This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of the legal framework and key issues surrounding international arbitration law in Indonesia.
This Q&A is part of the global guide to International Arbitration.
For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/practice-areas/international-arbitration-4th-edition/
What legislation applies to arbitration in your country? Are there any mandatory laws?
Arbitration is governed under Indonesian Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (the “Arbitration Law”) and Decree of the President of the Republic of Indonesia No. 34 of 1981 on Ratification of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
Is your country a signatory to the New York Convention? Are there any reservations to the general obligations of the Convention?
Yes, Indonesia is a signatory to the New York Convention. Indonesia has declared that the Convention will apply on the basis of reciprocity with respect to commercial matters under Indonesian law.
What other arbitration-related treaties and conventions is your country a party to?
Indonesia is a party to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID). In addition, the country has signed 72 Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) of which 26 are currently in force, 16 are still to be ratified, and 30 have been terminated.
In March 2019, Indonesia entered into a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with Australia, which includes a comprehensive clause on investor-state dispute settlement.
Is the law governing international arbitration in your country based on the UNCITRAL Model Law? Are there significant differences between the two?
No, the Arbitration Law is not based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (“Model Law”).
One significant difference between the two laws is in how they define a foreign arbitral award. The Arbitration Law classifies a foreign arbitral award as an award made outside the jurisdiction of Indonesia, while the Model Law defines “international arbitration” as an arbitration process with at least one of these elements:
- The parties to an arbitration agreement have their places of business in different countries;
- One of the following places is situated outside the State in which the parties have their places of business: (i) the place of arbitration, (ii) the place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship are to be performed, or (iii) the place with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected; or
- The parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country.
Another significant difference between the Model Law and the Arbitration Law is that the Arbitration Law does not address the issue of court ordered interim relief in support of arbitration. We rarely see Indonesian courts issue interim relief that supports (rather than restricts) arbitration. In contrast, Article 17 of the Model Law concerns the power of an arbitral tribunal to order interim measures. This may result in a substantial gap. Without clarity on how a request for interim relief should be dealt with by an arbitral tribunal, the parties lack an effective mechanism to obtain interim relief.
Furthermore, Article 70 of the Arbitration Law contains an unusual provision which can set aside an arbitral award that is alleged to contain one of the following elements:
- after the award is rendered, documents submitted in the proceedings are found to be falsified or are declared fraudulent;
- after the award is rendered, documents are found which are decisive in nature and which were deliberately concealed by the opposing party; or
- the award is rendered as a result of fraud committed by one of the parties in the proceedings.
Article 70 of the Arbitration Law appears to expressly apply a more restrictive threshold for setting aside an arbitral award. In practice, however, without clarity on the meaning of ‘false document’ and how the term ‘fraud’ should be assessed, this provision could lead to an automatic annulment request from an award debtor. It is also unclear why the traditional grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under the Model Law – namely, a party’s lack of capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement, a breach of natural justice, jurisdictional overreach, irregularities in the appointment of the arbitrators and, most importantly, a breach of public policy – are not included in the Arbitration Law.
Are there any impending plans to reform the arbitration laws in your country?
None at the moment, but scholars and arbitral institutions have noted the need to update the Arbitration Law.
What arbitral institutions (if any) exist in your country? When were their rules last amended? Are any amendments being considered?
There are several well-known arbitral institutions in Indonesia:
- Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia or BANI).
- National Sharia Arbitration Board (Badan Arbitrase Sharia Nasional or Basyarnas).
- Indonesian Capital Market Arbitration Board
- Arbitration institution for settling disputes in futures trading (Badan Arbitrase Perdagangan Berjangka Komoditi).
- The Arbitration Board for Indonesian Sportsmanship (Badan Arbitrase Keolahragaan Indonesia or BAKI).
- Arbitration Board of Indonesian Sports (Badan Arbitrase Olahraga Indonesia or BAORI).
BANI is the most well-established arbitral institution in Indonesia. It was founded in 1977 by the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce. BANI has its own rules, which were last updated on 1 January 2018.
What are the validity requirements for an arbitration agreement under the laws of your country?
Under the Arbitration Law, an arbitration agreement can be entered into by the parties before or after a dispute arises. The Arbitration Law requires the agreement to be entered into in writing (or be part of a main agreement), although the law also allows for a pre-dispute arbitration agreement to be evidenced by an exchange of letters, telexes, telegrams, facsimiles, email or other communication method as long as the receipt of that communication is acknowledged by the other party and recorded.
Any post-dispute arbitration agreement must be in writing.
The general requirements for agreements under Indonesia’s contractual law also apply to arbitral agreements, namely: mutual consent, the parties’ capacity, a definite object, and a permissible cause.
Are arbitration clauses considered separable from the main contract?
Yes. The Arbitration Law provides that the arbitration agreement survives termination of the underlying agreement.
Is there anything particular to note in your jurisdiction with regard to multi-party or multi-contract arbitration?
The Arbitration Law does not contain specific provisions on multi-party or multi-contract arbitration. In contrast, Article 11 of the 2018 BANI rules provides that multiple parties acting as the claimant or respondent will be considered a single party for the purpose of appointing the arbitrators. If multiple parties acting as a single claimant or respondent fail to reach consensus by the agreed timeline on the arbitrator to be appointed, the Chairperson of BANI will make the selection on their behalf.
In what instances can third parties or non-signatories be bound by an arbitration agreement?
The Arbitration Law does not contain specific provisions compelling a third party to join an arbitration proceeding. However, it does allow for a third party’s joinder into the arbitration, subject to (a) the third party having an interest in the arbitration proceeding, (b) the consent of the contracting parties, and (c) approval from the tribunal.
The Indonesian code on civil procedure is often referred to and remains applicable when Indonesian law is selected as the law governing the arbitration process (lex arbitri). In the absence of clear guidance under the institution’s rules or the Arbitration Law, a third party considered relevant to the merits of the case can be drawn into the proceeding as a co-defendant or co-respondent. This is a special category of defendant that will not typically face any financial consequences of the arbitration process but will be bound to comply with the award rendered.
How is the law applicable to the substance determined? Is there a specific set of choice of law rules in your country?
In principle, the parties’ choice of law under the main agreement will be honoured and applied owing to Indonesia contract law’s freedom of contract principle. Indonesia does not have a specific set of choice of law rules but when a conflict of law arises, a tribunal will need to determine the applicable law based on the most connecting factors in the merits of the case, such as the location of the parties, the location of the relevant project under the agreement, and whether the object of the dispute located in Indonesia.
Are any types of dispute considered non-arbitrable? Has there been any evolution in this regard in recent years?
There has been no evolution in the types of non-arbitrable disputes in recent years. Only disputes within the fields of trade and commerce are considered arbitrable. To take one example, a dispute concerning a right over n intellectual property under a licencing agreement may be resolved through arbitration.
In your country, are there any restrictions in the appointment of arbitrators?
The Arbitration Law requires an arbitrator to:
- have the capacity to act under the law;
- be at least 35 years old;
- not have any family relationship with the parties to a dispute;
- not have any financial or other interests in the arbitration award; and
- have at least 15 years of experience and knowledge in the area of the matters under dispute.
A judge, prosecutor, clerk or other court official cannot be appointed as an arbitrator.
If BANI rules are to apply in the arbitration proceeding, the parties can only propose arbitrators who are on BANI’s list of arbitrators. An exception may, however, apply with the approval of the Chairperson of BANI, who may consider that no BANI-listed arbitrator has the required qualifications to resolve the dispute.
Are there any default requirements as to the selection of a tribunal?
If the parties have agreed to have a sole arbitrator decide on their dispute, the Arbitration Law requires that they agree on the arbitrator to be appointed, failing which the relevant district court, after receiving an application from either party, will have the authority to appoint the arbitrator. If the parties have agreed on a tribunal consisting of three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator. The two arbitrators appointed by the parties are authorised to choose and appoint a third arbitrator (as the chair of the arbitral tribunal), failing which the district court, after receiving an application from either party, may appoint the third arbitrator.
Can the local courts intervene in the selection of arbitrators? If so, how?
In theory, local courts can intervene in the selection of arbitrators if either party files an application for it, due to an impasse in the selection of arbitrators between the parties or between the arbitrators appointed by the parties. However, we have rarely seen such an intervention in practice and, unlike Article 13 of the Model Law, there is no deadline for making the appeal or for the court to make a decision on its challenge. Therefore, in practice, it is unclear whether the challenge to the appointment of an arbitrator can still be initiated with the court close to the issuance of the arbitral award. .Similarly, because there is no strict timeline to address the issue of challenge against the appointment of an arbitrator, the court may not address the challenge as a matter of urgency. (Please see answer 16 on this topic).
Can the appointment of an arbitrator be challenged? What are the grounds for such challenge? What is the procedure for such challenge?
The Arbitration Law provides for a mechanism where a challenge on an arbitrator can be raised if there are sufficient grounds and authentic evidence to question the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality. Unlike common law jurisdictions, which have a clearer threshold to test independence and impartiality, in Indonesia, independence is often simply associated with whether or not the arbitrator has a family, financial or employment relationship with any of the parties or their legal counsel.
Any challenge against the appointment of an arbitrator should be raised (a) within 14 days after the appointment or (b) within 14 days after the basis for the challenge becomes known to the party making the challenge.
The challenge should be made in writing and delivered to the relevant arbitrator and the other party. If the other party accepts the challenge, the arbitrator should resign and another arbitrator appointed in their place. If the parties cannot agree on the challenge, and the arbitrator refuses to resign, the challenging party may file an application with the district court to remove the arbitrator.
What happens in the case of a truncated tribunal? Is the tribunal able to continue with the proceedings?
A substitute arbitrator will be appointed to replace an arbitrator who, for whatever reason, resigns from their position. If the arbitrator chairs the tribunal, the examination will have to start over.
Are arbitrators immune from liability?
Yes, to some extent. Under the Arbitration Law, arbitrators cannot face legal liability for any actions they take during the arbitration proceeding or in performing their duties as arbitrators, provided their actions were taken in good faith. In theory, the tribunal or arbitrators can be held liable cost and losses arising from delays caused by them in rendering an award without a valid justification.
Is the principle of competence-competence recognised in your country?
The Arbitration Law does not contain any provisions explicitly referencing the competence-competence principle. However, the law does compel district courts to refuse jurisdiction where an arbitration agreement already exists between the disputing parties. This should allow the arbitral tribunal to make determinations on any matters relating to the dispute, including its own jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the BANI Rules do recognise the principle of competence-competence, stipulating that an arbitral tribunal has the right to determine questions pertaining to its jurisdiction to examine and resolve the dispute.
What is the approach of local courts towards a party commencing litigation in apparent breach of an arbitration agreement?
Under the Arbitration Law, the court is required to refuse jurisdiction if the parties in dispute are bound by an arbitration agreement. While in theory the court is obliged to do so ex officio, in practice the respondent may need to invoke a jurisdictional challenge based on the existence of an arbitration agreement. The court may assume jurisdiction even when an arbitration agreement exists between the parties in dispute if the cause of action is, in the court’s view, outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
How are arbitral proceedings commenced in your country? Are there any key provisions under the arbitration laws relating to limitation periods or time bars of which the parties should be aware?
Under the Arbitration Law, when a dispute arises, the claimant is required to notify the respondent in writing (by registered letter, telegram, telex, faximile or email) to commence the arbitration under the agreed terms of the arbitration agreement. The notification must include, among other things, information on the counterparty, the arbitration agreement (including the reference to the provision relating to the arbitrators), the claim and the amount claimed, and the proposed number of arbitrators, if that has not already been agreed by the parties in the arbitration agreement.
The Indonesian civil code’s statute of limitation, which is set at 30 years, is also applicable to disputes.
In what circumstances is it possible for a state or state entity to invoke state immunity in connection with the commencement of arbitration proceedings?
If the Indonesian state or state-owned entity has validly entered into an arbitration agreement, it cannot invoke state immunity to avoid commencement of the arbitration. The Arbitration Law recognises enforceability of any arbitration award against states or state-owned entities.
What happens when a respondent fails to participate in the arbitration? Can the local courts compel participation?
If, after being properly summoned, the respondent fails to appear on the date of the hearing, the arbitral tribunal is required to summon the respondent one more time. If within 10 days after the receipt of the second summons the respondent still fails to appear, the arbitral tribunal will continue the examination without the respondent, and the claim will be accepted in full unless it is without merit or is not based on law.
Can local courts order third parties to participate in arbitration proceedings in your country?
No. The Arbitration Law does not empower local courts to compel third parties to join arbitration proceedings.
What interim measures are available? Will local courts issue interim measures pending the constitution of the tribunal?
The Arbitration Law empowers the tribunal to issue interim measures including a security attachment, a deposit of goods with a third party, and the sale of perishable goods. However, in order to enforce the interim measure, the party concerned will need to register the interim measure with the relevant court and seek the court’s assistance to enforce it. In practice, Indonesian courts will not assist with the enforcement of interim measures as they prefer not to intervene in arbitration measures. Likewise, the Arbitration Law does not give local courts the power to issue interim measures before the tribunal is constituted.
Are there particular rules governing evidentiary matters in arbitration? Will the local courts in your jurisdiction play any role in the obtaining of evidence? Can local courts compel witnesses to participate in arbitration proceedings?
The examination of evidence will largely depend on what the parties have agreed concerning the procedural rules. The Arbitration Law does not specify the rules for evidentiary matters, merely stating that examinations of factual and expert witnesses shall be conducted in accordance with the Indonesian code on civil case procedure, whereby witnesses are required to provide statements under oath directly to the tribunal.
The tribunal is empowered to request the parties to provide additional written statements and supporting evidence as required (Article 46(3) of the Arbitration Law) while local courts have no authority to intervene on the taking of evidence. Likewise, local courts do not have the authority to compel witnesses to attend arbitration proceedings.
What ethical codes and other professional standards, if any, apply to counsel and arbitrators conducting proceedings in your country?
Arbitration institutions usually have their own ethical codes. For instance, BANI has BANI Rule No. PER-01/BANI/09/2016 on Arbitrators, Mediators and the Code of Ethics, which contains the code of conduct for arbitrators.
The code of conduct for counsels is regulated by the rules of the Indonesian Bar Association and applies to all Indonesian law-qualified lawyers.
In your country, are there any rules with respect to the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings?
Yes. Unlike the Indonesian code on civil case procedure, the Arbitration Law specifically requires that arbitration proceedings be closed to the public. However, the Arbitration Law does not specify the extent of confidentiality because for enforcement purposes, an arbitral award will need to be registered with the relevant court and enforced with the assistance of the court. The award typically loses confidentiality at this point since Indonesian courts have no mechanism allowing enforcement of an arbitral award to be implemented discreetly. If the award debtor is not willing to comply with the arbitral award voluntarily, any attempt to enforce the award will require involvement of the state auction house and the police, which will also diminish confidentiality.
If proceedings are held under BANI Rules, the parties, arbitrators and BANI are required to keep all matters related to the proceedings confidential, including the appointment of the arbitrators, documents, records of hearings, witness testimony, and the award itself. This provision can, however, be waived by agreement between the parties or if required by law (Article 14 (2) of the BANI Rules).
It is also worth highlighting that there is no privacy in award setting-aside proceedings because any proceeding to set aside an award will be treated as a general civil proceeding by the court, which is open to the public. Consequently, privacy and confidentiality in Indonesian arbitration proceedings is often illusory.
How are the costs of arbitration proceedings estimated and allocated?
The tribunal has the authority to determine the arbitration costs. Different arbitration institutions may apply different cost calculations. For example, BANI will determine the arbitration fee based on the amount in dispute. Under the Arbitration Law, the losing party should bear the arbitration costs or, if the claim is partially granted, then the costs are shared proportionally among the parties. The arbitration costs include the arbitrators’ fee, travel and other expenses that they incur; expenses incurred by factual and expert witnesses; and other expenses arising from examination and administration.
Can pre- and post-award interest be included on the principal claim and costs incurred?
The answer to this will depend on the substantive law governing the dispute and the law governing the arbitration agreement, which tend to be the same. For example, Indonesian contract law would allow a claim for interest in a breach of contract claim, including interest accrued before the arbitration commences and after the award is issued, until full performance of the award.
What legal requirements are there in your country for the recognition and enforcement of an award? Is there a requirement that the award be reasoned, i.e. substantiated and motivated?
The minimum content requirement for an award to be enforceable, includes (i) the heading of the award must include a statement that says “for justice in the name of the God Almighty’, (ii) the reasoning for the award and any dissenting opinion, (iii) place and date of the award and other standard requirement of an award.
A domestic arbitral award must be registered at the district court having jurisdiction over the respondent’s domicile. If the award is not complied with, either party can file an application for enforcement at the relevant district court and the chairman of the court will issue an enforcement award after confirming that:
- the award complies with Article 4 (arbitration agreement) and Article 5 (arbitrability of the dispute) of the Arbitration Law; and
- the award is not contrary to rules of decency or public order.
For an international arbitration award to be recognised in Indonesia, it must:
- be issued in a country which has a bilateral or multilateral agreement with Indonesia on the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards;
- concern a dispute relating to commercial matters; and
- not be contrary to public order.
An application for an exequatur or enforcement order must also be made to Central Jakarta District Court before the award can be recognised and (if not voluntarily complied with) enforced in Indonesia.
What is the estimated timeframe for the recognition and enforcement of an award? May a party bring a motion for the recognition and enforcement of an award on an ex parte basis?
There is no statutory timeframe for a district court to complete the registration process of a domestic award under the Arbitration Law. In practice, the registration process can typically be completed within a week. The registration process does not typically require hearings and is administrative in essence.
Similarly, the Arbitration Law does not provide a clear timeline for an exequatur to be issued by Central Jakarta District Court. However, the process can be expected to take longer than simply registering a domestic award because the court would need to assess if the international arbitration award satisfies the requirements under the Arbitration Law (see answer 31 for these requirements). The timeframe can vary significantly, depending on challenges made by the losing party. The court may refrain from issuing exequatur if it becomes aware of a separate dispute instigated by either party that is directly relevant to the award. While in theory the application of exequatur should be ex parte, in practice the counter parties will raise, and the court will typically accept, a response to the application for exequatur. Consequently, the process of enforcing an award can take years to complete. We have been involved in one case where it took almost three years to enforce an international arbitral award.
Does the arbitration law of your country provide a different standard of review for recognition and enforcement of a foreign award compared with a domestic award?
An international arbitration award is, by its nature, subject to more requirements than a domestic award, one of which relates to the country of issuance (see answer 31 for these requirements). An international arbitration award will also be scrutinized for compliance with public order if, for example, the award is made based on laws other than Indonesian laws.
Does the law impose limits on the available remedies? Are some remedies not enforceable by the local courts?
The Arbitration Law does not prescribe the remedies a tribunal can impose in an award. If the Indonesian civil code governs the contract in dispute, the available remedies for a breach of contract will include costs, damages and interest. Declaratory relief may not be enforceable.
Can arbitration awards be appealed or challenged in local courts? What are the grounds and procedure?
Arbitration awards are not subject to appeal. Indonesian courts do not have the jurisdiction to re-examine a case where the parties are bound by an arbitration agreement. However, as mentioned in answer 4 above, the Arbitration Law allows a party to file a request for annulment of an award if:
- it can be proven that the documents submitted during the arbitration proceedings were falsified;
- a determinative document was concealed by the other party during the arbitration proceeding and is found after the award has been issued; or
- the award is issued as a result of fraud by one of the parties.
The application shall be brought before the local court having jurisdiction over the respondent. The court must render a decision within 30 days after it received the annulment request. In practice, this timeframe is not strictly followed. A local court annulment can also be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Can the parties waive any rights of appeal or challenge to an award by agreement before the dispute arises (such as in the arbitration clause)?
The parties do not have the right to appeal an arbitration award. In theory, they could incorporate a waiver to allow a challenge to the award, in line with the proinciple of freedom of contract under the Indonesian civil code. However, the court does not always rely on this waiver in determining whether to examine the annulment request.
To what extent might a state or state entity successfully raise a defence of state or sovereign immunity at the enforcement stage?
As discussed in answer 22 above, the Indonesian state or a a state-owned entity should not be able to invoke sovereign immunity to avoid arbitration if it has entered into a valid arbitration agreement.
However, enforcement of arbitration awards against the State can be difficult, and are likely to be ineffective in light of Indonesia’s law on state finances, which prohibits the seizure of any assets belonging to the State. A separate analysis would be required in order to navigate an enforcement challenge over an asset located outside Indonesia.
In what instances can third parties or non-signatories be bound by an award? To what extent might a third party challenge the recognition of an award?
An award can only bind the parties to it. Third parties can only be bound if they are included as parties to the arbitration proceeding (see answer 10 on the circumstances in which a third party can join an arbitration proceeding).
The Arbitration Law provides that only a party to the proceeding can file for annulment of the award. However, a third party adversely affected by the award could initiate a civil proceeding against the parties to the arbitration, which may delay the enforcement process.
Have courts in your jurisdiction considered third party funding in connection with arbitration proceedings recently?
Third party funding is not common in Indonesia and is not specifically regulated. In principle, the law governing Indonesian advocates provides only that the counsel’s fee is subject to agreement between the client and advocate, which would allow for third party funding.
Is emergency arbitrator relief available in your country? Is this frequently used?
Neither the Arbitration Law nor the BANI Rules allow for emergency arbitration or emergency arbitrator relief.
Are there arbitral laws or arbitration institutional rules in your country providing for simplified or expedited procedures for claims under a certain value? Are they often used?
Neither the Arbitration Law nor the BANI Rules allow for expedited procedures.
Have measures been taken by arbitral institutions in your country to promote transparency in arbitration?
Neither the Arbitration Law nor the BANI Rules contain explicit provisions on transparency. However, the Arbitration Law does require that an award sets out the opinion of each arbitrator in case of a dissenting opinion. This encourages transparency in the tribunal’s deliberations and rationale when rendering the award.
Is diversity in the choice of arbitrators and counsel (e.g. gender, age, origin) actively promoted in your country? If so, how?
To our knowledge, no explicit measures have been taken by arbitral institutions to promote diversity. However, the requirements for arbitrators under the Arbitration Law and BANI’s list of arbitrators suggest that there are no restriction in respect of gender or origin for arbitrators in Indonesia.
Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the setting aside of an award that has been enforced in another jurisdiction or vice versa?
We are not aware of any recent Indonesian court decisions which considered setting aside an award that had been enforced in another jurisdiction.
Is corruption an issue that is regularly raised in your jurisdiction? What standard do local courts apply for proving of corruption?
While corruption is an issue, it has never been raised in respect of enforcing an arbitral award.
Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the definition and application of “public policy” in the context of enforcing or setting aside an arbitral award?
In 2010, Indonesia’s Supreme Court affirmed the Central Jakarta District Court’s position in Astro Nusantara International et al. v. PT Ayunda Primamitra et al. which rejected Astro’s application to recognise SIAC’s Award on Preliminary Issues of Jurisdiction, Interim Anti Suit Injunction and Joinder. This SIAC award essentially ordered Ayunda to cease pursuing parallel litigation in Indonesia against some of the claimants in the on-going SIAC arbitration. The district court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, rejected the application on the basis of public order, among other things. In particular, the SIAC award was deemed to intervene with an Indonesian court proceeding, thus in conflict with the principle of sovereignty.
In 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the civil review that Astro had filed against the previous Supreme Court decision, confirming that the district court’s rationale had been correct.
Have there been any recent court decisions in your country considering the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Slovak Republic v Achmea BV (Case C-284/16) with respect to intra-European Union bilateral investment treaties or the Energy Charter Treaty? Are there any pending decisions?
None that we are aware of.
Have there are been any recent decisions in your country considering the General Court of the European Union’s decision Micula & ors (Joined Cases T-624/15, T-694/15 and T-694.15), ECLI:EU:T:2019:423, dated 18 June 2019? Are there any pending decisions?
None that we are aware of.