Due Process Rights in Arbitration in the light of the Austrian Supreme Court’s Decision: Remote Hearings During the Pandemic

Year 2022, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 105 - 122, 29.07.2022

Erman Eroğlu

Abstract

The limit of the arbitral tribunal’s power has been a controversial subject. There is an ambiguity whether due process rights are violated if the arbitral tribunal conducts a virtual hearing contrary to one of the parties’ objectives. In particular, virtual hearings have come to the fore during the Covid-19 pandemic. In this study, by the evaluating the Austrian Supreme Court’s ground- breaking decision regarding due process rights during the global pandemic, the framework of due process rights in arbitration and the power of arbitrators on holding remote hearings are examined, and solutions are proposed in lights of current developments of international arbitration.

Keywords

due process rights, international arbitration, virtual hearings, the power of arbitrators, impartiality and independence of arbitrators.

Avusturya Yüksek Mahkemesi Kararı Işığında Tahkimde Adil Yargılanma Hakkı: Küresel Salgında Online Duruşmalar

Abstract

Tahkim yargılamasında hakem heyetinin yetkilerinin sınırlarının belirlenmesine ilişkin tartışmalar güncelliğini korumaktadır. Bu bağlamda hakem heyetinin bir tarafın talebinin hilafına online duruşma yapması durumunda ilgili tarafın adil yargılanma hakkının ihlal edilip edilmediğine ilişkin belirsizlik söz konusudur. Özellikle Covid-19 küresel salgını ile birlikte tahkim yargılamasında online duruşmaların etkin kullanılmasıyla bu sorunun daha da belirginleştiği görülmektedir. Bu makalede, Avusturya Yüksek Mahkemesi'nin küresel salgın sırasında yapılan tahkim yargılamasında adil yargılanma hakkına ilişkin vermiş olduğu özgün karar değerlendirilerek, tahkim yargılamasında adil yargılanma hakkının kapsamı bağlamında hakem heyetinin online duruşma belirleme konusundaki yetkilerinin sınırları incelenmekte ve uluslararası ticari tahkimdeki güncel gelişmeler esas alınarak bu belirsizliği gidermek için çözüm önerilerinde bulunulmaktadır.

Keywords

adil yargılanma hakkı, uluslararası ticari tahkim, online duruşma, hakem heyetinin yetkileri, hakemin tarafsızlığı ve bağımsızlığı.

References

• Berger KP and Jensen JO, ‘Due Process Paranoia and the Procedural Judgment Rule: A Safe Harbour for Procedural Management Decisions by International Arbitrators’ (2016) 32 Arbitration International 415-435
• Born G, International Arbitration: Cases & Materials (Aspen 2010)
• Born GB, International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2014)
• Carbonneau TE, ‘Defining Arbitral Due Process’ (2001) 3 Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution 14-18
• Carbonneau TE, Cases and Materials on Arbitration Law and Practice (5th edn, Wolters Kluwer 2009)
• Cole T, ‘Authority and Contemporary International Arbitration’ (2010) 70 Los Angeles Law Review 801-855
• Cremades BM, ‘The Arbitral Award’ in LW Newman and Richard D Hill (eds), The Leading Arbitrators’ Guide to International Arbitration (JurisNet 2008)
• English Arbitration Act of 1996, available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents
• Eroğlu E, ‘Enforcement in Turkey of Foreign Arbitral Awards: The Challange of Business Location’ (2022) 1 Law and Justice Review 133-149
• European Convention on Human Rights, available at https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf
• Ferreira da Cunha P, Rethinking Natural Law (Springer 2013)
• Gaillard E and Savage J, Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 1999)
• Hascher D, ‘Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators: 3 Issues’ (2012) 27 American University International Law Review 789-806
• Henry M, ‘The Developing Law Arbitration and the Judicial Sword of Damocles’ (1953) 4 Labor Law Journal 632-636
• Hoffman PM and Gendron L, ‘Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards after Cable Connection: Towards a Due Process Model’ (2010) 17 UCLA Entertainment Law Review 1-38
• Hörnle J, Cross-Border Internet Dispute Resolution (Cambridge University Press 2009)
• International Chamber of Commerce, Arbitration Rules, available at https://iccwbo.org/content/uploads/sites/3/2020/12/icc-2021-arbitration-rules-2014-mediation-rules-english-version.pdf
• Kaufmann-Kohler G, ‘Globalization of Arbitral Procedure’ (2003) 36 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1313-1333
• Knuts G, ‘Jura Novit Curia and the Right to Be Heard – An Analysis of Recent Case Law’ (2012) 28 Arbitration International 669-688
• Kurkela M and Turunen S, Due Process in International Commercial Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2010)
• Lew JDM, ‘Achieving the Dream: Autonomous Arbitration’ (2006) 22 Arbitration International 179-203
• Malintoppi L, ‘Remarks on Arbitrators’ Independence, Impartiality and Duty to Disclose in Investment Arbitration’ (2008) 7 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 351-356
• Moses ML, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (Cambridge University Press 2008).
• Murphy EA, ‘Standards of Arbitrators Impartiality: How Impartial Must They Be? - Lifecare International, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc.’ [1996] Journal of Dispute Resolution 463-476
• OGH Docket No. 18 ONc 3/20s (2021), available at https://globalarbitrationnews.com/austrian-supreme-court-confirms-arbitral-tribunals-ruling-to-hold-virtual-hearing-despite-one-partys-objection/
• Oldfather CH, ‘Compulsory Arbitration and Due Process’ (1953) 1 Kansas Law Review 281-286
• Pamboukis C, ‘On Arbitrability: The Arbitrator as a Problem Solver’ in Loukas A Mistelis and Stavros L Brekoulakis (eds), Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspectives (Kluwer Law International 2009)
• Park WW, ‘Two Face of Progress: Fairnes and Flexibility in Arbitral Procedure’ (2013) 23 Arbitration International 499-505
• Paulsson J, The Idea of Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2013)
• Queen Mary University of London, 2015 International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration, available at https://arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/media/arbitration/docs/2015_International_Arbitration_Survey.pdf
• Rau AS, ‘Integrity in Private Judging’ (1997) 38 Texas Law Review 485-521
• Reed L, ‘Ab(Use) of Due Process: Sword vs Shield’ (2017) 33 Arbitration International 361-377
• Reisman WM, Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration Breakdown and Repair (Duke University Press Books 1992)
• Rogers CA, ‘The Ethics of International Arbitrators’ in Lawrence W Newman and Richard D Hill (eds), The Leading Arbitrators’ Guide to International Arbitration (JurisNet 2008)
• Rogers CA, Ethics in International Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2014)
• Rules of Arbitration and Mediation, Vienna International Arbitral Centre, English version is available at https://www.viac.eu/images/documents/vienna_rules/VIAC_schieds_mediationsordnung_2021_e_20211110.pdf
• The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, available at https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/new-york-convention-e.pdf
• The Austrian Code of Civil Procedure, Arbitration Section (Zivilprozessordnung, Abschnitt über das Schiedsverfahren) English version is available at https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Erv/ERV_2006_1_7/ERV_2006_1_7.html
• UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, available at https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/19-09955_e_ebook.pdf