By Ahmed Tariq (Associate at Cornelius, Lane & Mufti, Pakistan)
Pre-arbitration procedural requirements come into operation before the commencement of arbitration proceedings where parties have agreed on a multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanism. They are especially common in construction and engineering contracts. The Islamabad High Court (IHC) in Pakistan has addressed issues related to the nature of these requirements and consequences of non-compliance in its recent judgment Pak. U.K. Association (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan [2017 CLC 599].
Continue reading The Nature of Pre-Arbitration Procedural Requirements in Pakistan: Mandatory or Optional?
By Matilde Flores, Associate at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle in Paris
Article 30 of the 2017 ICC Rules of Arbitration, along with Appendix VI, constitute the Expedited Procedure Provisions (“Provisions“). These new provisions are among the most notable innovations of the 2017 ICC Rules, and are part of the ICC’s efforts to increase the efficiency and transparency of arbitrations. However, certain aspects of this Provisions may leave its users questioning whether the ICC has stricken the right balance between time and cost effectiveness on the one hand, and due process and other substantive rights on the other hand.
Continue reading Expedited Procedure under the 2017 ICC Rules – Does the ICC’s Priority for Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness Come at the Expense of the Parties’ Rights?
by Stasys Zelenekas, Associate Partner at law firm Greenlex
The Court of Appeal of Lithuania (“Court of Appeal”) in Prosecutor v. public entity “Pramogų sala”,  has ruled on 9 August 2018 that claims for damages are not arbitrable in cases where the (disputable) loss is caused by a criminal act. It must be noted, though, that the Law on Commercial Arbitration of the Republic of Lithuania (2012) does not contain this prohibition.
Continue reading Claims For Losses Caused By Criminal Offences Not To Be Arbitrated, Say Lithuanian Courts
By Simon Bianchi, Trainee Lawyer at Tavernier Tschanz, Geneva
Over the last few years, third-party ownership of soccer players (“TPO”) has become controversial. TPO is a mechanism through which a soccer club assigns a player’s economic rights, including the right to benefit from transfer fees every time the player is transferred to another club, to third-party investors in return for a financial counterpart. Considering that TPO threatens the integrity of sporting competitions, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”) eventually banned TPO in 2015. On 20 February 2018, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court rendered decision 4A_260/2017 addressing two important legal issues in this context: (i) the legality of the prohibition of TPO and (ii) the independence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”) towards FIFA. In this decision, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the Belgian club RFC Seraing against a CAS award confirming the validity under European and Swiss law of Articles 18bis and 18ter of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (“RSTP”), which prohibit TPO agreements.
Continue reading FIFA Ban on Third-Party Ownership: A Pyrrhic Victory for FIFA in Front of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court?
By Aman Deep Borthakur, Student at National Law School of India University, Bangalore
A key issue that has assumed importance in BIT arbitrations today is the role of state courts vis-à-vis investment tribunals. Two aspects of this issue become particularly relevant when courts are faced with claims of vexatious BIT arbitrations- (i) the law applicable in the court’s supervisory capacity, and (ii) the extent to which courts can intervene in such arbitrations. On 7 May 2018, the Delhi High Court addressed these issues from the Indian perspective in Vodafone’s long-running retrospective taxation dispute with the Indian authorities. Its judgement is significant for the 20 plus investment disputes India is currently embroiled in.
Continue reading State Courts and BIT Arbitrations: Cautious Optimism in the Vodafone v. India Saga?