152IV. Appointment of Arbitrators in Multi-Party Arbitration According to ICC Rules,

Swiss Rules, UNCITRAL Rules and Vienna Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154A. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154B. Article 10 ICC Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157C. Article 8 (3)–(5) Swiss Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158D. (New) Article 7 UNCITRAL Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159E. Article 15 (6)–(7) Vienna Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Laurence Shore/Delyan DimitrovThe Public Interest in Private Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163II. The Evolution of International Commercial Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

III. The Confidentiality of International Commercial Arbitral Panels(Re)-Examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164A. The Assumption of Confidentiality in Commercial Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . 165B. The English Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

X Table of Contents

C. The Australian Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167D. The Uncertainty Continues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168E. Arbitration Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

IV. The Wave of Transparency in the World of Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170V. The Irrelevance of Confidentiality: Reality or Myth? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Michael Molitoris/Amelie AbtOral Hearings and the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . 175

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175II. Civil Law vs. Common Law: Some Procedural Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

III. Procedural Straitjackets and Freedom of the Arbitral Tribunal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178IV. The Oral Hearing in Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

A. Is an oral hearing compulsory? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179B. Conduct of the Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181C. Transcripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

V. Principles of Evidence before Arbitral Tribunals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181A. National Arbitration Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

1. Ordering and Conducting the Taking of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1822. Assistance in Obtaining Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

B. International Rules of Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183C. IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

VI. Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185A. Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

1. Pre-Trial Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1852. Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1883. Introduction of Documents into the Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

B. Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1891. A Party as Witness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1892. Written and oral Witness Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1893. Preparation of Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1904. Witness Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1925. Questioning of Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1936. Payment of Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1947. Enforcement Power of the Arbitral Tribunal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

C. Experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1951. The Right of Nomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1962. The Value of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1963. Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1974. Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1975. Rejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1986. Remuneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

D. Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198VII. International Arbitration Law Lowest Common Nominator or best practice? . . . 199

Klaus OblinHearsay and International Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

I. Hearsay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201A. History and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

1. U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Table of Contents XI

2. U.K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203B. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

1. Hearsay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2042. Declarant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2043. Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

II. Rules and Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205A. International Model Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

1. ICC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2052. UNCITRAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2063. IBA on the Taking of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

B. National Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2081. Austria and Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2082. U.S.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2083. U.K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

III. Freedom of Discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Christoph Stippl/Gunnar PicklLimiting Costs in Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213II. Ways to Limit Costs in Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

A. The Drafting Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2131. Choosing the Proper Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

a) Arbitration versus Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213b) Ad Hoc-Arbitration versus Institutional Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216c) Choosing an Arbitral Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

2. Useful Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218a) Standard Arbitration Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218b) Number of Arbitrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218c) Other Arbitrator-Related Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219d) Multi-Party Arbitrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219e) Provisions on Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

aa) Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220bb) Evidentiary Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220cc) Provisions on Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221dd) Time Limits For Making the Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222ee) Default Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223ff) Waiver of Appeals and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

3. Fast Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2264. Escalating Dispute Resolution Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

B. The Pre-Arbitration Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229C. The Arbitration Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

1. Early Presentation of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2302. Streamlining the Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

a) General Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231b) Early Case Management Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231c) Early Determination of Key Procedural Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231d) Evidentiary Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

3. Pushing Settlement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234III. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

XII Table of Contents

Stavros BrekoulakisThe Negative Effect of Compétence-Compétence: The Verdict has to be Negative . . . 237

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237II. Notion and development of the negative effect of compétence-compétence . . . . . 239

A. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240B. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242C. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245D. Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246E. United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246F. Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

III. The negative effect of the compétence-compétence principle should be rejected . . 250A. Theoretical limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251B. Practical limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253C. Policy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Irene Welser/Christian KlauseggerFast Track Arbitration: Just fast or something different? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259A. “What’s it all about?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259B. Disadvantages of “Ordinary” Arbitral Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260C. Elements of Fast Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260D. Some Exemplary Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

II. Fast Track Arbitration and the Fundamental Principles of Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . 263A. Party Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

1. Choice of Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2632. Determination of Applicable Law/Setting of Rules for the Arbitration . . . . 2643. The Finding of Facts/Admissibility of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

B. Equal Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2671. Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2672. Fairness of Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

C. Arbitrator’s Neutrality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269D. Enforceability of Arbitral Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

1. Inability to Present the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2702. Award Contrary to Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

III. Guidelines for Practitioners – The User’s Point of View: Pros and Cons . . . . . . . . . 272A. Advantages of Fast Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272B. Disadvantages of Fast Track Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

IV. What is Necessary to Make Fast Track Proceedings a Success? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

Anna-Maria TamminenThe Obligation to Pay the Advance on Costs under the Vienna Rulesand Austrian Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281II. Obligation to Pay the Advance on Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

A. Legal Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282B. Obligation to Arbitrate in Good Faith: an Equal Obligation of the Parties . . . . 285

III. Failure to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

Table of Contents XIII

A. Claimant’s Failure to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289B. Respondent’s Failure to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290C. Procedural and Contractual Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

IV. Compelling the Defaulting Party to Pay its Share of the Advance on Costs . . . . . . 292A. Specific Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292B. In the Absence of Specific Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

1. Enforceability of the Obligation and Appropriate Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2932. Form of Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2953. The Case For an Award Issued by the Arbitral Tribunal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

a) Potential Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298b) Form of Payment Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298c) Relation to Final Cost Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

V. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Mark ManganSports Arbitration: Citius Altius Fortius? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301II. Fortius: Stronger Structure and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

A. The Reform of CAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302B. The CAS Code: Movement towards Procedural Uniformity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

1. The Fixing of a Common Seat for all CAS Arbitrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3042. The Standardisation of the Laws Applicable to Sporting Disputes . . . . . . . . 3043. Other Distinguishing Features of the CAS Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

C. Development of CAS Jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308D. The Support of Supranational Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

III. Altius: An Appellate Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309IV. Citius: Fast Decision Making and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

A. Argumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312B. Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312C. Interpretation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

V. Hurdles to be Cleared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314A. De novo Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314B. Application of Different Laws Depending on which Division is Seized

and which Sports Body has Taken Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315C. What to do about Multiple or wholly Unmeritorious Appeals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316D. Reforms to the Structure of the CAS Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318E. Open Proceedings for Disciplinary Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Alexandr Mareš“.EU Arbitration”: Solving .eu domain names disputes in Prague . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319II. .eu domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

III. “.eu arbitration” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321A. The Czech Arbitration Court as the .eu ADR provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324B. Innovative features of the .eu ADR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

IV. .eu ADR proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326A. Grounds for filing .eu ADR complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

1. Recognized or established rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3272. Identity or confusing similarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3283. Lack of legitimate interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329

XIV Table of Contents

4. Bad faith registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330B. .eu ADR complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330C. .eu ADR response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332D. Decision-making in .eu ADR proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

V. Case study: “PRAGUE.EU” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334VI. Latest developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

A. Class Complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337B. Electronic .eu ADR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

VII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

Marek ProcházkaReview of an Arbitral Award by Other Arbitrators –Appeal to an Appellate Arbitral Tribunal under Czech and Slovak Law . . . . . . . . . . . 341

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341II. Arbitration in the Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

III. Arbitration in Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343IV. The Review of an Arbitral Award by other Arbitrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

A. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344B. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3452. Arbitration Clauses or Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3473. Petition of a Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3504. Different Arbitrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3515. Arbitration Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

C. Possibility of a Third Instance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352V. Setting Aside Arbitral Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

VI. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

Michael WietzorekArbitration in Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357II. Arbitration in “Eastern Europe”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

III. The Serbian Arbitration Act 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364IV. The Rules of the Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration at the Serbian Chamber

of Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367V. Serbia as a Venue for International Commercial Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

A. Enforceability of Arbitral Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372B. The Role of the State Courts and the practice of setting aside arbitral awards 373C. Secondary Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376

VI. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378

Stephan Wilske/Todd J. FoxThe Global Competition for the “Best” Place for International Arbitration –Myth, Prejudice, and Reality Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383II. Benefits of Attracting International Arbitration Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

A. Work for Lawyers at Place of Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386B. Hotel and Hospitality Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388C. Building Prestige as Spin-Off to Hosting International Arbitrations . . . . . . . . 389

Table of Contents XV

III. Traditional and Recent Competitors for Places of Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390A. The “Big Four” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390

1. Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390a) Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391b) Non-Legal Factors to Be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393c) Overall Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394

2. France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394a) Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394b) Non-Legal Factors to Be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396c) Overall Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

3. England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396a) Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398

aa) English Arbitration Law Prior to English Arbitration Act of 1996 . 398bb) The English Arbitration Act of 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398

(1) Potential for Many Court Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399(2) Time and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400(3) Predictability of Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401(4) “Wig and Gown Tendencies”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

b) Non-Legal Factors to Be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403c) Overall Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

4. USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403a) Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404b) Non-Legal Factors to Be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406c) Overall Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406

B. The Runners-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4071. Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4072. China/Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4083. Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4104. Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4125. Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413

C. Relative Newcomers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418

Chapter III The Award and the Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

Markus SchifferlRecent Decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court on Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

I. Separability and Writing Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421A. Facts of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421B. Decision of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422C. Additional Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422

II. Enforcement under the New York Convention and the Requirement ofa Special Power of Attorney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423A. Facts of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423B. Decision of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424C. Additional Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

III. Time Limit for the Challenge of an Arbitral Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425A. Facts of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425B. Decision of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426

XVI Table of Contents

C. Additional Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427IV. Liability of the Arbitrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

A. Facts of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427B. Decision of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428C. Additional Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429

V. Ordre Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430A. Facts of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430B. Decision of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431C. Additional Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

Werner Jahnel/Eva Vázquez PozónSpecific Issues Regarding the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign ArbitralAwards in Spain: Can arbitrators still use registered letters with acknowledgmentof receipt? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435II. The Monistic Approach of the Spanish Arbitration Law (Law 60/2003 of

23 December 2003) (Ley de arbitraje, LA) and its scope of application . . . . . . . . . . 436III. Exequatur and enforcement: separated or “one and unique” proceedings? . . . . . . . 437

A. The Foreign Award under the Spanish Arbitration Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437B. Consequences of the qualification as “foreign award”: exequatur in Spain . . . . 437C. Uncertainties with regard to the interrelation of exequatur and

enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438IV. Competent Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

A. The rule of competence for enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards . . . . . 4391. Basic rules of competence: Article 8 LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4392. Coexistence of the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure 2000 and

the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure 1881: waiting for the Law oninternational legal cooperation in civil matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440

3. Competence for the enforcement of domestic awards vs. competencefor enforcement of foreign awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441a) Article 8.4. LA and Article 545.2 Code of Civil Procedure (2000):

enforcement of domestic awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441b) Article 8.4. LA and Article 958 Code of Civil Procedure 1881:

an outdated reference for the enforcement of foreign awards . . . . . . . . . 441c) Article 955 Code of Civil Procedure 1881: the true rule of

competence for the enforcement of foreign awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442d) Decision by the Audiencia Provincial of Oviedo dated

31 March 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443B. The legal rule of competence for exequatur proceedings: Article 8.6 Spanish

Arbitration Law and Article 955 of Code of Civil Procedure 1881 . . . . . . . . . . . 444C. Summary of the competence issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444

V. Specific requirements to be fulfilled for the granting of exequatur andenforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445A. Legal Framework of the exequatur and enforcement proceedings:

Articles 951–958 LEC 1881 and Article 517 et seq. LEC 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445B. Content of the claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446C. Documents to be submitted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

1. The duly authenticated original award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4472. The arbitration agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4483. Translation of the award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

Table of Contents XVII

4. Necessary documents which certify the notification of the awardto the parties or the end of the arbitrators’ ability to use a simpleregistered letter for the purposes of notification? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449a) Introductory Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449b) The required standard of notification of the (domestic) award . . . . . . . 450c) The required standard of notification of an award under the New

York Convention vs. the rule included in Article 550.1 LEC . . . . . . . . . . 451d) Conclusions with regard to the standard of notification . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

VI. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards subject to setting asideproceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454A. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards which have been set

aside in their country of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454B. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards pending annulment

proceedings at the place of arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455VII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457

Chapter IV Alternative Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459

Jörg RisseProcedural Risk Analysis: An ADR-Tool in Arbitration Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461

I. Introduction: The need for improving arbitration proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461II. Procedural Risk Analysis: A three-step approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462

A. Case Study: The Leaking Roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462B. The disturbing result of the case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463C. First Step of the Technique: Organize the Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463D. Second Step of the Technique: Inserting Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464E. Third Step of the Technique: Calculating the Fair Settlement Value . . . . . . . . . 464

III. Applying the Procedural Risk Analysis in Arbitration Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . 465A. Starting Point: How Mediators use this Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465B. An Arbitrator’s Tool for Promoting Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466C. An Arbitrator’s Tool for Active Case Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469D. An Arbitrator’s Tool for Internal Case Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469

IV. Summary: A Useful Tool for Arbitrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470

Nael G. BunniCase Study: Splitting the Cake by Submitting Partial Issues to ExpertDetermination/Conciliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

I. Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471II. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

III. Resolution by Conciliation/Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474IV. Resolution by Expert Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477V. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480

Chapter V Investment Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481

Noah RubinsOpening the Investment Arbitration Process: At What Cost, for What Benefit? . . . . 483

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483

XVIII Table of Contents

II. The Perceived Advantages to Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485A. Closing the Democracy Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485B. Painting the Full Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486C. Harmonization of Jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486

III. The Costs of Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487A. Politicizing Investment Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487B. Increased Time and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489C. De-Harmonization of the Procedural “System” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489

IV. What Cost for Which Stakeholder? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492

Christina KnahrFair and Equitable Treatment and its Relationship with otherTreatment Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493II. The Standard of Fair and Equitable Treatment in Investment Treaties . . . . . . . . . . 494

III. Elements of the Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495A. Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498B. Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500C. Legitimate Expectations of Investors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501D. Stability and Predictability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503E. Non-Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505

IV. Relationship with Other Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506A. FET and Arbitrary and Discriminatory Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507B. FET and Expropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511

V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513

Thomas EilmansbergerBilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515A. The emerging interface between Bilateral Investment Treaties and European

Union Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515B. Aim and structure of this paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516

II. EC law challenges pertaining to the validity of BITs as such . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517A. Third-country BITs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517B. Intra-EU BITs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518

III. EC law challenges regarding the content of BITs: Jurisdictional provisions . . . . . . 520A. Third-country BITs and intra-EU BITs: Inapplicability of jurisdictional

provisions because of discrimination? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520B. Intra-EU BITs: Inapplicability of jurisdictional provisions because of

encroachment upon ECJ competence? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5211. Encroachment upon exclusive ECJ competence and Article 292 ECT? . . . . 5212. Problematic by-passing of the ECJ in EC law matters? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522

IV. EC law challenges regarding the content of BITs: substantial provisions . . . . . . . . . 523A. Preliminary remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523B. Third-country BITs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524C. Intra-EU BITs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526

1. Categories of potentially investment-adverse EC provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5262. Scope and wording of intra-EU BITs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5283. Temporal aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530

Table of Contents XIX

D. Solutions in case of a conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5311. Intra-EU BITs as self-contained regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5312. The EU law angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5323. The International Law Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534

V. Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535

Florian Haugeneder/Christoph LiebscherCorruption and Investment Arbitration: Substantive Standards and Proof . . . . . . . . 539

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539A. International Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539B. Arbitration cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541

1. Main contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5412. Intermediary Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5423. World Duty Free v. Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543

II. Proof of Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544A. Laws and Rules Applicable to the Burden and Standard of Proof . . . . . . . . . . . 545B. The Standard Required to Prove Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547C. Standard of Proof in the Arbitral Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549

1. Weighing of Evidence without Reference to a Specific Standard of Proof . . 5492. Standards applied by Arbitral Tribunals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552

D. The Standard Applicable in Investment Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555III. Corruption as a Basis for Claims and Defenses in Investor-State Arbitration . . . . . 558

A. Attribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558B. Guaranties Which May be Breached Through Corrupt Actions of the State . . 559C. Possible Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561

1. Contractual Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5612. Refusal of the Investor to Pay a Bribe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5633. Retaliation of the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563

IV. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564

Annex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565

Alfred SiwyRecent Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567

Index 2007–2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583

XX Table of Contents

The Editors and Authors

Amelie Abt is a member of the liability, compensationand insurance law work group of Nörr Stiefenhofer Lutz andbelongs to the law firms’ litigation and arbitration practicegroup. She lectures regularly at Generations in Arbitration(GIA) seminars in Vienna and is an arbitrator at the Willem C.Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot in Vienna.Amelie Abt is a member of the DIS40, the Young ArbitrationPractitioners and the GIA Advisory Board.

She holds her degree from the University of Heidelberg.

Contact: Nörr Stiefenhofer LutzBrienner Straße 28, D-80333 Munich, GermanyT: +49 89 286 28372F: +49 89 28 0110E: amelie.abt@noerr.comwww.noerr.com

Gordon Blanke MCIArb is a solicitor specializing in in-ternational arbitration and competition law. He regularly ad-vises clients and acts as Administrative Secretary in interna-tional arbitration proceedings, both institutional and ad hoc.Gordon Blanke is a member of leading arbitration organiza-tions and used to serve on the former ICC Task Force for Arbi-trating Competition Law Issues in Paris. He has publishedwidely on various subjects relating to both EC competitionlaw and international arbitration in leading academic and professional journals.Apart from authoring a book on The Use and Utility of International Arbitration inEC Commission Merger Remedies, published with Europa Law Publishing in July2006, Gordon Blanke has co-authored the ICC Draft Best Practice Note on the Eu-ropean Commission Acting as Amicus Curiae in International Arbitration Proceed-ings as part of his work for the ICC Task Force. Gordon Blanke is currently co-edit-ing The Treatment of US Antitrust and EC Competition Law in InternationalArbitration – A Handbook for Practitioners, which is scheduled for publicationwith Kluwer Law International in early 2009, as well as a loose-leaf on Global Car-tel Litigation, also to be published with Kluwer in 2009. Gordon Blanke is co-edi-tor of the Arbitration and ADR section of Global Competition Litigation Reviewand member of the editorial board of Arbitration. He holds an LL.B from the Lon-don School of Economics and Political Science and a DESS contentieux commun-autaire from the University of Luxembourg, where he is currently a Ph.D. candi-date.

Contact: SJ Berwin LLP10 Queen Street Place, London EC4R 1BE, United KingdomT: +44 (0) 20 7111 2127F: +44 (0) 20 7111 2000E: gordon.blanke@sjberwin.comwww.sjberwin.com

XXII The Editors and Authors

Stavros Brekoulakis is a Lecturer in International Dis-pute Resolution at Queen Mary, University London. He lec-tures on the LLM courses in International Comparative andCommercial Arbitration, International Commercial Con-struction, Written and Oral Advocacy, International Com-mercial Litigation and Conflict of Laws. His academic researchfocuses on multiparty and complex dispute resolution, com-peting jurisdictions, and enforcement of awards and nationaljudgments. His academic work includes books and articles in leading legal jour-nals, while his monograph on “Arbitration and Third Parties” will be published byOUP in 2009.

Having practiced law for several years in Greece, Stavros Brekoulakis cur-rently retains an advisory role on dispute resolution matters. His legal expertisefocuses on arbitration in the context of international business transactions, affect-ing construction projects, shipping and insurance contracts, IP contracts, interna-tional trade, investments, trading agreements with developing countries, EasternEurope and EC law.

Stavros Brekoulakis holds an LLB from Athens University (1st class honors),an LL.M. from King’s College London (merit) and a Ph.D. from Queen Mary, Uni-versity London (all on full scholarship). He is a member of the Athens Bar.

Contact: Queen Mary University of LondonCentre for Commercial Law StudiesSchool of International Arbitration67–69 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3JB,United KingdomT: +44 20 7882 8215F: +44 20 7882 8101E: s.brekoulakis@qmul.ac.ukwww.law.qmul.ac.uk

The Editors and Authors XXIII

Nael G. Bunni, BSc, MSc, Ph.D., CEng, FIEI, FICE,FIStructE, FCIArb, FIAE, RConsEI, is Chartered Engineer,Conciliator/Mediator and Registered Chartered Arbitrator inPrivate Practice. He has been appointed arbitrator in over 120cases of dispute, either as a sole arbitrator or as a member of atribunal or as the chairman of an arbitral tribunal and hasbeen appointed Conciliator or Mediator in many domesticand international disputes. Also, he has been appointed as aDispute Adjudication member or Board or Dispute Expert Adviser on a numberof domestic and international projects.

Nael G. Bunni is Visiting Professor in Construction Law and Contract Ad-ministration at Trinity College Dublin; Fellow of the Irish Academy of Engi-neering; Member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration,ICCA; Member of the Permanent Joint Committee for review of the Irish Condi-tions of Contract for Works of Civil Engineering Construction; member of theCommission on International Arbitration of the ICC, Paris and a member of anumber of its Standing Committees (ADR Forum, the Construction ArbitrationsWorking Group); member of the Board of Trustees of the Dubai International Ar-bitration Centre, and Chairman of its Executive Committee; member of FIDIC’sContracts Committee.

Nael G. Bunni is Chairman of the Dispute Resolution Panel of the Institu-tion of Engineers of Ireland, Dublin. He was a chairman of FIDIC’s StandingCommittee on Professional liability; FIDIC’s Task Committee on ConstructionInsurance & Law, and its follow-up committee and also past chairman of The IrishBranch of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators; The Arbitration Committee ofthe Chartered Institute of Arbitrators; The International Committee of the Char-tered Institute of Arbitrators; The Conciliation Committee of the Institution ofEngineers of Ireland and past president of The Association of Consulting Engi-neers of Ireland; and past president of The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Lon-don.

Between 1994 and December 2007, Dr. Bunni was a member of the Board ofDirectors of the London Court of International Arbitration.

Dr. Bunni is author of three books and over 150 papers and articles on topicsin the fields of Civil and Structural Engineering, Construction Contracts, Con-struction Insurance, Professional Liability and Dispute Resolution.

Contact: Nael G. Bunni42, Thormanby Road, Howth, County Dublin, IrelandT: + 353 1 8391141F: + 353 1 8391167E: bunni@eircom.net

XXIV The Editors and Authors

Delyan Dimitrov is an associate in the New York office ofGibson, Dunn & Crutcher. He currently practices in the firm’sLitigation Department.

Delyan Dimitrov earned his law degree from ColumbiaUniversity School of Law in 2008, where he was a Harlan FiskeStone Scholar and served as the Editor-in-Chief for the Co-lumbia Journal of East European Law. Delyan Dimitrov is a re-cipient of a Parker School Certificate in Foreign and Compar-ative Law. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science fromShippensburg University in 2005, graduating summa cum laude. Delyan Dimitrovis not yet admitted to practice law in the state of New York.

Contact: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP200 Park Avenue | New York, NY 10166, U.S.A.T: 212-351-2370F: 212-351-6272E: ddimitrov@gibsondunn.comwww.gibsondunn.com

The Editors and Authors XXV

Thomas Eilmansberger is head of the Department forLabor, Economic and European Law at the University ofSalzburg. He graduated from the University of Salzburg in1985 and obtained a M.A.E.S. degree from the College of Eu-rope (Bruges) in 1989. Since 2000 Thomas Eilmansberger isOrdinarius (full professor) for European Law at the Universityof Salzburg. He was a Fulbright Scholar visiting professor atSouthwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles, Califor-nia. He also served as resident counsel for the international law firm BruckhausWestrick Heller Löber (now Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) in Brussels.

Thomas Eilmansberger was a Member of the Austrian Federal ProcurementReview Commission, as well as a member of the group of experts advising theGerman government on the reform of the GWB (German competition law). Healso advised the Hungarian Energy Office regarding the application of EC compe-tition and regulatory law to long-term power purchasing agreements. He has rep-resented the European Commission in proceedings before the Court of Justice ona regular basis. Recently, Thomas Eilmansberger acted as special advisor to Com-missioner Reding regarding the review of the regulatory framework for electroniccommunications. He is the author of several books and numerous articles on Eu-ropean economic law.

Contact: University of SalzburgDepartment for Labor, Economic and European LawMönchsberg 2, A-5020 Salzburg, AustriaT: +43 662 8044-7608F: +43 662 6389-3508E: thomas.eilmansberger@sbg.ac.atwww.uni-salzburg.at

XXVI The Editors and Authors

Todd J. Fox is an associate in the Stuttgart office of GleissLutz. He specializes in international arbitration, cross-bordertransactions and litigation, and commercial contracts.

Todd J. Fox obtained a B.A. cum laude from AndrewsUniversity, a Diplôme Supérieur d’Études Françaises from theUniversity of Strasbourg, a J.D. from Rutgers UniversitySchool of Law, where he was also a member of the Rutgers LawJournal, and an LL.M. summa cum laude from the Universityof Freiburg. He is a member of the New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania Bars.

Contact: Gleiss LutzMaybachstraße 6, D-70469 Stuttgart, GermanyT: +49 711 89 97-213F: +49 711 85 50 96E: todd.fox@gleisslutz.comwww.gleisslutz.com

The Editors and Authors XXVII

Richard M. Franklin is the Chair of Baker and McKen-zie’s Chicago Office Litigation Practice Group. He has morethan thirty years experience representing clients in businessand commercial disputes in many areas including contract/Uniform Commercial Code, corporate (including class actionand derivative suits), banking/finance, securities, antitrust/competition, product liability, and creditor’s rights.

His practice is national and international in scope andfocuses on the U.S. federal courts and on international arbitration tribunals. Mr.Franklin speaks German fluently, and a great deal of his practice involves the rep-resentation of German, Swiss and Austrian clients in U.S. litigation or arbitration.

Mr. Franklin is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin (B.A. with Distinc-tion, 1970) and the Columbia University School of Law (J.D., 1973), where he wasan editor of the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. He also attended the Uni-versity of Freiburg (1968–1969).

Contact: Baker & McKenzie LLPOne Prudential Plaza, 130 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, U.S.A.T: +1 312 861 8860F: +1 312 861 2899E: richard.m.franklin@bakernet.comwww.bakernet.com

XXVIII The Editors and Authors

Florian Haugeneder is attorney and member of the arbi-tration team at Wolf Theiss Rechtsanwälte GmbH where hismain practice areas are international and commercial arbitra-tion. He has worked under the major international arbitrationrules, including the ICC, ICSID, UNCITRAL and the ViennaRules and in a wide range of disputes relating to bilateral in-vestment treaties, international joint venture agreements, tele-communication, construction, operation of industrial plants,technology development and supply contracts.

Florian Haugeneder is a founding member and chairman of the Young Aus-trian Arbitration Practitioners (YAAP). He has organized and chaired numerousYAAP conferences and events. He fluently speaks German, English and Frenchand regularly speaks and publishes on international arbitration.

Florian Haugeneder received his legal education at the Universities of Vi-enna and Franche-Comté (Mag. iur. 1999) and at King’s College, London (LL.M.2005).

Contact: Wolf Theiss Rechtsanwälte GmbHSchubertring 6, A-1010 Vienna, AustriaT: +43 1 51510-5460F: +43 1 51510-2546E: florian.haugeneder@wolftheiss.comwww.wolftheiss.com

The Editors and Authors XXIX

KlauseggerKleinKremslehnerPetschePitkowitzPower Welser Zeiler (Editors)

The Content

The Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2009 is a collection of articles on dome-stic and international arbitration by leading practitioners.

The third edition particularly reflects the history and importance of Viennaas a place of arbitration for disputes relating to Central and EasternEurope as well as the increasing importance of investment arbitration. Aswith the last edition, this volume is supplemented by an annex summari-zing the most recent publications on Austrian arbitration law and an exten-sive index referring not only to the current edition, but also to the prior edi-tions of the Austrian Arbitration Yearbook. All the contributions are likely tobe of relevance to academics, practitioners or persons who may becomeinvolved in arbitration in Austria or in any other place in the world.

The Austrian Arbitration Yearbook is published annually.

The Editors

Christian Klausegger, Peter Klein, Florian Kremslehner, Alexander Petsche,Nikolaus Pitkowitz, Jenny Power, Irene Welser, Gerold Zeiler

The Authors

Amelie Abt, Gordon Blanke, Stavros Brekoulakis, Nael G. Bunni, Delyan Dimitrov,Thomas Eilmansberger, Todd J. Fox, Richard M. Franklin, Florian Haugeneder,Werner Jahnel, Reto M. Jenny, Christian Klausegger, Christina Knahr, MichaelKramer, Christoph Liebscher, Mark Mangan, Alexandr Mares, Michael Molitoris,Klaus Oblin, Veit Öhlberger, Gunnar Pickl, Marek Procházka, Jörg Risse, NoahRubins, Markus Schifferl, Laurence Shore, Alfred Siwy, Christoph Stippl, Anna-Maria Tamminen, Guido E. Urbach, Eva M. Vázquez Pozón, Irene Welser, MichaelWietzorek, Stephan Wilske

Austrian Arbitration Yearbook

2009

Austrian ArbitrationYearbook 2009

ISBN 978-3-214-00767-6

www.manz.at

C.H.BECK . STÄMPFLI

ISBN 978-3-406-58961-4 ISBN 978-3-7272-2752-3

C.H.BECK STÄMPFLI

Klausegger Klein

Kremslehner PetschePitkowitz

Power WelserZeiler

(Editors)

Klausegger-Austrian Yearbook 09_40 27.01.2009 15:01 Uhr Seite 1