Is emergency arbitrator relief available in your country? Is this actively used?
Neither the Austrian arbitration law nor the VIAC’s Vienna Rules provide for access to an emergency arbitrator.
Art 45 Vienna Rules stipulate rules for an expedited procedure. Their application is subject to the parties’ consent either in the arbitration agreement or by subsequent agreement. The rules on the expedited procedure reduce the time limits of the arbitration (15 days for the payment of the advance on costs; nomination of arbitrator within 15 days; final award rendered after six months after transmission of the file etc) and provide for a streamlined arbitral process (eg only one full submission for each party and no post-hearing briefs). The practical application of the provisions on the expedited procedure is rather limited.
French law does not address emergency arbitrators. Where institutional rules provide for the possibility to appoint an emergency arbitrator, those provisions are upheld in France as a matter of contract (Paris Court of Appeal, 29 April 2003, 2003 Rev Arb 1296). For example, the ICC Rules recognise the possibility to appoint an emergency arbitrator. According to the relevant articles in relation thereto, a party can seek urgent interim or conservatory measures prior to the transmission of the file to the arbitral tribunal (see Article 29 and Appendix V of the ICC Rules).
The emergency arbitrator was adopted in 2014 by the Commercial Arbitration Centre Regulation. There are no news of its effective use since then.
A procedure similar to the emergency arbitrator relief under the ICC rules is not provided for in the arbitration law of Romania.
Since 2010, the SCC Rules offers rules on emergency arbitration, which can be used to obtain a decision on interim measures before the tribunal is constituted.
The SCC has received approximately two applications a year for an emergency arbitrator. However, during 2016, the SCC has seen an increasing number of applications with nine applications filed already.
It is available, but not widely used. This is largely because: (a) New Zealand-seated arbitrations are typically ad hoc, so are not conducted pursuant to rules providing for the appointment of emergency arbitrators; and (b) New Zealand courts have provided fast, effective, interim relief, if necessary on an ex parte basis (see, for example, Discovery Geo Corporation v STP Energy Pte Limited  2 NZLR 122). The Arbitration Amendment Bill will expressly widen the definition of “arbitral tribunal” to include an emergency arbitrator.
The possibility of emergency arbitrator relief is not stipulated in the PILA or the CPC. However, a state court can at all times (i.e. even before constitution of an arbitral tribunal) be seized to obtain interim relief.
The revised Swiss Rules in effect as from 1 July 2012 introduced the possibility to apply for emergency arbitrator relief. Pursuant to art. 43 Swiss Rules a party requiring urgent interim measures before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal may submit an application for emergency relief to the secretariat of the arbitration court. Based on the statistics of the Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution, emergency arbitrator relief is not very actively used with only 3% of all cases submitted in the year 2015 representing emergency relief procedures.
Emergency arbitrator relief does not currently form part of any of the rules of the UAE’s arbitral jurisdictions.
Yes, emergency arbitrator relief is available under the KLRCA Arbitration Rules, as explained in question 21.
However, the underlying legal principles of emergency relief, e.g. the enforceability of emergency arbitrator decisions, remain untested in Malaysia.
Yes. AAA and other organizations have created procedures for emergency relief, and parties regularly include language in their contracts providing for emergency dispute resolution through arbitration. Further, courts generally recognize such relief, whether it is issued in the form of interim or preliminary measures or, in some cases, final, permanent relief. See, e.g., Yahoo! Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 13-cv-7237, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151175 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (upholding award of “final, permanent” injunctive relief issued by emergency arbitrator appointed by AAA).
There are no specific provisions on emergency arbitrator proceedings in the IAA.
The SIAC Arbitration Rules provide for an emergency arbitrator procedure. SIAC Arbitration Rules, Schedule 1. Since its introduction in 2010, the emergency arbitrator procedure has been used 50 times (as at 1 June 2016). After the interest of parties in this relatively new procedure peaked in 2013 and 2014 with 31 applications in total, its usage declined in 2015 with only five applications and another three applications in the first five months of 2016. Notably, since 2012, the IAA provides for the enforceability of awards and orders issued by an emergency arbitrator in proceedings seated in Singapore or abroad. IAA, Section 2(1).
In Brazil, there is emergency arbitrator relief available, but this resource is not actively used yet. Indeed, some national arbitration chambers establish, in its regulations, the possibility of appointing "emergency arbitrator" (or "support arbitrator") to appreciate any urgent measures. In Brazil, one example of an institution that deal with the appreciation of urgent measures in the private jurisdiction before the formation of the Arbitral Court is the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM), which provides to the parties the possibility of requesting the naming of an emergency arbitrator for decide on " measures conservatories or reparatory coated with urgent character in order to prevent imminent harm or irreparable damage" However, the CAM Regulation authorizes the appointment of support arbitrator only if the arbitration convention contains express provision in this regard.
Rules of various institutions operating in Canada, including ICDR, ICC and ADRIC, provide for emergency arbitrator relief if interim relief is required prior to constituting the tribunal.
The emergency arbitrator relief is not available in Panama.
It is not prohibited by Law and will depend in the Rules of arbitration chosen by the parties. Most of the Arbitration Rules of the main institutions provide for Emergency Arbitrator.
ISTAC has Emergency Arbitrator Rules (“Emergency Rules”) which are applied to the applications that are made to ISTAC for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator before the transmission of the file to the sole arbitrator or arbitral tribunal pursuant to Article 18 of the ISTAC Arbitration Rules. Emergency Rules are applied to the parties who are either signatories to the arbitration agreement taken as the basis for an application for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator, or successors of such parties. ISTAC’s emergency arbitrator is appointed within two days as of receiving the application by the Secretariat and the arbitrator constitutes its award within seven days as of the appointment. Furthermore, ITOTAM has also the Emergency Rules according to Article 30 of the ITOTAM Arbitration Rules. ITOTAM’s emergency arbitrator is appointed within two days as of the application and the arbitrator constitutes its award within fifteen days as of the appointment. Both Emergency Rules are the recent regulations under Turkish law.
The German national arbitration law does not provide for emergency arbitration. However, arbitration institutions as the SCC or the ICC provide for emergency arbitrator proceedings in their rules. Generally, the decision of the emergency arbitrator is binding for the parties, but not binding for the tribunal, once it is constituted. The parties may exclude the emergency arbitrator provisions or agree to substitute the emergency situation under other procedures. If an emergency arbitrator orders interim measures in an arbitral award German courts would enforce such award.
Even if the parties agreed on an arbitration clause (with or without emergency arbitration), the parties are entitled under German law to use the state courts to request interim measures.
Italian law does not provide for emergency arbitration.
Yes, subject to institutional rules. For example Article 9B of the LCIA Rules and Article 29 of Appendix V of the ICC Rules provide for emergency arbitrators.
There are no express provisions of the Arbitration Act dealing with emergency arbitrator relief. However, the parties to an arbitration agreement may have adopted institutional rules that do provide for such relief.
Polish arbitration law does not provide for emergency arbitrator relief. However, rules for emergency arbitrator relief were introduced in Appendix II to the Lewiatan Court of Arbitration Rules in 2012. No statistics concerning use of emergency arbitrator relief are available.