更新时间：2018-03-14 13:44:13 编辑：lianluobu 点击次数：1637次
作为承诺提高仲裁透明度的一部分，LCIA提供自2010年至2017年之间32起LCIA仲裁回避决定的在线摘要（online digests）。本次发布内容与LCIA 2011年发布的1996年至2010年的28份回避决定摘要一起，为用户提供了日益重要的研究工具，并说明LCIA回避程序的有效性。
新的摘要包括决定的匿名摘录（anonymised excerpts），通过LCIA仲裁院的措辞提供见解书面的回避决定对于用户、律师和仲裁员来说是非常宝贵的资源：这些案例为行为准则提供指导，并为仲裁院适用理由提供更好的理解。
回避决定数据库将在新裁决发布时定期更新，随着时间的推移增加其有用性。在这一部分的决定中，出现了一些有趣的趋势：
回避申请案件少，回避成功的案例更少
在裁决期间，LCIA处理了超过1 600起案件注册，只有不到2％的案件提出了回避申请并由LCIA仲裁院审理，这些回避请求中只有五分之一获得成功。换句话说，在这段期间，只有0.4％的LCIA案件仲裁员回避请求获得得到支持。
确保回避程序的完整性
在申请回避之后，其他当事人和被申请回避仲裁员有机会提交答复意见。根据回避的复杂程度，LCIA将任命仲裁院的一名或三名成员（或前成员）为裁决人员。任命之后，这些裁决人员可以开庭审理或在必要时要求进一步提交书面意见。考虑所有提交的意见，然后裁决人员提供一个强有力并十分合理的决定，支持或驳回回避申请。
回避程序行之有效
如上所述，回避程序完整并切实可行，裁决人员会做出合理的决定。然而，回避程序效率高：从指定裁决人员之日起，提供合理决定平均只需要27天，超过一半的决定都在不到14天的时间内作出。
回避理多样性，重点关注程序问题
在一半的回避决定中，申请回避的当事人提出了程序性决定由于偏见影响其其利益，就该问题提出回避的请求超过利益冲突指控。
LCIA期待更广泛地向其用户和国际仲裁界提供这一重要资源。
以下是回避决定的数据库：
|
Case reference |
Date decision |
Challenging Party |
Arbitrator challenged |
Outcome |
Files |
|
UN101693 |
28/10/2010 |
Claimant |
Co-arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA101682 |
04/01/2011 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA101642 |
31/01/2011 |
Respondent |
Chair |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA91305 |
04/03/2011 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA91431-91442 |
05/04/2011 |
Respondent |
Full tribunal |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA91431-91442 |
16/08/2011 |
Respondent |
Full tribunal |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA101735 |
07/10/2011 |
Respondent |
Chair |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA81116 |
01/06/2012 |
Respondent |
Co-arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA101689, 101691 |
22/06/2012 |
Respondent |
Co-arbitrator |
Upheld |
|
|
LCIA122073 |
06/07/2012 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA122053 |
31/072012 |
Claimant |
Co-arbitrator |
Upheld |
|
|
LCIA111933 |
23/08/2012 |
Respondent |
Full tribunal |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA111947 |
04/09/2012 |
Respondent |
Co-arbitrator |
Upheld |
|
|
LCIA111996 |
22/04/2013 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA122085 |
14/06/2013 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA122039 |
10/10/2013 |
Claimant |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA6752 |
20/11/2013 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA132445, 132456 |
23/12/2013 |
Respondent |
Chair, Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA122232 |
03/02/2014 |
Claimant |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA132498 |
24/12/2014 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Upheld |
|
|
LCIA142862 |
02/06/2015 |
Claimant |
Co-arbitrator |
Upheld |
|
|
UN152998 |
22/06/2015 |
Respondent |
Co-arbitrator |
Upheld |
|
|
LCIA132551 |
22/07/2015 |
Claimant |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA152914 |
05/08/2015 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA142603 |
16/02/2016 |
Claimant |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA152906 |
25/05/2016 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA142683 |
04/08/2016 |
Respondent |
Full tribunal |
Partially Upheld |
|
|
LCIA163283 |
03/10/2016 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA142683 |
16/12/2016 |
Respondent |
Both Co-arbitrators |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA142778 |
31/03/2017 |
Claimant |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA153149 |
12/04/2017 |
Respondent |
Sole arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
|
LCIA173566 |
21/07/2017 |
Respondent |
Co-arbitrator |
Rejected |
|
【英文原文】
LCIA releases database of anonymised challenge decisions
As part of its ongoing commitment to transparency, the LCIA is making available online digests of 32 LCIA arbitration challenge decisions from between 2010 and 2017. This release, together with the LCIA’s 2011 publication of 28 challenge decision summaries from between 1996 and 2010, provides users with an increasingly significant research tool, and one which illustrates the effectiveness of the LCIA’s challenge procedure.
The new digests contain anonymised excerpts of the decisions, providing insight through the LCIA Court’s own words. Written challenge decisions are an invaluable resource for users, counsel, and arbitrators – they give guidance in relation to standards of conduct, and provide a greater understanding of the reasoning applied by the Court.
The challenge decision database will be updated periodically when new decisions are issued, increasing its usefulness over time. From this tranche of decisions, some interesting trends emerge:
Challenges are rare in LCIA arbitrations, and even more rarely succeed
During the period covered by the decisions, over 1,600 cases were registered with the LCIA. Challenges were heard by the LCIA Court in less than 2% of these cases, and only one fifth of those challenges were successful. Put another way, successful challenges were made in only 0.4% of LCIA cases during that time period.
The challenge process is robust
Following a challenge, the other parties and the challenged arbitrator are given an opportunity to provide submissions in response. Depending on the complexity of the challenge, the LCIA will appoint either one member or three members (or former members) of the Court as decision-makers. Once appointed, these decision-makers may hold a hearing or ask for further written submissions if necessary. Taking all submissions into account, the decision-makers then provide a robust and closely-reasoned decision either upholding or rejecting the challenge.
The challenge process is efficient
As set out above, the challenge procedure is robust, and decision-makers produce sound decisions. However, the challenge process remains efficient: from the day decision-maker(s) are appointed, it takes on average only 27 days to provide the reasoned decision, and over half of all decisions are provided in less than 14 days.
Grounds for challenge are diverse, with a focus on procedural matters
In half of all challenge decisions, the challenging party presented a procedural decision contrary to their interests as evidence of bias – more common even than allegations of conflict.
The LCIA looks forward to providing its users and the international arbitration community more generally with this essential resource.
Click here to access the full LCIA challenge decision database.
电话：0451-82815701/82815702
邮箱：hrbzcw2013@163.com
地址：哈尔滨市松北区雪花南一路66号汇宏金融港7号楼3-5层
