Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Yearbook of Arbitration®
Czech (& Central European)
Yearbook of Arbitration®
Volume VI
2016
Rights and Duties of Parties in Arbitration
Editors
COPYRIGHT © 2016
By Lex Lata BV
__________________
All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic
or mechanical means including information storage
and retrieval systems without permission
in writing from the publisher.
__________________
Printed in the EU.
ISBN/EAN: 978-90-824603-2-2
ISSN: 2157-9490
Lex Lata BV
Mauritskade 45-B
2514 HG – THE HAGUE
The Netherlands
__________________
The title Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
as well as the logo appearing on the cover are protected by EU
trademark law.
Typeset by Lex Lata BV.
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Advisory Board
Anton Baier Bohuslav Klein Stanislaw Soltysiński
Vienna, Austria Prague, Czech Republic Warsaw, Poland
Editorial Board
Alena Bányaiová Marek Furtek Asko Pohla
Prague, Czech Republic Warsaw, Poland Talinn, Estonia
Editorial support:
František Halfar, Jan Halfar, Lenka Němečková, Karel Nohava |v
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Impressum
│││
List of Abbreviations.................................................................................. xi
ARTICLES
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking
of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration ................................................. 3
Ondřej Čech
A Party‘s Right to Appoint an Arbitrator and its Limits
Issue Conflict in International Arbitration ............................................. 23
Petr Dobiáš
Rights and Duties of Parties in Insurance Arbitration .......................... 43
Harald Sippel
Med-Arb: Recent Trends and an Outlook on the Future .................... 151
CASE LAW
Poland
Kuba Gąsiorowski │ Magdalena Matejczyk │ Kamil Zawicki
The Supreme Court Judgments ............................................................. 213
Asko Pohla
Validity of Arbitration Agreements in Estonian law............................ 247
x|
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
List of Abbreviations
1
The template was approved on 21 June 1985 as UN Document A/40/17, Annex I, within the
xii | framework of the unification program of the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of
Commerce (see also SCC)
SCC Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. In
this book in the sense of the Arbitration
Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of
Commerce (see also ‘SCC Rules’)
SIAC Singapore International Arbitration
Centre
SIMC Singapore International Mediation Centre
UNCITRAL Rules UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules within the
meaning of the UN General Assembly
resolution 31/98 of 15 December 1976,2
as amended in 2010 by the UN General
Assembly resolution 65/223
UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law4
VIAC Vienna International Arbitration Centre
2
Available online in English at: http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules/
arb-rules.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2014). Also available in other UN languages.
3
Full text of the UNCITRAL Rules 2010 is available online in English at: http://www.uncitral.org/
pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules-revised/arb-rules-revised-2010-e.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2014).
4
See www.uncitral.org. | xiii
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Articles
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in
Investor-State Arbitration ....................................................................... 3
Ondřej Čech
A Party’s Right to Appoint an Arbitrator and its Limits .................... 23
Petr Dobiáš
Rights and Duties of Parties in Insurance Arbitration ....................... 43
Harald Sippel
Med-Arb: Recent Trends and an Outlook on the Future ................. 151
state disputes, which are also often specific for a special interest in not
submitting or presenting, respectively, certain documents or facts due to a
qualified public element.
│││
1
Doak Bishop; James Crawford; W. Michael Reisman, Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases,
4| Materials and Commentary, The Hague: Kluwer Law International 15 (2005).
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration
2
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Presenting Evidence in International Arbitration, 1(16) ICSID Review – FILJ
(2001).
3
Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States of
March 18, 1965. Entered into force on October 14, 1966. ICSID = International Centre for Settlement of
Investment Disputes.
4
Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, April 12, 2002, 7
ICSID Reports 178, marg. 89.
5
Asian Agricultural Products Ltd v. Republic of Sri Lanka (Award) 6 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 526 (1991 (ICSID,
1990, El-Kosheri P, Goldman & Asante), p. 549.
6
Salini v. Jordan, Award, 31 January 2006, marg. 70.
7
Asian Agricultural Products Ltd v. Republic of Sri Lanka (Award) 6 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 526 (1991 (ICSID,
1990, El-Kosheri P, Goldman & Asante), p. 549. |5
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
8
Autopista Concensionada de Venezuela v. Venezuela, Award, 23 September 2003, marg. 110. See also 10
ICSID Reports 309.
9
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, supra note 2.
10
Loewen v. United States, Decision on Jurisdiction, award, marg. 215–217.
11
Article XII(2) of the Canada-Costa Rica Bilateral Investment Treaty, online: on www. kluwerarbitration.
com. None of the bilateral investment treaties entered into by the Czech Republic, however, contain any
6| such clause.
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration
17
Marvin Feldman v. Mexico, Award, December 16, 2002, marg. 177. See also 18 ICSID Review-FILJ 488
(2003).
18
Marvin Feldman v. Mexico, Award, December 16, 2002, marg. 177. See also 18 ICSID Review-FILJ 488
(2003).
19
Asian Agricultural Products Ltd v. Republic of Sri Lanka (Award) 6 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 526 (1991 (ICSID,
1990, El-Kosheri P, Goldman & Asante), pp. 549-550.
20
Tradex Hellas S.A. v. Republic of Albania, Award, April 29, 1999, ICSID Case No. ARB/94/2, marg. 72,
162. See also 5 ICSID Reports.
21
David D. Caron; Lee Caplan; Matti Pellonpää, supra note 13, at 572.
22
Matthias Scherer, Circumstantial Evidence in Corruption Cases Before International Arbitral Tribunals,
5 International Arbitration Law Review 29–40 (2002).
23
David D. Caron; Lee Caplan; Matti Pellonpää, supra note 13, at 569.
24
Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, Corrupt Practices in the Foreign Investment Context: Contractual and
Procedural Aspects, in Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes: Procedural and Substantive
Legal Aspects 471, 496 (Norbert Horn; Stefan Kröll eds., 2004).
8| 25
Tokios Tokelès v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award, July 26, 2007, marg. 124.
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration
26
Doak Bishop; James Crawford; W. Michael Reisman, supra note 1, at 15.
27
Lucy Reed; Jan Paulsson; Nigel Blackaby, Guide To ICSID Arbitration, Kluwer Law
|9
International 85 (2004).
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
10 |
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration
28
ADF Group Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/1 (NAFTA), Award, January 9, 2003,
marg. 29.
29
ADF Group Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/1 (NAFTA), Award, January 9, 2003,
marg. 30.
30
ADF Group Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/1 (NAFTA), Award, January 9, 2003,
marg. 34-35.
31
Railroad Development Corporation v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/23 (US CAFTA/
DR FTA), Decision on Provisional Measures, October 15, 2008, marg. 36.
32
Available online at: http://www.int-bar.org/images/downloads/IBA%20rules%20on%20the%20
taking%20of%20Evidence.pdf. | 11
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
33
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, supra note 2.
34
Ibid.
35
Railroad Development Corporation v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/23 (US CAFTA/
DR FTA), Decision on Provisional Measures, October 15, 2008, marg. 32.
36
CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, September 13, 2001, marg.
45–46.
37
Article 3(2) of the IBA Rules.
12 | 38
Article 3(3) of the IBA Rules.
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration
III.5. E-discovery
1.27. Document production obligations may also extend further than
hard-copy documents, to also cover electronic documents. The
process of electronic document production is often referred to
as “e-discovery”. Investment treaty tribunals have recognized
that electronic documents can be subject to requests for the
production of documents. For example, in the Biwater Gauff
v. Tanzania case, the tribunal ordered the respondent to
preserve, “for purposes of their possible presentation during
the proceedings”, a number of categories of documents, both in
electronic and hard copy.40
39
Article 9(2)(f ) of the IBA Rules.
40
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural
Order No. 1, March 31, 2006, marg. 88.
41
Charles N. Brower, Evidence Before International Tribunals: The Need for Some Standard Rules, 28 Int’l
Law 47 (1994).
42
Hidetomo Shinto v. Iran, 19 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep., p. 321 et seq., here pp. 325-29. | 13
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
43
In re Roz Trading, Ltd., 469 F Supp 2d 1221, 1224 et seq. (N.D. Ga. December 19, 2006). See also Jennifer
Sperling; Marc Suskin, Roz Trading: Expanding Federal Court Participation in Arbitral Discovery, 22(3)
Mealey’s International Arbitration Report 1–2 (March 2007).
44
See Markus Müller-Chen, Aus dem US-amerikanischen Discovery-Verfahren gewonnene Beweise im
internationalen Zivilprozess und Schiedsrecht in der Schweiz, in Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre
Tercier, Genève, Zurich: Schulthess Médias Juridiques SA 929 (2008).
45
Jennifer Sperling; Marc Suskin, supra note 43, at 1–2; Markus Müller-Chen, supra note 44, at 932.
46
See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 262 et seq., 124 S.Ct. 2466, 159 L.Ed. 2d 355
(2004). See also Markus Müller-Chen, supra note 44, at 934.
47
In re The Application of Servicio Pan Americano de Proteccion, C.A., 354 F. Supp. 2d 269, 274 (S.D. N.Y.
2004). Markus Müller-Chen, supra note 44, at 934.
14 | 48
Markus Müller-Chen, supra note 44, at 934.
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration
IV. Experts
1.31. Arbitral tribunals often appoint experts to assist them with
specific issues arising in the case. There is no list of the types
of issues on which tribunals may seek the assistance of experts;
however, experts are often needed in arbitration with highly
technical subject matters, or for the purposes of valuation.
1.32. The relevant provisions in the UNCITRAL Rules (1976) can be
found in Article 27. Article 27(1) reads:
The arbitral tribunal may appoint one or more
experts to report to it, in writing, on specific issues to
be determined by the tribunal. A copy of the expert‘s
terms of reference, established by the arbitral
tribunal, shall be communicated to the parties.
1.33. Respectively in the UNCITRAL Rules (2010) the relevant
provision is contained in Article 29. Article 29(1) reads:
After consultation with the parties, the arbitral
tribunal may appoint one or more independent
experts to report to it, in writing, on specific issues
to be determined by the arbitral tribunal. A copy
of the expert’s terms of reference, established by
the arbitral tribunal, shall be communicated to the
parties.
1.34. The expert is mandated by the tribunal to prepare a written
report on the specific issue for which their assistance is sought.
In order for the expert to be able to accomplish their mandate,
the parties to the arbitration must comply with all of the expert’s
requests for “relevant documents or goods”.49 The tribunal must
provide the parties with a copy of the expert’s report, as well as
with the opportunity to comment on the report in writing.50
1.35. After delivery of the report, either party may request that the
expert be heard at a hearing, in which the parties can question
the expert and present their own expert witnesses to testify on
the points at issue.51
1.36. Neither the ICSID Rules nor the ICSID Convention explicitly
authorizes an arbitral tribunal to appoint an expert to assist
it. But ICSID tribunals nonetheless appoint experts for the
purpose of providing the necessary assistance. Indeed, the use
of tribunal-appointed experts by ICSID tribunals is “increasingly
common”.52 For example, in the CMS v. Argentina case, the
49
Article 27(2) of the UNCITRAL Rules.
50
Article 27(3) of the UNCITRAL Rules.
51
Article 27(4) of the UNCITRAL Rules.
52
Mark Kantor, Valuation for Arbitration: Compensation Standards, Valuation
Methods and Expert Evidence, Kluwer Law International 308 (2008). | 15
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
V. Translations
1.38. In international investment arbitration, documents used by the
parties as evidence are commonly in languages other than the
language of arbitration, and witnesses and experts may also only
be able to express themselves in another language. The parties
will generally be required to produce translations alongside the
originals of these documents, and arrangements for translation
and interpretation of witnesses and experts will generally be
made as part of the hearing preparation.
1.39. According to the UNCITRAL Rules, the language of arbitration
is determined by the arbitral tribunal, unless the parties agree
on a given language.54 Under the ICSID Rules, however, in the
absence of an agreement of the parties, each party may select
one of the official languages of the ICSID (English, French, or
Spanish).55 It should be noted that if the parties wish to agree
on a language other than English, French or Spanish, the official
languages of the ICSID, they must seek the approval of the
arbitral tribunal. If each party selects a different language, either
language may be used for all submissions and hearings.56
1.40. Article 17(2) of the UNCITRAL Rules authorizes the arbitral
tribunal to order that parties submit translations of all
documents that are not in the language of arbitration:
The arbitral tribunal may order that any documents
annexed to the statement of claim or statement of
defense, and any supplementary documents or
exhibits submitted in the course of the proceedings,
delivered in their original language, shall be
accompanied by a translation into the language or
53
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Final Award of
May 12, 2005, marg. 418.
54
Article 17(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules.
55
Rule 22(1) of the ICSID Rules.
16 | 56
Rule 22(2) of the ICSID Rules.
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration
│││
Summaries
FRA [Les droits et obligations des parties se rapportant à
l’instruction dans une procédure d’arbitrage liée à la
protection d’investissements]
L’arbitrage international se distingue d’une instance nationale en
ce qui concerne l’instruction et la charge de la preuve, dans le
sens où il ne prévoit aucune règle formelle pour l’instruction et
la charge de la preuve. La présente contribution se penche sur
quelques questions spécifiques se rapportant à l’instruction dans
des contentieux portant sur la protection d’investissements, en
relation avec les droits et les obligations des parties.
L’expression « charge de la preuve » n’indique pas à quel point
les preuves doivent être convaincantes pour que les éléments
qu’elles apportent puissent être considérés comme démontrés
; ce qu’on entend par cette expression, c’est plutôt qu’une des
parties a la charge de prouver certaines affirmations. Les parties
57
Rule 22(2) of the ICSID Rules. | 17
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
18 |
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration
│││
| 19
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Alexander J. Bělohlávek
│││
Bibliography
Charles N. Brower, Evidence Before International Tribunals: The Need
for Some Standard Rules, 28 Int’l Law (1994)
David D. Caron; Lee Caplan; Matti Pellonpää, The UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules: A Commentary, Oxford: OUP (2006)
Doak Bishop; James Crawford; W. Michael Reisman, Foreign
Investment Disputes: Cases, Materials and Commentary, The
Hague: Kluwer Law International (2005)
Hilmar Raeschke-Kessler, Corrupt Practices in the Foreign Investment
Context: Contractual and Procedural Aspects, in Arbitrating
Foreign Investment Disputes: Procedural and Substantive
Legal Aspects (Norbert Horn; Stefan Kröll eds., 2004)
Jamison M. Selby, Fact-Finding Before the Iran-United States Claims
Tribunal: The View from the Trenches, in Fact-Finding Before
International Tribunals, American Society of International Law
(Richard B. Lillich ed., 1992)
Jennifer Sperling; Marc Suskin, Roz Trading: Expanding Federal Court
Participation in Arbitral Discovery, 22(3) Mealey’s International
Arbitration Report (March 2007).
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Presenting Evidence in International Arbitration,
1(16) ICSID Review – FILJ (2001)
Lucy Reed; Jan Paulsson; Nigel Blackaby, Guide To ICSID
Arbitration, Kluwer Law International (2004)
20 |
Czech (& Central European) Yearbook of Arbitration®
Rights and Duties of Parties in Connection with Taking of Evidence in Investor-State Arbitration
Mark Kantor, Valuation for Arbitration: Compensation
Standards, Valuation Methods and Expert Evidence, Kluwer
Law International (2008)
Markus Müller-Chen, Aus dem US-amerikanischen Discovery-Verfahren
gewonnene Beweise im internationalen Zivilprozess und Schiedsrecht in
der Schweiz, in Mélanges en l’honneur de Pierre Tercier, Genève, Zurich:
Schulthess Médias Juridiques SA (2008)
Matthias Scherer, Circumstantial Evidence in Corruption Cases Before
International Arbitral Tribunals, 5 International Arbitration
Law Review (2002)
│││
| 21