Have there been any mass (arbitration) claims in your jurisdiction?
International Arbitration (3rd edition)
There are no developments on this matter in Cyprus since it is not in use or specifically allowed.
No, since class actions are not foreseen under Czech law.
Based on the publicly available information, no mass arbitration claims have been heard in Romania.
There were no mass arbitration claims in your jurisdiction.
No. So far there have been no mass claims in Mainland China.
a. Not to our knowledge.
There have been no mass arbitration claims in Poland.
In 1997, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding entered into between the Swiss Bankers Association, the World Jewish Restitution Organization and the World Jewish Congress, the Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Accounts (CRT-I) was established under Swiss law in Switzerland. The purpose of such independent international arbitral tribunal was to resolve claims relating to approximately 6,000 accounts of non-Swiss bank clients that had lain dormant since the end of Second World War in 1945. The established arbitral tribunal completed its assessment in September 2001.
As a result of a settlement agreement reached in the context of the Holocaust Victim Asset Litigation in 1999 when the defending Swiss banks agreed to create a USD 1.25 billion settlement fund, the Second Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Accounts was established in Switzerland (CRT-II) in February 2001. The CRT-III was mandated to process claims relating to assets in Swiss bank accounts which were open or opened between 1933 and 1945. The CRT-II has completed its mandate in December 2012.
There have been no mass arbitration claims in this jurisdiction.
Mass arbitrations, meaning a single proceeding involving multiple claimants, are uncommon in the United Kingdom. As arbitration tribunals have no power to consolidate proceedings in the absence of the consent of the parties, it appears that any mass arbitration proceedings would have to be conducted on an opt-in basis.
The relevant arbitration laws in the KSA do not create any limitations on mass arbitrations. However, there are no precedents available on whether mass arbitrations have taken place in the KSA.
Yes. Mass arbitration claims in the U.S. typically manifest as “class action” style disputes, in which one or more plaintiff is named to represent a larger class of plaintiffs. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court implicitly approved the use of class arbitration to settle disputes by holding that it was for the arbitrator to decide whether a class arbitration could proceed. See Green Tree Financial Cop. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003). As a result of the Bazzle case, the AAA and JAMS implemented rules for class arbitration. See AAA Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration; JAMS Class Action Procedures.
In a subsequent case in 2010, the Supreme Court refined its position, holding that an arbitral tribunal that compels a class arbitration without finding that the parties contractually agreed to class arbitration exceeds its powers under the FAA. See Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010). Following the Stolt-Nielsen decision, it appears that class arbitrations are permissible so long as they are provided for in the parties’ arbitration clause.
There have been no mass arbitration claims in our jurisdiction.
There have not been any (publicly known) mass arbitration claims in Russia.
Ireland does not permit class actions in civil litigation and we are not aware of any mass arbitration claims.
There has been an increasing number of mass claims in the ordinary courts. However, we are not aware of any such claims being arbitrated in Norway.
While the DIS Arbitration Rules and/or commercial contracts more and more foresee for multi-party arbitration, there have not been "mass claims" – either in contract or tort – that had been subject to arbitration.
We have not observed any mass (arbitration) claims before the Permanent Arbitration Court of the Croatian Chamber of Economy.