Article 22.

Language
1. The parties are free to agree on the language or languages to be used in the
arbitral proceedings. Failing such agreement, the arbitral tribunal shall
determine the language or languages to be used in the proceedings. This
agreement or determination, or unless otherwise specified therein, shall
apply to any written statement by a party, any hearing and any award,
decision or communication by the tribunal.
2. The arbitral tribunal may order that any documentary evidence shall be
accompanied by translation into the language or languages agreed upon by
the parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal.

Article 22 gives primacy to the parties to agree on the language or languages of the
arbitral proceedings. It provides as a default provision that the arbitral tribunal shall
determine language or languages to be used.
The parties choice of the language may be validly made through the adoption of
arbitration rules.

In a case before the Croatian Supreme Court,

An attempt to resist the enforcement of an award was made on the ground that the
language used in the arbitration was the agreed one, the party was not familiar with
the language and thus been deprived of the ability to present its case.
The court held that , as the parties agreed to submit their disputes to an institution,
they must be considered as having accepted the language used by the institution,
and they could not thereafter complained about it.
In a German case,
An attempt to resist enforcement of an award was made on the ground that
the arbitration was held in Spanish and not in English as agreed in the arbitration
clause. The parties, in that case, agreed on English as the language of the
proceedings; however, they submitted their disputes to the jurisdiction of an
institutional arbitral tribunal and its rules of arbitration, which provided that Spanish
should be the language of proceedings.
In that respect, the parties subsequently agreed in their pleadings that
Spanish would be the language of the proceedings and that English had only an
auxiliary function in the relation between the parties. In that context, the court held
that the fact that Spanish was used in the arbitration rather than English as agreed

in the arbitration clause did not contravene the agreement of the parties, who
agreed to Spanish as the language of the arbitration.
The court considered that the use of the Spanish language did not violate the
respondents right to due process, as it failed to prove that it had not been able to
present its case or had been otherwise negatively affected.
The case illustrates that the default language in institutional rules can coexist with the parties explicit agreement on language in the arbitration agreement.

Article 23. Statements of claim and defense

1. Within the period of time agreed by the parties or determined by the arbitral
tribunal, the claimant shall state the facts supporting his claim, the points at
issue and the relief or remedy sought, and the respondent shall state his
defense in respect of these particulars, unless the parties have otherwise
agreed as to the required elements of such statements. The parties may
submit with their statements all documents they consider to be relevant or
may add a reference to the documents or other evidence they will submit.
2. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, either party may amend or
supplement his claim or defense during the course of the arbitral
proceedings, unless the arbitral tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow
such amendment having regard to the delay in making it.
Article 23 mandates the parties to arbitration to provide statements setting out
their claim and defense.
The statements referred to in article 23 are to be submitted in addition to the
request for arbitration referred to in article 21.
A Canadian court observed that the term statement is the accepted term used
in arbitration proceedings corresponding to the word pleading in the litigation
process.
The statements should identify the
Facts at issue,
The points in dispute and
The relief or remedy claimed.
These elements have been held by a German court to be essential for defining the
dispute on which the arbitral tribunal is to give a decision.
That court recognized that the duty to file a statement of claim is therefore an
essential and mandatory obligation.
A Canadian court took the view that the pleadings exchanged between the
parties pursuant to article 23 (1) constitute one of the sources (other sources

include notice of request and contract between the parties) for ascertaining the
scope of the submission to arbitration.
Courts have held that arbitral tribunals should be bound to decide the dispute
in accordance with the parties pleaded case as set out in the statements of claim
and defense. The arbitrator should not be entitled to go beyond the pleaded case
and decide on points on which the parties have not given evidence or have not
made submissions.
If the arbitral tribunal considers that the parties have not framed their cases
correctly and that certain points need to be addressed, then the tribunal must
indicate its concerns to the parties and allow them to make such amendments to
their pleadings and to adduce such additional evidence as may be necessary to deal
with those concerns.