Have steps been taken in your country to publish reasoned decisions on arbitrator challenges and provide more insight into the drivers behind arbitrator selection by institutions?
The publication of selected arbitral awards referred to under ‘hot topic’ no. 5 above does not contain decisions on the here relevant topics. In Austria, final court decisions are regularly published online through the legal information system ‘RIS’ administrated by the federal chancellery (www.ris.bka.gv.at). Until 2014, the competent court to decide on the challenges of arbitrators were courts of first instance, the judgments of which were generally not published. Since the 1 January 2014, the Austrian Supreme Court is the sole competent court to render such decisions. Its judgements are published in the above-described manner.
If the decision on arbitrator challenges was undertaken by the juge d’appui, the decision shall be normally published. However, if there is a person in charge of administering the arbitration ie an institution, the issue of publishing reasoned decisions on arbitrator challenges shall be determined in light of the institution’s applicable policies in that respect.
For example, as of 8 October 2015, the ICC adopted new policies according to which the parties to an arbitration may request to receive a reasoned decision on an arbitrator challenge.
The only step that until now was taken by the Arbitration Centres in Portugal was the upload of Arbitrators Lists and some Arbitration decisions on their webpage.
There are various legal magazines/books which publish selected case law related to arbitration. Even if there is no particular focus on reasoned decisions on arbitrator challenges, such decisions are also published in the above-mentioned legal magazines/books.
The SCC provides rules for expedited arbitration, a fast-track procedure for smaller and medium sized claims in less complex cases. There are no value based limitations for the expedited rules to be used.
Under the expedited rules, a sole arbitrator will decide the dispute. Certain restrictions with respect to the number of written submission and the time available therefor also exist. Moreover, a hearing will only be held on request of a party and if the arbitrator does find a hearing appropriate. A final award is to be rendered within three months from referral of the case to the arbitrator.
No specific steps have been taken in the UAE in this regard.
In cases where the state courts are seized when challenging an arbitrator, such proceedings are in principle public. The decisions of the cantonal court of appeal as well as the (landmark) decisions of the Swiss Federal Tribunal are regularly published and available on the respective websites.
No significant steps have been taken in New Zealand to published reasoned decisions on arbitrator challenges, mostly because institutional arbitral rules have not been widely used. The default challenge mechanism (if an agreed challenge procedure is not successful) is to the High Court, where decisions are made publicly available. Moreover, AMINZ is shortly to promulgate a set of arbitration rules for the first time. Accordingly, it may be that more reasoned decisions on arbitrator challenges are produced in the future.
There has thus far been no move by Malaysia towards this. See the answer to question 5 on transparency.
In the United States, parties typically select their own arbitrators. The major arbitral institutions maintain databases of neutral panels from which parties can select, publish the criteria by which neutrals are deemed qualified for service, and typically offer to assist in selection. The major institutions have also taken steps to provide greater transparency on the resolution of arbitrator challenges, by making such decisions public in certain circumstances.
No specific steps have been taken in Singapore in this regard.
Yes, arbitration institutions and arbitration courts of Brazil always seek to deliver reasonable and grounded decisions in cases of challenge and refusal of the arbitrators and disclose more information about the internal procedures for the selection of arbitrators that compose the boards of arbitral institutions.
There have not been any specific initiatives to increase the transparency of decisions on arbitrator challenges (except where they take place in court and therefore are public) nor to provide insight into the drivers behind institutions’ arbitrator selection. The ICC’s arbitration court now provides written decisions on arbitrator challenges, provided both parties agree. International developments may lead to the adoption of similar approaches in Canada in the future.
Arbitration institutions in Panama do not publish their decisions on arbitrator challenges.
There are current discussions between the main institutions but no decision has been adopted yet.
There is no specific step that was taken to publish reasoned decisions on arbitrator challenges or provide more insight into the drivers behind arbitrator selection by institutions.
No specific steps have been undertaken specifically in Germany. However, on an international level, we saw the ICC adopt a guidance note for the disclosure of conflicts by arbitrators in February 2016, listing certain situations that may call an arbitrator’s independence or impartiality into question. In January 2016, the ICC announced to publish the names of the arbitrators sitting in ICC cases on their website in the future (including their nationality and appointment). It will also be shown which of the arbitrators are appointed as the chairs of the arbitral tribunal in ICC cases. The Milan Chamber of Commerce has taken a similar approach.
Further, arbitration practitioners currently discuss to which extent information on arbitrators, decisions by the institutions and awards can be / should be published.
The more relevant arbitral decisions are published in legal magazines and also on the websites of arbitration institutions.
Not as yet.
No specific steps have been undertaken in this respect in Poland. However, since under certain circumstances the parties may challenge an arbitrator in court, courts’ decisions in this regard will be publicly available.