>首页 > 仲裁动态 > 仲裁资讯 > 仲裁要闻 > 正文

提高仲裁透明度:LCIA发布仲裁员回避决定数据

更新时间:2018-03-14 13:44:13   编辑:lianluobu  点击次数:572次

作为承诺提高仲裁透明度的一部分,LCIA提供自2010年至2017之间32LCIA仲裁回避决定的在线摘要online digests本次发布内容LCIA 2011发布1996年至2010年的28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回避程序有效性。

新的摘要包括决定匿名摘录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。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

裁决期间,LCIA处理了超过1 600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

申请回避之后,其他当事人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十分合理的决定支持驳回回避申请


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

PDF

LCIA101682

04/01/2011

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA101642

31/01/2011

Respondent

Chair

Rejected

PDF

LCIA91305

04/03/2011

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA91431-91442

05/04/2011

Respondent

Full tribunal

Rejected

PDF

LCIA91431-91442

16/08/2011

Respondent

Full tribunal

Rejected

PDF

LCIA101735

07/10/2011

Respondent

Chair

Rejected

PDF

LCIA81116

01/06/2012

Respondent

Co-arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA101689, 101691

22/06/2012

Respondent

Co-arbitrator

Upheld

PDF

LCIA122073

06/07/2012

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA122053

31/072012

Claimant

Co-arbitrator

Upheld

PDF

LCIA111933

23/08/2012

Respondent

Full tribunal

Rejected

PDF

LCIA111947

04/09/2012

Respondent

Co-arbitrator

Upheld

PDF

LCIA111996

22/04/2013

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA122085

14/06/2013

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA122039

10/10/2013

Claimant

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA6752

20/11/2013

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA132445, 132456

23/12/2013

Respondent

Chair, Sole  arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA122232

03/02/2014

Claimant

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA132498

24/12/2014

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Upheld

PDF

LCIA142862

02/06/2015

Claimant

Co-arbitrator

Upheld

PDF

UN152998

22/06/2015

Respondent

Co-arbitrator

Upheld

PDF

LCIA132551

22/07/2015

Claimant

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA152914

05/08/2015

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA142603

16/02/2016

Claimant

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA152906

25/05/2016

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA142683

04/08/2016

Respondent

Full tribunal

Partially Upheld

PDF

LCIA163283

03/10/2016

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA142683

16/12/2016

Respondent

Both Co-arbitrators

Rejected

PDF

LCIA142778

31/03/2017

Claimant

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA153149

12/04/2017

Respondent

Sole arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

LCIA173566

21/07/2017

Respondent

Co-arbitrator

Rejected

PDF

 

【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.