Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne Fifteenth Annual Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot 14 - 20 March 2008 Memorandum for Respondent Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Bern Faculty of Law of the University of Berne ON BEHALF OF: Equatoriana Super Markets S.A. 415 Central Business Centre Oceanside Equatoriana RESPONDENT AGAINST: Mediterraneo Wine Cooperative 140 Vineyard Park Blue Hills Mediterraneo CLAIMANT COUNSEL: Fabienne Claudon – Christian Dreier – Aylin Erb Isabelle Ganz – Alain Muster – Leonora Schreier
56
Embed
Memorandum for Respondent - Portal · 2020. 2. 7. · Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne - II - 5. RESPONDENT revoked its purchase order, no contract containing an arbitration
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
Fifteenth Annual
Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot
14 - 20 March 2008
Memorandum for Respondent
Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Bern
Faculty of Law of the University of Berne
ON BEHALF OF:
Equatoriana Super Markets S.A.
415 Central Business Centre
Oceanside
Equatoriana
RESPONDENT
AGAINST:
Mediterraneo Wine Cooperative
140 Vineyard Park
Blue Hills
Mediterraneo
CLAIMANT
COUNSEL:
Fabienne Claudon – Christian Dreier – Aylin Erb
Isabelle Ganz – Alain Muster – Leonora Schreier
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- I -
Contents
Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................... IV
Authorities ...................................................................................................................................................... VII
Statement of Facts ..........................................................................................................................................1
Summary of Argument....................................................................................................................................2
Arguments on the procedural issues ............................................................................................................3
Issue 1: The Tribunal should stay the arbitral proceedings........................................................................3
I. The Court is competent to determine the Tribunal’s jurisdiction .............................................................3
1. The Tribunal’s competence-competence is only relative ...................................................................4
2. The Court has direct control over the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in spite of the latter’s
II. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is seriously in dispute ....................................................................................5
III. The Tribunal should avoid parallel proceedings .....................................................................................6
1. RESPONDENT at no point intended to delay arbitral proceedings .......................................................6
2. The Tribunal does not have priority in cases of parallel proceedings ................................................6
IV. The arbitral proceedings have not yet moved to an advanced stage......................................................7
V. The Court can order a stay of the arbitral proceedings...........................................................................8
VI. Result of Issue 1 .....................................................................................................................................8
Issue 2: No arbitration agreement was concluded between the Parties ....................................................9
I. The principle of separability does not apply............................................................................................9
1. The application of the principle of separability to the case where the existence of the main
contract is in dispute is rejected by legal authors and case law............................................................10
2. The wording of Art. 16(1) DAL excludes the application of the principle when the existence
of the main contract is in dispute ..........................................................................................................11
3. Art. 17.1 JAMS Rules cannot be relied on to support the application of the principle when
the existence of the main contract is in dispute ....................................................................................12
a) The JAMS Rules cannot be considered as no arbitration agreement was
1. The CISG applies to the arbitration agreement ...............................................................................13
2. The offer to conclude an arbitration agreement was revoked..........................................................14
3. The most minimal indication of the parties’ intent to arbitrate does not justify bypassing the
requirement of an existing arbitration agreement .................................................................................15
III. Result of Issue 2 ...................................................................................................................................15
Issue 3: The Tribunal may not order RESPONDENT to stay its proceedings before the
b) Conditions for granting interim measures are not met ..............................................19
3. The Tribunal does not have the authority to award costs and expenses .........................................20
III. Result of Issue 3 ...................................................................................................................................20
Arguments on the substantive law issues ..................................................................................................20
Issue 4: The contract was not effectively concluded.................................................................................20
I. No contract of sale was concluded on 10 June 2006 ...........................................................................21
II. RESPONDENT effectively revoked its offer on 18 June 2006..................................................................22
1. RESPONDENT’s offer was revocable .................................................................................................22
a) RESPONDENT did not state a fixed time frame for acceptance ..................................22
b) CLAIMANT did not act in reliance on the offer being irrevocable ................................23
2. RESPONDENT’s revocation reached CLAIMANT before the acceptance was dispatched ...................24
a) The internal network failure lies within CLAIMANT’s sphere of control .......................24
b) Declarations placed in a business mailbox outside business hours “reach” the
c) RESPONDENT’s revocation needs not have been retrieved by CLAIMANT to
become effective .................................................................................................................25
III. Result of Issue 4 ...................................................................................................................................27
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- III -
Issue 5: Blue Hills 2005 is not in conformity with the contract .................................................................27
I. Blue Hills 2005 was not in conformity with the agreed contractual obligations .....................................27
1. The wine was not fit for the particular purpose as the lead of a promotion
a) CLAIMANT knew of and confirmed the particular purpose the wine was
intended for ........................................................................................................................28
b) The wine offered by CLAIMANT does not fulfil the requirements resulting from
the particular purpose..........................................................................................................28
aa) A promotional wine requires a clean image.....................................................29
bb) A promotional wine must be of high quality for its price bracket ......................29
c) RESPONDENT could rely on CLAIMANT’s judgement ...................................................30
2. The terms of the contract do not support CLAIMANT’s position (Art. 35(1) CISG).............................31
3. Blue Hills 2005 is not fit for the ordinary purpose (Art. 35(2)(a) CISG) ............................................31
4. Blue Hills 2005 does not conform with Art. 35 (2)(c) CISG..............................................................32
a) As Blue Hills 2005 is not fit for the particular and the ordinary
purpose, an examination under Art. 35(2)(c) is superfluous ................................................33
b) Blue Hills 2005 features a hidden defect ..................................................................33
II. There is a fundamental breach of contract and therefore RESPONDENT was entitled to refuse to
take delivery..........................................................................................................................................33
1. Blue Hills 2005 substantially deprives RESPONDENT of what it could expect under the
2. This substantial deprivation could have been foreseen by CLAIMANT ..............................................34
III. Result of Issue 5.......................................................................................................................................35
SchiedsVZ Die neue Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren (München)
SoC Statement of Claim
SoD Statement of Defense
SUI-Reg. on alcoholic beverages Verordnung des EDI über alkoholische Getränke vom 23. November 2005
(Stand am 1. April 2007) (SUI)
TC Tribunal Cantonal (SUI)
UN United Nations
UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
US$ United States Dollar
USDC United States District Court
v. versus (against)
Vol. Volume
YCA Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (Deventer)
Names of countries are generally abbreviated with three letters, according to the official code.
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- VII -
Authorities
Books and Commentaries:
ACHILLES W., Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrechtsübereinkommen (CISG), Luchterhand, Berlin 2000 (cited as: ACHILLES; in: §144)
AUDIT B., La vente internationale de marchandise – Convention des Nations-Unies du 11 avril 1980, LGDJ, Paris 1990 (cited as: AUDIT; in: §144)
BERGER K. P., International Economic Arbitration, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer/Boston 1993 (cited as: BERGER, Arbitration; in: §6)
BERNSTEIN H./LOOKOFSKY J., Understanding the CISG in Europe, second Edition, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York 2003 (cited as: BERNSTEIN/LOOKOFSKY; in: §§61, 93)
BIANCA C. M./BONELL M. J., Commentary on the International Sales Law – The 1980 Vienna Sales Convention, Giuffrè, Milan 1987 (cited as: BIANCA/BONELL, AUTHOR; in: §§102, 106, 135, 141)
BORN G. B., International Commercial Arbitration – Commentary and Materials, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2001 (cited as: BORN; in: §38)
BROCHES A., Commentary on the UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration, Kluwer Law International, Deventer 1990 (cited as: BROCHES; in: §§18, 49, 80)
BRUNNER C., UN-Kaufrecht-CISG – Kommentar zum Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf von 1980 – Unter Berücksichtigung der Schnittstellen zum internen Schweizer Recht, Stämpfli Verlag AG, Bern 2004 (cited as: BRUNNER; in: §§95, 109, 135, 144, 153)
CALAVROS C., Das UNCITRAL-Modellgesetz über die internationale Handelsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit, in: Schriften zum deutschen und europäischen Zivil-, Handels- und Prozessrecht, Bd. 116, Verlag Ernst und Werner Gieseking, Bielefeld 1988 (cited as: CALAVROS; in: §49)
FOUCHARD/GAILLARD/GOLDMAN, On International Commercial Arbitration – Commentary and Materials, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1999 (cited as: FOUCHARD/GAILLARD/GOLDMAN; in: §§5, 69, 86)
HERBER R./CZERWENKA B., Internationales Kaufrecht – Kommentar zu den Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen vom 11. April 1980 über Verträge über den internationalen Warenkauf, Verlag C.H.Beck, München 1991
(cited as: HERBER/CZERWENKA; in: §§142, 144)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- VIII -
HOLTZMANN H. M./NEUHAUS J. E., A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer 1989 (cited as: HOLTZMANN/NEUHAUS; in: §§38, 62, 80)
HONNOLD J. O., Uniform Law for International Sales, Third Edition, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1999 (cited as: HONNOLD; in: §134)
HONSELL H. (ED.), Kommentar zum UN-Kaufrecht, Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York 1997 (cited as: HONSELL, AUTHOR; in: §§105, 106, 109, 135)
HUBER P./MULLIS A., The CISG – A new Textbook for students and practitioners, Sellier European law publishers, München 2007 (cited as: HUBER/MULLIS, AUTHOR; in: §§149, 155)
HUSSLEIN-STICH G., Das UNCITRAL-Modellgesetz über die internationale Handelsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, Köln/Berlin/Bonn/München 1990 (cited as: HUSSLEIN-STICH; in: §§15, 49, 60, 80)
KAROLLUS M., UN-Kaufrecht – Eine systematische Darstellung für Studium und Praxis, Springer Verlag, Wien/New York 1991 (cited as: KAROLLUS; in: §§109, 135)
KAUFMANN-KOHLER G./RIGOZZI A., Arbitrage international – Droit et pratique à la lumiere de la LDIP, Schulthess, Zurich/Bâle/Genève 2006
(cited as: KAUFMANN-KOHLER/RIGOZZI; in: §86)
KRONKE H./MELIS W./SCHNYDER A. (HRSG.), Handbuch Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln 2005 (cited as: KRONKE/MELIS/SCHNYDER, AUTHOR; in: §107)
LEW J. D. M., Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster 1987
(cited as: LEW, Contemporary Problems; in: §38)
LEW J. D. M./MISTELIS L. A./KRÖLL S. M., Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/New York 2003
(cited as: LEW/MISTELIS/KRÖLL; in: §6)
LIONNET K./LIONNET A., Handbuch der internationalen und nationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, dritte Auflage, Richard Boorberg Verlag, Düsseldorf 2005 (cited as: LIONNET/LIONNET; in: §38)
LÜKE G./WAX P. (ED.), Münchner Kommentar zur Zivilprozeßordnung, Band 3, zweite Auflage, Verlag C.H. Beck, München 2001 (cited as: LÜKE/WAX, AUTHOR; in: §10)
MÖNNIKES R., Die Reform des deutschen Schiedsverfahrensrecht, Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 2000 (cited as: MÖNNIKES; in: §20)
MUSIELAK H.J. (ED.), Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vierte Auflage, Verlag Franz Vahlen, München 2005 (cited as: MUSIELAK, AUTHOR; in: §§10, 17)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- IX -
NEUMAYER K. H./MING C., Convention de Vienne sur les contrats de vente internationale de marchandise – Commentaire, Publication Cediac, Lausanne 1993
(cited as: NEUMAYER/MING; in: §§98, 106)
POUDRET J. F./BESSON S., Comparative Law of International Arbitration, second Edition, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, London 2002 (cited as: POUDRET/BESSON; in: §§5, 6, 9, 12, 38, 62, 63, 82)
REDFERN A./HUNTER M., Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, fourth Edition, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, London 2004
SCHLECHTRIEM P./SCHWENZER I. (ED.), Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG), second (English) Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York 2005 (cited as: SCHLECHTRIEM/SCHWENZER (E), AUTHOR; in: §§95, 102, 105, 108, 134, 142, 148, 153,158)
SCHLECHTRIEM P./SCHWENZER I. (HRSG.), Kommentar zum Einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht – CISG, vierte Auflage, Verlag C.H.Beck, München 2004 (cited as: SCHLECHTRIEM/SCHWENZER (D), AUTHOR; in: §§121, 144)
SCHLOSSER P., Das Recht der internationalen privaten Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, zweite Auflage, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1989 (cited as: SCHLOSSER, Recht; in: §6)
THOMAS H./PUTZO H. (ED.), Zivilprozessordnung, 28. Auflage, Verlag C.H. Beck, München 2007 (cited as: THOMAS/PUTZO, AUTHOR; in: §20)
WALTER G., Internationales Zivilprozessrecht der Schweiz, vierte Auflage, Haupt Verlag, Bern/Stuttgart/Wien 2007 (cited as: WALTER; in: §83)
WEIGAND F.-B. (ED.), Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration, Verlag C.H. Beck, Bruylant, Manz’sche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung, Stämpfli Verlag AG, München/Bruxelles/Wien/Bern 2002 (cited as: WEIGAND, AUTHOR; in: §15)
WENGER W., Schiedsvereinbarung und schiedsgerichtliche Zuständigkeit, in: Kellerhals A. (Ed.), Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag AG, Zürich 1997, pp. 223-247 (cited as: WENGER; in: §6)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- X -
WITZ W./SALGER H.-C./LORENZ, International Einheitliches Kaufrecht, Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft GmbH, Heidelberg 2000 (cited as: WITZ/SALGER/LORENZ; in: §105)
ZÖLLER R. (ED.), Zivilprozessordnung, 26. Auflage, Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln 2007 (cited as: ZÖLLER, AUTHOR; in: §17)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- XI -
Articles
BERGER K. P., The German Arbitration Law of 1998 – First Experiences, in: Briner R./Fortier L.Y./Berger K.P./Bredow J. (Ed.), Law of international business and dispute settlement in the 21st century, Liber Amicorum K. H. Böckstiegel, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, Köln/Berlin/Bonn/München 2001 (cited as: BERGER, Experiences; in: §10)
BURGARD U., Das Wirksamwerden empfangsbedürftiger Willensäusserungen im Zeitalter moderner Telekommunikation, in: Archiv für civilistische Praxis (AcP), 195. Band, 1995, pp. 74 et seqq. (cited as: BURGARD; in: §§106, 107)
CLEMENS R., Die elektronische Willenserklärung – Chancen und Gefahren, in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1985, Heft 34, pp. 1998 et seqq. (cited as: CLEMENS; in: §106)
DE BOISSÉSON M., Anti-Suit Injunctions Issued by National Courts At the Seat of the Arbitration or Elsewhere, in: Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 65 et seqq. (cited as: DE BOISSÉSON; in: §31)
DIMOLITSA A., Separability and Kompetenz-Kompetenz, in: ICCA Congress series no. 9 (Paris/1999), pp. 217-256 (cited as: DIMOLITSA; in: §5)
EISELEN S., E-Commerce and the CISG: Formation, Formality and Validity, Vindobona Journal of International Law & Arbitration, Vienna 2002, pp. 305-318 (cited as: EISELEN; in: §112)
FERNANDEZ ROZAS J. C., Anti-suit Injunctions Issued by National Courts – Measures addressed to the Parties or the Arbitrators, in: Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 73-85 (cited as: ROZAS; in: §31)
FERRARI F., Wesentliche Vertragsverletzung nach UN-Kaufrecht – 25 CISG, in: Internationales Handelsrecht – International Commercial Law – Zeitschrift für das Recht des internationalen Warenkaufs und -vertriebs (IHR), 2005, available on: http://25.cisg.info.content/publikation.php?id=4 (cited as: FERRARI, IHR 2005; in: §155)
FOUCHARD PH., Les travaux de la C.N.U.D.C.I., Le règlement d’arbitrage, J.D.I. 106 (1979), pp. 816-845 (cited as: FOUCHARD; in: §§38, 62)
GARRO A. M., Reconciliation of Legal Traditions in the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the international Sales of Goods, reproduced with permission from 23 International Lawyer (1989), pp. 443-483, available on: www.cisg.law.edu/cisg/biblio/garrro1.htlm (cited as: GARRO; in: §98)
GAUDEMET-TALLON H., Note – Cour de cassation (1re Ch. civ.) 20 décembre 1993 – Municipalité de Khoms El Mergeb v. société Dalico, in: Rev. arb. 1994 No. 1, pp. 118-125 (cited as: GAUDEMET-TALLON; in: §41)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- XII -
GROSS P., Competence of Competence - An English View, Arb. Int., Vol. 8 No. 2 (1992), pp. 205-214(cited as: GROSS; in: §15)
HOBÉR K., Parallel arbitration proceedings – Duties of the arbitrators, in: Cremades B.M./Lew D.M. (Ed.), Parallel State and Arbitral Procedures in International Arbitration, ICC Publishing, Paris 2005 (cited as: HOBÉR; in: §19)
KAHNEMANN D., Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgement and choice, Price lecture 8 December 2002, Princeton University, Department of Psychology, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA, available on: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf (cited as: KAHNEMANN; in: §145)
KRÖLL ST., Germany (2007), in: Paulsson J. (Ed.), International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, Suppl. 48, Kluwer Law International, The Hague February 2007 (cited as: KRÖLL; in: §64)
KOCH R., The Concept of Fundamental Breach of Contract under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sales of Goods (CISG). Reproduced with permission of Pace ed., Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 1998, Kluwer Law International (1999), pp. 177-354 (cited as: KOCH; in: §145)
LEW J. D. M., Anti-Suit Injunctions Issued by National Courts to Prevent Arbitration Proceedings, in: Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 25 et seqq. (cited as: LEW, Anti-Suit Injunctions; in: §31)
LÉVY L., Anti-Suit Injunctions Issued by Arbitrators, in: Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 115 et seqq.
(cited as: LÉVY; in: §§86, 87)
LOQUIN E., Note – Cour de cassation (1re Ch. civile) 9 novembre 1993, in: J.D.I. 121 (1994), pp. 692-701 (cited as: LOQUIN; in: §66)
MOITRY J.-H./VERGNE C., Note – Cour d’appel de Paris (1re Ch. suppl.) 26 février 1988; Cour de cassation (1re Ch. Civile) 10 julliet 1990, in: Rev. arb. 1990 No. 4, pp. 851 et seqq. (cited as: MOITRY/VERGNE; in: §41)
MAZZOTTA F., Notes on the United Nations Convention on the use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts and its effects on the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, in: Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2007, pp. 252 et seqq.(cited as: MAZZOTTA; in: §§106, 107, 113)
SAMUEL A., Separability of Arbitration Clauses – some awkward questions about the Law on Contracts, Conflict of Laws and the Administration of Justice, in: 9 ADRLJ (2000), p. 36 et seq. (cited as: SAMUEL, Questions; in: §64)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- XIII -
SAMUEL A., Separability in English Law – Should an Arbitration Clause Be Regarded as an Agreement Separate and Collateral to a Contract in Which It Is Contained?, in: Jnl. Int. Arb, Vol. 3 No. 3 (1986), pp. 95-110 (cited as: SAMUEL, Separability; in: §§51, 55)
SCHERER M./GIOVANNI T., Anti-Arbitration and Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, in: Stockholm International Arbitration Review, Vol. 1 (2005), pp. 201-218 (cited as: SCHERER/GIOVANNI; in: §§80, 83)
SCHLOSSER P., Arbitral Tribunals or State Court - Who must defer to whom?, in: P. A. Karrer (Ed.), ASA Special Series No.15, Basel 2001, pp. 15 et seqq. (cited as: SCHLOSSER, ASA; in: §10)
SCHLOSSER P., La Nouvelle Législation Allmande sur L’Arbitrage, in: Rev. arb. 1998 No. 2, pp. 291-303 (cited as: SCHLOSSER, Législation; in: §10)
SCHWARTZ E. A., International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, in: ICCA Congress Series No. 7, Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996, pp. 207-212 (cited as: SCHWARTZ; in: §10)
SCHWEBEL ST., The Severability of the Arbitration Agreement, in: International Arbitration: Three Salient Problems, Grotius Publications Limited, Cambridge 1987, pp. 1-60 (cited as: SCHWEBEL; in: §§41, 44)
SCHWENZER I./MOHS F., Old Habits Die Hard: Traditional Contract Formation in a Modern World, in: Internationales Handelsrecht – International Commercial Law – Zeitschrift für das Recht des internationalen Warenkaufs und -vertriebs (IHR), 6/2006, pp. 239 et seqq. (cited as: SCHWENZER/MOHS; in: §98)
SCHRÖTER U. G., Der Antrag auf Feststellung der Zulässigkeit eines schiedsrichterlichen Verfahrens gemäß § 1032 Abs. 2 ZPO, in: SchiedsVZ 2004, Heft 6, pp. 288 et seqq. (cited as: SCHRÖTER; in: §10)
SERAGLINI CH., Note – Cour de cassation (1re Ch. civ.), 30 mars 2004, in: Rev. arb. 2005 No. 4, pp. 961-976 (cited as: SERAGLINI; in: §54)
SIEGRIST M., Die Bedeutung von Vertrauen bei der Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Risiken, Arbeitsbericht, Nr. 197, September 2001 available on: http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2004/1887/pdf/AB197.pdf (cited as: SIEGRIST; in: §145)
SPAIC A., Approaching Uniformity in International Sales Law: Comparative Analyses of the Concept of Fundamental Breach under the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), December 2006, available on: www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/spaic.html (cited as: SPAIC; in: §§155, 158)
SVERNLÖV C. M., The Evolution of the Doctrine of Separability in England: Now Virtually Complete? The Doctrines of “Separability” of the Arbitration Agreement and “Compétence de la Compétence”, in: Jnl. Int. Arb., Vol. 9 No. 3 (1992), pp. 115-122 (cited as: SVERNLÖV; in: §§41, 55)
SVERNLÖV C. M./CARROLL L., What Isn’t, Ain’t, The Current Status of the Doctrine of Separability, in: Jnl. Int. Arb., Vol. 8 No. 4 (1991), pp. 37-50 (cited as: SVERNLÖV/CARROLL; in: §§41, 44, 46, 64)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- XIV -
VINCZE A., Remarks on whether and the extend to which the UNIDROIT Principles may be used to help interpret Article 16 CISG, available on: www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/principles/uni 16.htlm
(cited as: VINCZE; in: §§98, 99)
WETTER J., The Importance of Having a Connection, Arb. Int., Vol. 3 No. 4 (1987), pp. 329-336(cited as: WETTER; in: §69)
ZIEGEL S./SAMSON C., Report to the Uniform Law Conference of Canada on Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, available on: www.cisg.law.pace.edu./cisg/wais/db/articles/english2htlm (cited as: ZIEGEL/SAMSON; in: §§93, 144)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- XV -
Materials
New York Times (Special), Tagliabue J., 2 August 1985, Scandal over poisoned wine embitters village in Austria (cited as: New York Times, 2 August 1985; in: §§125, 136)
Commentary on the Draft Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods prepared by the Secretariat; UN DOC. A/CONF. 97/5; available on: www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/materials-commentary.html (cited as: Secretariat Commentary; in: §§135, 141)
Documentation Austrian Wine 2005/2006, October 2005 Edition, available on: www.winesfromaustria.com (cited as: Documentation Austrian Wine; in: §§125, 155)
International Law Association, Conference Report Toronto 2006 (Final Report on lis pendens and Arbitration), available on: www.ila-hq.org/html/layout_committee.htm (cited as: ILA Report; in: §24)
Report of the UNCITRAL on the work of its eighteen session, Vienna, 3-21 June 1985, A/40/17, Discussion on individual articles of the ML-A draft text, UNCITRAL Yearbook, Vol. XVI (1985), United Nations, New York 1988, pp. 7-39
(cited as: UNCITRAL Report on ML-A; in: §21)
Secretariat of UNCITRAL, Seventh Secretariat Note: Analytical Commentary on Draft Text, A/CN.9/264, 25 March 1985 (cited as: Seventh Secretariat Note; in: §§60, 75)
Stuttgarter Zeitung online, Zum Wohl Glykol, 5 September 2007, available on: www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/stz/page/detail.php/951412/r_article_print (cited as: Stuttgarter Zeitung, 5 September 2007; in: §125)
Verhandlungen des Deutschen Bundestages, BT Drucksache 13/5274 vom 12.07.1996, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts, Bonn 1996 (cited as BUNDESTAG, GER; in: §20)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- XVI -
Cases
Argentina
Juzgado de Primera Instancia en lo Contencioso Administrativo y Tributario Nº 1 de Buenos Aires, 27 September 2004, Entidad Binacional Yacyretá (Argentina - Parguay) v. Eriday UTE, available on: www.diariojudicial.com/nota.asp?IDNoticia=22984
(cited as: Juzgado Admin. y Tribu., ARG, 2004; in: §32)
Cour de cassation (1re Chambre civile),10 July 1990, Société L & B Cassia v. société Pia Investments, Rev. arb. 1990 No. 4, pp. 851 et seqq.
(cited as: CdC, FRA, 1990; in: §42)
Cour de cassation, 23 January 1996, Savocini/Marazza v. Sté les fils de Henri Ramel/Sté Bonfils Georges/Sté Preau et compagnie, CISG-online No. 159, Arrêt n° 173, Pourvoi n°. 93-16.542 (cited as: CdC, FRA, 1996; in: §141)
Cour de cassation, 16 July 1998, CISG-online No. 344 (cited as: CdC, FRA, 1998; in: §§93, 95)
Cour d’appel de Grenoble (Chambre commerciale), 26 April 1995, Marques Roque Joachim v. S.a.r.l. Holding Manin Rivière, CISG-online No. 154, No. 93/4879 (cited as: CdA, FRA, 1995; in: §121)
Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main, 4 March 1994, CISG-online No. 110 (cited as: OLG, GER, 1994; in: §93)
Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 24 April 1997, Calzaturificio Piceno di Roberto Catinari & Uvaldo Raccosta v. Vivace Mode GmbH, available on: www.unilex.info; No. 6U 87/96
(cited as: OLG, GER, 1997; in: §158)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- XVII -
Landsgericht München, 27 February 2002, CISG-online No. 654, No. 5HK O 3936/00 (cited as: LG, GER, 2002; in: §121)
Hong Kong
Supreme Court of Hong Kong, High Court, 29 October 1991, Fung Sang Trading Ltd. v. Kai Sun Sea Products & Food Co. Ltd., YCA, Vol. XVII (1992), pp. 289-304 (cited as: HC, HKG, 1991; in: §§38, 62)
India
Supreme Court, 16 August 1984, Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (India) v. General Electric Company (U.S.), YCA, Vol. X (1985), pp. 431-449 (cited as: SC, IND, 1984; in: §42)
Switzerland
Bundesgericht, 2 September 1993, National Power Corporation v. Westinghouse International Projects Company, Westinghouse Electric S.A., Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Burns & Roe, Enterprises Inc. et Tribunal arbitral, BGE 119 II 380
(cited as: BGer, SUI, 1993; in: §§38, 62)
Bundesgericht, 22 December 2000, Roland Schmidt GmbH v. Textil-Werke Blumenegg AG, CISG-online No. 628, No. 4C.296/2000 (cited as: BGer, SUI, 2000; in: §141)
Bundesgericht, 5 April 2005, I. Zivilabteilung, 4C.474/2004, available on: www.bger.ch (cited as: BGer, SUI, 2005; in: §§93, 95, 99)
Handelsgericht des Kantons Aargau, 11 June 1999, CISG-online No. 494, No. OR 98.00010 (cited as: HG Aargau, SUI, 1999; in: §112)
Handelsgericht des Kantons Zürich, 10 July 1996, CISG-online No. 227 (cited as: HG, SUI, 1996; in: §92)
Tribunale d’appello di Lugano, 29 October 2003, CISG-online No. 912 (cited as: TdA, SUI, 2003; in: §99)
United Kingdom
Court of Appeal, 28 January 1993, Harbour Assurance Co. (UK) Ltd. v. Kansa General International Insurance Co. Ltd., YCA, Vol. XX (1995), pp. 771-790
(cited as: CoA, GBR, 1993; in: §42)
House of Lords, 1942, Heyman v. Darwins, Ltd., A. C. 356, 1 All England Reports 337 (cited as: H.L., GBR, 1942; in: §42)
United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 19 May 1982, Evra Corporation v. Swiss Bank Corporation, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~omri/Evra.pdf (cited as: CoA, USA, 1982; in: §§106, 107)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- XVIII -
United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, 1992, Chastain v. Robinson-Humphrey Co., Inc., 957 F.2d 851 et seqq.(cited as: CoA, USA, 1992; in: §43)
United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 6 December 1995, Delchi Carrier, SpA v. Rotorex Corp, CISG-online No. 140, No. 95-7182/6 (cited as: CoA, USA, 1995; in: §§157, 158)
United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 26 November 2003, Will-Drill Resources, Inc. v. Samson Resources Co., No. 02-31185, available on: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0231185cv0p.pdf(cited as: CoA, USA, 2003; in: §45)
United States District Court (S D New York), 14 April 1992, Filanto S.p.A. v. Chilewich international Corp., CISG-online No. 45 (cited as: USDC, USA, 1992; in: §95)
United States District Court (N D Illinois, Eastern Division), 7 December 1999, Magellan International Corporation v. Salzgitterhandel GmbH, CISG-online No. 439 (cited as: USDC, USA, 1999; in: §95)
United States District Court (S D New York), 10 May 2002, Geneva Pharmaceuticals Tech Corp. v. Barr Labs, Inc., CISG-online No. 653 (cited as: USDC, USA, 5.2002; in: §98)
United States District Court (Rhode Island), 3 September 2002, A.T. Cross Co. v. Royal Selangor(s) PTE, Ltd., YCA, Vol. XXVIII (2003), pp. 1005-1013 (cited as: USDC, USA, 9.2002; in: §31)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- XIX -
Awards
Ad Hoc Preliminary Award of 14 January 1982, Elf Aquitaine Iran v. National Iranian Oil Company, YCA, Vol. XI (1986),
pp. 97-105 (cited as: Ad Hoc Award, 1982; in: §38)
International Chamber of Commerce
ICC Case No. 6610, 1991, Interim Award, YCA, Vol. XIX (1994), pp. 162-166 (cited as: ICC, 1991; in: §3)
ICC Case No. 8887, April 1997, ICC Bull., Vol. 11, No. 1, 2000, p. 91 (cited as: ICC, 1997; in: §87)
ICC Case No. 10596, 2000, Interlocutory Award, YCA, Vol. XXX (2005), pp. 66-76 (cited as: ICC, 2000; in: §86)
ICC Case No. 8307, 14 May 2001, Interim Award, Gaillard E. (Ed.), IAI Series on International Arbitration No. 2, Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration, Juris Publishing, Inc. and Staempfli Verlag AG, Berne/New York 2005, pp. 307-315
(cited as: ICC, 2001, in: §§82, 86)
ICC Case No. 10947, June 2002, Interim Award, ASA Bulletin, Vol. 22 No. 2 (2004), Basel, pp. 308-332 (cited as: ICC, 2002; in: §21)
Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft (Vienna)
Internationales Schiedsgericht der Bundeskammer der gewerblichen Wirtschaft, 15 June 1994, No. SCH-4366, Wien (Vienna), Austria (cited as: ISBW Vienna, 1994; in: §112)
Netherlands Arbitration Institute
Netherlands Arbitration Institute, 15 October 2002, Case No. 2319, CISG-online No. 780 (cited as: NAI, NLD, 2002; in: §144)
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- 1 -
Statement of Facts
RESPONDENT Equatoriana Super Markets S.A. is the largest operator of supermarkets as well as the
largest retailer of wine in Equatoriana (SoC, §4).
CLAIMANT Mediterraneo Wine Cooperative is a producer and marketer of wine. The grapes for
the wine are grown by the members of the cooperative (SoC, §§1-2).
7-10 May 2006 Mr. Cox, sales manager for CLAIMANT, and Mr. Wolf, wine buyer for RESPONDENT,
meet at a trade Fair in Durhan, Oceania. At this Fair, the wine “Blue Hills 2005”
produced by CLAIMANT wins a prize. RESPONDENT is interested in purchasing this wine.
1 June 2006 After some initial correspondence between the Parties, Mr. Cox offers in a letter to
Mr. Wolf to sell “Blue Hills 2005” at a price of US$72 per case containing 12 bottles
(Cl.Ex.No.2) for an order of 10,000 cases and a price of US$68 per case for an order
of 20,000 cases (Cl.Ex.No.3).
10 June 2006 Mr. Wolf responds to this offer by making a counter offer including a contract, which
he sends to CLAIMANT by e-mail and courier (Cl.Ex.No.4-5). Therein he offers to
purchase 20,000 cases at a price of US$68 per case (Cl.Ex.No.4).
11 June 2006 Ms. Kringle, assistant to Mr. Cox, informs Mr. Wolf that Mr. Cox is absent but will
return on 19 June 2006. She assures him that the purchase order will receive
Mr. Cox’s immediate attention on his return (Cl.Ex.No.6).
11 June 2006 Mr. Wolf responds and asks Ms. Kringle to be sure to have Mr. Cox act on the
purchase order immediately on his return (Cl.Ex.No.7).
18 June 2006 Mr. Wolf writes an e-mail to Mr. Cox in which he informs him that RESPONDENT
withdraws the purchase order of 10 June 2006 due to prominent articles about the
scandal in the production of wine in Mediterraneo in all of the morning’s newspapers
in Equatoriana (Cl.Ex.No.9). CLAIMANT’s server receives the message but does only
deliver it to Mr. Cox’s computer in the afternoon of 19 June 2006 due to a service
failure in the internal network (SoC, §10; PO2, Q.26).
19 June 2006 Mr. Cox signs RESPONDENT’s contract and sends it back by courier (Cl.Ex.No.8).
20 June 2006 Mr. Cox writes to Mr. Wolf and insists that a contract was concluded. He explains that
the newspaper articles were completely incorrect and notifies him of the first shipment
of wine as stipulated in the contract (Cl.Ex.No.10).
Mr. Wolf answers the same day that RESPONDENT will not take delivery because it has
withdrawn its offer (Cl.Ex.No.11).
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- 2 -
15 July 2006 Mr. Cox submits an expert report prepared by Professor Sven Ericson to Mr. Wolf
(Cl.Ex.No.12-13). Mr. Cox explains that CLAIMANT is still holding the wine and is
waiting for shipping directions.
25 July 2006 Mr. Wolf answers that RESPONDENT still refuses to take delivery (Cl.Ex.No.14).
18 June 2007 CLAIMANT submits a Request for Arbitration and Statement of Claim to JAMS.
6 July 2007 The Commercial Court of Vindobona (Danubia) informs CLAIMANT that RESPONDENT
has commenced an action requesting the Court to issue a decision stipulating that no
arbitration agreement existed between CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT (ASoC, §2).
10 July 2007 CLAIMANT submits an amendment to the Request for Arbitration and the Statement of
Claim and asks the Tribunal to order RESPONDENT to terminate its litigation and pay
the full costs of the litigation (ASoC, §6).
17 July 2007 RESPONDENT submits its Statement of Defense in which it requests the Tribunal to
stay the proceedings until the Commercial Court of Vindobona (Danubia) has ruled on
the existence of the arbitration agreement (SoD, §21).
Summary of Argument
The following shall demonstrate in law and fact that:
the Tribunal should exercise its discretionary power and stay the arbitral proceedings [Issue 1];
no arbitration agreement has been validly entered into between the Parties [Issue 2];
RESPONDENT’s action before the Commercial Court of Vindobona (Danubia) is not in violation of
Art. 17(3) JAMS International Arbitration Rules and the Tribunal should not order RESPONDENT to
terminate its litigation in court [Issue 3];
a contract of sale was not validly concluded between the Parties [Issue 4]; and that
the wine offered by CLAIMANT was not in conformity with the contract and RESPONDENT could
therefore refuse to take delivery [Issue 5].
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- 3 -
Arguments on the procedural issues
Issue 1: The Tribunal should stay the arbitral proceedings
1 RESPONDENT does not contest the Tribunal’s competence to determine its own jurisdiction, but in
order to avoid parallel proceedings, which would duplicate the costs and increase the risk of
conflicting decisions, RESPONDENT requests the Tribunal to find that it will grant a stay of the arbitral
proceedings while the action is pending before the Commercial Court of Vindobona (Danubia)
(hereinafter “Court”).
2 RESPONDENT accepts that the Danubian Arbitration Law (hereinafter “DAL”) is the so-called lex arbitri
(REDFERN/HUNTER, §2.14) and therefore applies to this arbitration. Danubia has enacted the
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 (hereinafter “ML-A”) with a
single amendment to Art. 8 ML-A (SoD, §4).
3 According to Art. 8(3) DAL, it is at the arbitrators’ discretion to allow parallel proceedings before the
Court and the Tribunal. A tribunal would ordinarily stay its proceedings “where that appears to be the
just and convenient course to take” (ICC, 1991). CLAIMANT puts forth four arguments why the
Tribunal should not stay the arbitral proceedings. First, CLAIMANT relies on the Tribunal’s
competence-competence (MfC, §§15-17). Second, CLAIMANT alleges that the Parties have formed a
valid arbitration agreement (MfC, §§18-22). Third, it claims that the Tribunal should continue the
proceedings due to the fact that parallel proceedings are allowed (MfC, §§24-27). Fourth, CLAIMANT
asserts that the arbitral proceedings have moved to an advanced stage (MfC, §§28-30).
RESPONDENT rejects these allegations and requests the Tribunal to stay its proceedings. The reasons
for RESPONDENT’s position are as follows: First, the Court is competent to determine the Tribunal’s
jurisdiction in spite of the arbitrators’ competence-competence [I.]. Second, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
is seriously in dispute [II.]. Third, the Tribunal should avoid inefficient and costly parallel proceedings
before the Tribunal and the Court [III.]. Fourth, the arbitral proceedings have not yet moved to an
advanced stage [IV.]. In addition, the Court can order a stay of the proceedings [V.].
I. The Court is competent to determine the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
4 A stay of the arbitral proceedings should be granted because the Tribunal’s competence-
competence is only relative [I.1]. Moreover, the Court has direct control anyway over the Tribunal’s
jurisdiction in spite of the latter’s competence-competence [I.2.].
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- 4 -
1. The Tribunal’s competence-competence is only relative
5 The doctrine known as competence-competence states that “the arbitrators have jurisdiction to
determine their own jurisdiction” (FOUCHARD/GAILLARD/GOLDMAN, §650). This principle is nowadays
widely recognized and stipulated in various legislations in some form (DIMOLITSA, pp.227-240;
FOUCHARD/GAILLARD/GOLDMAN, §650; POUDRET/BESSON, §458). Danubia provides for the principle of
competence-competence in Art. 16(1) DAL as “[t]he arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction
including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement”.
6 According to the principle of competence-competence, an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on
its own jurisdiction (LEW/MISTELIS/KRÖLL, §14.13), which is, however, subject to the control of the
courts. The arbitrators’ competence-competence is thus qualified only as provisional or relative
(POUDRET/BESSON, §457; SCHLOSSER, Recht, §546; WENGER p.242), and the courts have the final
competence to determine the arbitrators’ jurisdiction (BERGER, Arbitration, pp.358-360).
7 The courts’ final competence is also provided in DAL. The court specified in Art. 6 DAL may set
aside an arbitral award if the arbitration agreement is not valid and, as a consequence, the arbitral
tribunal lacks jurisdiction to issue an award (Art. 34(2)(a)(i) DAL).
8 The Court is the designated instance according to Art. 6 DAL (PO2, Q.10) and is therefore
competent to make a final decision on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. As RESPONDENT will show
below [§§9-12], the Court is allowed to determine the Tribunal’s jurisdiction not only after an arbitral
award has been issued, but also at an earlier phase of the arbitral proceedings up until the moment
when the Tribunal has been constituted.
2. The Court has direct control over the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in spite of the latter’s
competence-competence
9 Danubia is among those legislations that allow an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to be directly
controlled by a court. According to Art. 8(2) DAL, a party is allowed to seize a court directly with a
declaratory action concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement and the jurisdiction of an
arbitral tribunal (POUDRET/BESSON, §483).
10 This form of direct control of a tribunal’s jurisdiction is also specified in the German Code of Civil
Procedure of 1998 (hereinafter “CCP-GER”), where the main function of direct control is to determine
the arbitrators’ jurisdiction at an early stage of the proceedings (SCHLOSSER, Législation, p.300;
SCHRÖTER, p.288) by using an accelerated and facilitated court procedure (SCHLOSSER, ASA, p.29).
As Art. 8(2) DAL is consistent with Art. 1032(2) CCP-GER (PO2, Q.2), the interpretation of
Art. 8(2) DAL can be inspired by the German approach. As pointed out by German commentators,
the plaintiffs do not have to show any additional legal interest in a declaratory judgment to support
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- 5 -
their claim (LÜKE/WAX, MÜNCH, Art. 1032, §11; MUSIELAK, VOIT, Art. 1032, §12). The only condition is
that the claim must be lodged before the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, i.e. before the
chairperson accepts the nomination by the other arbitrators (BERGER, Experiences, p.45).
11 Prof. Dr. Presiding Arbitrator accepted the nomination as chairperson and the Tribunal was
constituted on 17 August 2007 (LPresArb-J), i.e. more than a month after RESPONDENT filed the
action with the Court on 4 July 2007 (PO2, Q.9). Therefore, the designated instance according to Art.
6 DAL, which is the Court (PO2, Q.10), has the competence to determine the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal according to Art. 8(2) DAL. As RESPONDENT will show below [§§28-29], the arbitral
proceedings are at an advanced stage. Thus, the main function of direct control can still be achieved.
12 In cases of direct control, the arbitration agreement is controlled directly by a court without prior
ruling by the arbitrators (POUDRET/BESSON, §483). Hence, the arbitrators’ competence-competence is
limited in Danubia if, as in the present instance, the Court is seized directly with a declaratory action.
13 Direct control according to Art. 8(2) DAL brings forward the moment at which judicial control over the
arbitrators’ jurisdiction is allowed to the very beginning of arbitral proceedings. If the Tribunal were to
find that a stay should not be granted, and rendered an award on its jurisdiction, this would not
prevent the Court from continuing its proceedings. As long as the Court has not decided on the
arbitrators’ jurisdiction, the arbitral proceedings are under constant threat that the proceedings,
including an award, will be declared null and void if the Court were to find that, in fact, no arbitration
agreement had validly been concluded between the Parties (SCHWAB/WALTER, §17.19).
14 Conclusion of I.: The Tribunal’s competence-competence is only relative since the Court has the
final competence to determine the arbitrators’ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is
under direct control of the Court. The Tribunal should therefore await a final decision of the Court.
II. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is seriously in dispute
15 The Tribunal should stay the arbitral proceedings if it has serious concerns about the validity of the
arbitration agreement (HUSSLEIN-STICH, p.50) or “serious doubts as to its jurisdiction” (WEIGAND,
ROTH, p.1202). An English court held that if the arbitrators had “obviously […] no jurisdiction as, for
example, it would be if the submission [were not] properly executed, or something of that sort, then
they might [not be] going to go on with the hearing at all” (Q.B., GBR, 1954; GROSS, p.207).
16 RESPONDENT validly revoked its purchase order and no arbitration agreement was indeed ever validly
concluded between the Parties [Issue 2, §§62-68]. Therefore, RESPONDENT takes the position that
the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The Tribunal itself discussed during the conference call on 1 October
2007 whether it should automatically stay the proceedings and it holds the view that it is not clear
whether an arbitration agreement is in existence or not (PO1, §7).
Memorandum for Respondent University of Berne
- 6 -
17 The Court will in all likelihood not affirm the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Court’s judgment would
prevail over an arbitral award and render the latter null and void (MUSIELAK, VOIT, Art. 1032, §14;
ZÖLLER, GEIMER, Art. 1032, §16).
18 In cases where the arbitration agreement itself is in dispute, and therefore, the Tribunal were in
doubt about its own jurisdiction, the Tribunal should exercise the discretion which Art. 8(3) DAL
allows it and “await the decision of the court before proceeding with the arbitration, in order to save
expense for the Parties if the court later ruled that the agreement was invalid” (BROCHES, Art. 8, §26).
III. The Tribunal should avoid parallel proceedings
19 Simultaneous proceedings bear the risk of unnecessarily duplicating costs and of arriving at
conflicting decisions (HOBÉR, p.243). The Tribunal should stay the arbitral proceedings until the Court
has had the possibility to rule on the arbitrators’ jurisdiction. Granting a stay, would allow the Tribunal
to avoid parallel proceedings before both the Court and the Tribunal on the latter’s jurisdiction.
20 As parallel proceedings are unwanted, an arbitral tribunal should, as a general rule, stay the arbitral
proceedings if an action according to Art. 8(2) DAL is pending before the competent court