Arbitration agreement Archives - international litigation blog
103
archive,category,category-arbitration-agreement,category-103,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,select-theme-ver-3.4,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-4.12.1,vc_responsive
 

Arbitration agreement

Belgian Court Confirms Arbitrability of Exclusive Distribution Agreements Governed by Foreign Law

On 19 May 2020, the Leuven (Belgium) Enterprise Court (the Leuven Court) ruled that, following the reform of the Belgian arbitration rules in 2013, arbitration clauses in exclusive distribution agreements were valid, even if these agreements were governed by foreign law (judgment of 19 May 2020 in case A/20/00034, Akron NV v. Amphenol (Maryland) Inc.).

The judgment was given in the context of a dispute between a U.S. supplier and its former Belgian distributor following the supplier’s decision to unilaterally terminate the distributor’s distribution agreement dated 1 April 2018 for serious misconduct. While the distribution agreement contained an arbitration clause pursuant to which any dispute had to be settled by arbitration proceedings in the USA in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, the distributor initiated proceedings before the Leuven Court and claimed damages based on Title 3 of Book X of the Code of Economic Law (CEL), i.e., the Belgian mandatory rules on the unilateral termination of exclusive or quasi-exclusive distribution agreements of indefinite duration.READ MORE

0

CJEU Lacks Jurisdiction to Rule on Slovenia/Croatia Border Arbitration Dispute

On 31 January 2020, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) handed down its judgment in Slovenia v. Croatia (C-457/18), declaring that the CJEU lacked jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of an arbitral award settling the border dispute between the two countries.READ MORE

0

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Threshold Issues of Arbitrability

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court (the Supreme Court or the Court) handed down two interesting decisions on the question of who, between a judge and an arbitrator, was properly positioned to answer the threshold question of whether a specific dispute is subject to arbitration and whether the parties are entitled to delegate that issue to arbitrators.READ MORE

0

U.S. Courts Cannot Infer Class Arbitration from Ambiguous Arbitration Clause

The U.S. Supreme Court (the Supreme Court) has been historically wary of permitting class arbitration (see previous blog post), especially in the absence of clearly defined limits or of express language permitting it in an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed this restraint in a recent 5–4 decision, Lamps Plus, Inc., v. Varela, in which it held that courts cannot infer parties’ consent to class arbitration from an ambiguous arbitration clause in an employment contract.READ MORE

0

Belgian Supreme Court Rules on Validity of NATO’s Arbitration Clause in Light of Article 6 ECHR

On 27 September 2018, the Belgian Supreme Court handed down a judgment regarding the validity, in light of Article 6, paragraph 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR), of an arbitration clause contained in a service agreement concluded between the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and one of its gardeners (Mr. P) in 2007.READ MORE

0

Vattenfall v. Germany: Tribunal Subtly Avoids Applying Achmea Judgment and Finds that Article 26(6) ECT Does Not Apply to Jurisdiction Issues

On 31 August 2018, the ICSID tribunal in Vattenfall v. Germany issued a decision addressing the consequences, for this case, of the Achmea judgment handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) on 6 March 2018 (see previous analysis of the Achmea judgment here and here).

The case at hand is a well-known investment dispute whereby a Swedish investor (Vattenfall) initiated arbitral proceedings against Germany seeking compensation for damages incurred following Germany’s decision to shut down all the nuclear power plants on its territory and to replace them with green energy alternatives. Vattenfall, which owned such nuclear power plants, argued that such decision amounted to an expropriation which violated the Energy Charter Treaty (the ECT – a multilateral agreement to which both Germany and Sweden were parties to, together with all other EU Member States, the European Union and several third countries (including Japan, and Central Asian countries)).

In the Achmea judgment, the CJEU ruled that an intra-EU investment arbitration case between two EU parties, a Dutch investor and Slovakia, violated EU law. However, in stark difference with the Vattenfall case (where the underlying basis for arbitration was the ECT’s investor-State dispute resolution clause provided for in Article 26), the basis for the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in Achmea was the Czechoslovakia-Netherlands bilateral investment treaty (BIT).

Based on that judgment, and since the Vattenfall case also involved EU parties (i.e., a Swedish investor against an EU Member State), Germany argued that the arbitral tribunal in Vattenfall lacked jurisdiction since the findings of the CJEU in Achmea were “not limited to BITs between EU Member States, but must also be applied to multilateral agreement to which EU Member States are party, such as the ECT“.READ MORE

0

Brussels Court of Appeal Rules FIFA and UEFA Arbitration Clauses Inapplicable

On 29 August 2018, in a case involving FIFA (the International Football Association) and UEFA (the European Football Association), the Brussels Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal), issued an important decision refusing to refer the dispute to arbitration despite the existence of arbitration clauses providing for the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).READ MORE

0