On 27 September 2012, the Swiss Parliament adopted a motion that
had been introduced earlier this year tasking the Government to prepare a
report on the Swiss Arbitration Law (chapter 12 of the Federal Act on
Private International Law (PILA)). The objective of the report is to
further enhance the attractiveness of Switzerland as a place of
arbitration.
The motion aims specifically at incorporating established case law
since the coming into force of the Swiss Arbitration Law some 20 years
ago. The purpose of the report is not to revise the existing law
entirely. Rather, the goal of the review process is to gather feedback
from relevant quarters and arbitration users with a view to further
optimizing the legal framework for international arbitration in
Switzerland.
It was a coincidence that the annual general assembly of the Swiss
Arbitration Association (ASA) took place only one day after the
Parliamentary motion was adopted. At the general assembly, ASA had
convened a panel of arbitration practitioners, academics and Michael
Schöll, a high ranking member of the Justice Department, to discuss the
expected review process and possible changes to the Swiss Arbitration
Law. The general opinion was that the Swiss Arbitration Law continues
to offer an excellent framework for international arbitration and that
accordingly, only a small number of provisions of the Swiss Arbitration
Law should be revised or new provisions added. For example, it was
suggested that English should be acknowledged as an official language in
setting aside and revision proceedings before the Swiss Federal
Tribunal. Further topics of discussion related to the simplification of
the rules concerning the intervention of the juge d’appui, the
relationship between arbitral tribunals and state courts in general,
the clarification of the provision on the scope of application of the
law, the addition of “impartiality” to the requirement of “independence”
of arbitrators, and the incorporation of a rule regarding the
appointment of arbitrators in multi-party cases. Other possible
additions that were discussed included a provision on the interpretation
and correction of arbitral awards, and further language on interim
measures in support of the arbitration, and the arbitral tribunal’s
power to order such measures. ASA announced that it would establish a
task force to accompany the review process.
Matthias Scherer and Sam Moss, Lalive
No comments:
Post a Comment