International Arbitration 2025

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

Contributing Editor Gary Born Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Global Practice Guides

International Arbitration Contributing Editor Gary Born Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

2025

Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair and Stephen Dinkeldein Content Reviewers Vivienne Button, Lawrence Garrett, Sean Marshall, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino and Adrian Ciechacki Content Coordination Manager Nancy Laidler Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Hannah Leinmüller Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan

Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com

Contents

INTRODUCTION Contributed by Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr p.6

CHINA Law and Practice p.138

Contributed by Global Law Office Trends and Developments p.157 Contributed by DLA Piper UK LLP DENMARK Law and Practice p.164 Contributed by Bech-Bruun Trends and Developments p.180 Contributed by Bech-Bruun EGYPT Law and Practice p.185 Contributed by Khodeir & Partners ENGLAND & WALES Law and Practice p.202 Contributed by Slaughter and May FINLAND Law and Practice p.221 Contributed by HPP Attorneys Ltd FRANCE Law and Practice p.234 Contributed by BDGS Associés

AUSTRIA Law and Practice p.11 Contributed by KNOETZL Trends and Developments p.24 Contributed by KNOETZL

BANGLADESH Law and Practice p.31 Contributed by Dr Kamal Hossain and Associates

BELGIUM Law and Practice p.46

Contributed by Freshfields LLP Trends and Developments p.59 Contributed by Freshfields LLP BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA Trends and Developments p.66 Contributed by Gecić Law

BRAZIL Law and Practice p.72 Contributed by Thomaz Bastos, Waisberg, Kurzweil Advogados Trends and Developments p.84 Contributed by Ferro, Castro Neves, Daltro & Gomide Advogados

GEORGIA Law and Practice p.249 Contributed by Nodia, Urumashvili and Partners GERMANY Law and Practice p.263 Contributed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP Trends and Developments p.280 Contributed by Pfitzner Legal

CANADA Law and Practice p.89

Contributed by Lawson Lundell LLP Trends and Developments p.101 Contributed by Lawson Lundell LLP

CAYMAN ISLANDS Law and Practice p.105 Contributed by Appleby

GREECE Law and Practice p.287

Contributed by Dryllerakis Law Firm Trends and Developments p.301 Contributed by Dryllerakis Law Firm HUNGARY Law and Practice p.309 Contributed by Oppenheim Law Firm

CHILE Law and Practice p.115 Contributed by Jana & Gil Dispute Resolution

Trends and Developments p.132 Contributed by Pellegrini y Rencoret

3 CHAMBERS.COM

Contents

INDIA Law and Practice p.323

MALAYSIA Law and Practice p.466 Contributed by Shearn Delamore & Co Trends and Developments p.483 Contributed by Shearn Delamore & Co

Contributed by Svarniti Law Offices Trends and Developments p.340 Contributed by Svarniti Law Offices INDONESIA Law and Practice p.345 Contributed by ABNR Counsellors at Law Trends and Developments p.361 Contributed by ABNR Counsellors at Law ISRAEL Law and Practice p.366 Contributed by Goldfarb Gross Seligman & Co Trends and Developments p.374 Contributed by Goldfarb Gross Seligman & Co

MALTA Law and Practice p.489

Contributed by Ganado Advocates Trends and Developments p.505 Contributed by Ganado Advocates

MAURITIUS Law and Practice p.511 Contributed by BLC Robert & Associates Trends and Developments p.528 Contributed by Steven and Associates Law Firm

ITALY Law and Practice p.378 Contributed by LCA Studio Legale

MEXICO Law and Practice p.531 Contributed by Bufete Asali Trends and Developments p.547 Contributed by LITREDI

JAPAN Trends and Developments p.392 Contributed by Mori Hamada & Matsumoto KAZAKHSTAN Law and Practice p.398 Contributed by Legit Advocates‚Äô Bureau

NIGERIA Law and Practice p.552 Contributed by Africa Law Practice NG & Company Trends and Developments p.568 Contributed by Olajide Oyewole LLP (DLA Piper Africa, Nigeria) NORWAY Law and Practice p.574 Contributed by Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS Trends and Developments p.588 Contributed by Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS

LEBANON Law and Practice p.413

Contributed by Alem & Associates Trends and Developments p.430 Contributed by Alem & Associates

LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice p.433 Contributed by Schurti Partners Attorneys at Law Ltd

PANAMA Law and Practice p.594

Contributed by FABREGA MOLINO Trends and Developments p.601 Contributed by FABREGA MOLINO

LUXEMBOURG Law and Practice p.447

Contributed by KLEYR_GRASSO Trends and Developments p.460 Contributed by KLEYR_GRASSO

PHILIPPINES Law and Practice p.605 Contributed by SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan Trends and Developments p.623 Contributed by SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan

4 CHAMBERS.COM

Contents

POLAND Law and Practice p.628 Contributed by Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak Trends and Developments p.641 Contributed by Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak ROMANIA Law and Practice p.646 Contributed by Zamfirescu Racoți Vasile & Partners Attorneys At Law Trends and Developments p.660 Contributed by Zamfirescu Racoți Vasile & Partners Attorneys At Law

SRI LANKA Law and Practice p.797 Contributed by Law Chambers of Amrit Rajapakse

SUDAN Law and Practice p.808

Contributed by Omer Ali Law Firm Trends and Developments p.821 Contributed by Omer Ali Law Firm SWITZERLAND Law and Practice p.826 Contributed by GABRIEL Arbitration THAILAND Trends and Developments p.842 Contributed by Baker McKenzie

SAUDI ARABIA Law and Practice p.664 Contributed by Khoshaim & Associates Trends and Developments p.682 Contributed by Khoshaim & Associates SENEGAL Law and Practice p.688 Contributed by AF Legal Trends and Developments p.705 Contributed by AF Legal

TURKS & CAICOS Law and Practice p.846 Contributed by Wilson Wells UAE Law and Practice p.855 Contributed by BSA Law

UK Trends and Developments p.869 Contributed by King & Spalding International LLP

SINGAPORE Law and Practice p.710

Contributed by WongPartnership LLP Trends and Developments p.727 Contributed by WongPartnership LLP

URUGUAY Law and Practice p.875 Contributed by Bergstein Abogados

SOUTH AFRICA Law and Practice p.734 Contributed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Trends and Developments p.755 Contributed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

USA Law and Practice p.886

Contributed by Norton Rose Fulbright Trends and Developments p.898 Contributed by Norton Rose Fulbright USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments p.904 Contributed by King & Spalding LLP

SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice p.761 Contributed by Yulchon LLC Trends and Developments p.778 Contributed by Yulchon LLC SPAIN Law and Practice p.784 Contributed by Cases & Lacambra

VIETNAM Law and Practice p.911 Contributed by VILAF

5 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION

Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr offers one of the world’s largest and most experienced internation - al arbitration and dispute resolution practices. The international arbitration group has been involved in more than 650 proceedings in recent years. Lawyers have successfully represented clients in a number of the largest institutional arbitrations and several of the most significant ad hoc arbitrations to arise in the past decade. The multinational team consists of nearly 70 lawyers, all of whom principally practise international dispute resolution. In addition to representing clients

as counsel, many lawyers regularly sit as arbitrators in international arbitrations. The practice covers com - mercial and investment arbitration under the rules of all leading arbitral institutions and ad hoc arbitrations seated in a wide range of jurisdictions. It has repre - sented individuals, companies, states and state enti - ties. Lawyers have recently handled or are currently handling disputes under a wide range of international arbitration centres, and also have extensive experi - ence with more specialised forms of institutional ar - bitration and ad hoc arbitrations.

Contributing Editor

Co-Author

Matteo Angelini is a counsel in the international arbitration practice group at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. He is an English barrister. Matteo has experience in arbitrations under a variety of

Gary Born is chair of the international arbitration group at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. He is also president of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Court of Arbitration and serves in an

institutional rules (including the ICC, LCIA, LMAA and ICSID rules) involving both common law and civil law disputes. He has particular experience in construction, technology, engineering, energy, M&A and joint venture disputes, and regularly advises government and private sector clients on international law issues.

advisory capacity at other institutions around the world. Gary has served as counsel in more than 675 arbitrations, including several of the largest arbitrations in ICC and ad hoc history, and has sat as arbitrator in more than 225 institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. He is a pre-eminent authority in the field and renowned author, as well as an honorary professor of law at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland and Tsinghua University in Beijing. Gary teaches widely at law schools in Europe, Asia, and North and South America. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr 49 Park Lane London W1K 1PS United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7872 1000 Fax: +44 20 7839 3537 Email: gary.born@wilmerhale.com Web: www.wilmerhale.com

6 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Global Overview – International Arbitration 2025 The international arbitration landscape continues to be dominated by macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. After a series of economic shocks in recent years, the global economy is facing a new threat: a burgeoning trade war thrown into sharp relief follow - ing the announcement of sweeping US tariffs in April 2025. Since then, some tariffs have been put on pause, but the global economic landscape remains dominated by a profound sense of policy uncertainty, growing concerns over slower growth in major economies, and global inflationary pressures that have proven to be more persistent than originally anticipated. Macro - economic uncertainty has combined with geopolitical events (including the rise of nationalism and protec - tionist policies, the use of sanctions against Russia and the Middle Eastern crisis) to present serious sup - ply chain challenges and create a highly volatile and uncertain business environment. This has led to a proliferation of disputes across a wide range of sectors. The areas that are seeing the most disputes are construction, mining, transport and energy; ones in which arbitration has historically been the preferred dispute resolution mechanism. Against this backdrop, it is unsurprising that most leading arbitral institutions reported a record – or close-to- record – caseload over the past year in terms of both the number of disputes referred to arbitration and the value of those disputes. The Russia-Ukraine War and Israel-Iran War As the world began to emerge from the pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 triggered another large-scale humanitarian crisis. The Russia-Ukraine war, which has continued into 2025, has caused a massive upheaval in people’s lives and businesses across the globe. The effect of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on the arbi - tration landscape has changed over time. Initially, in 2022, there was a sharp decline in the number of Russia-related arbitrations as reported by the Lon - don Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and other major institutions. The ensuing disruptions, howev - er, have triggered a large number of Russia-related

disputes. This is because, since the invasion, many businesses have been forced to cease operations in Russia or have seen their operations taken over by the Russian government. Since then, several large companies including Carls - berg, Fortum and Uniper either commenced, or con - firmed that they intend to commence, treaty claims against Russia for expropriation. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has also triggered a large number of com - mercial arbitrations, especially in the mining, com - modities and energy sectors as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing sanctions has made the per - formance of numerous existing commercial contracts more difficult and, in some cases, impossible. This has resulted in a wave of commercial arbitrations as parties seek to enforce, suspend or terminate Russia- related contracts. In 2025, Naftogaz, Ukraine’s larg - est national oil and gas company, and Net4Gas, the Czech Republic’s gas transmission system operator, secured billion-dollar awards against Gazprom over its failure to make monthly payments under their gas transportation contracts. Global sanctions against Russia and the anti-arbitra - tion stance of the Russian courts have created com - plications for parties bringing claims against Russian sanctioned entities. Article 248 of the Russian Arbi - trazh Procedure Code grants Russian courts exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving sanctioned Rus - sian entities. In 2024, it was invoked over 200 times to override exclusive jurisdiction clauses and/or to issue anti-arbitration injunctions. This stance has resulted in courts in both common and civil law jurisdictions ordering anti-suit relief against Russian proceedings. In June 2025, the conflict between Israel and Iran escalated into a full-scale military confrontation as geopolitical tensions resurfaced in the Middle East. The military confrontation has caused supply chain disruptions as shipping, flight and trade routes were suspended and many UAE-based businesses activat - ed contingency measures. These disruptions are likely to trigger a new wave of international trade-related disputes that will be referred to arbitration.

7 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Technology and Generative AI Investment in technology and AI continues to boom as companies have invested heavily, especially in the use of generative AI. This is having obvious and profound effects on the arbitration landscape. Many major arbitral institutions are either already using AI, or considering it, for services including vet - ting and conflict checks, transcription and award scru - tiny. There have not yet been any reports of tribunals using generative AI to assist with drafting awards, or preparing case summaries, and the extent to which tribunals may rely on AI remains controversial. A number of initiatives have emerged to address the use of AI in international arbitration. The most nota - ble are the Guidelines on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) published by the Chartered Institute of Arbitra - tors, and the JAMS AI Rules published in April 2024. Another key, related development is the EU’s AI Act, which entered into force on 1 August 2024, and is the world’s first comprehensive AI law that provides for EU-wide rules on data quality, transparency, human oversight and accountability. Together with an increased use of AI in the arbitral process, there has been a rise in technology and AI- related arbitrations. This increase is driven by the rapid growth of the tech industry and the increasing reliance on ever more complex technologies and AI across a range of industries. According to recent sta - tistics, information and communication-related tech - nology disputes now represents around 10% of the caseload of the International Centre for Settlement of Disputes (ICSID). Examples of such disputes include Chinese telecoms giant Huawei’s treaty claim against the government of Sweden over its exclusion from the 5G network and Uber’s dispute with Colombia. Investor-state technology disputes of this nature are likely to raise a host of new and topical issues includ - ing whether digital assets, blockchain, AI or decen - tralised assets qualify as investments. Caseload of Arbitral Institutions Arbitration continues to remain a preferred method of dispute resolution for many international businesses. A number of arbitral institutions recorded high num - bers of new case filings. The International Chamber

of Commerce (ICC) registered 841 new arbitrations in 2024, with a total of 1,789 cases being administered by the ICC Secretariat. Singapore International Arbi - tration Centre (SIAC) recorded 625 new case filings. Other institutions also recorded sizeable numbers with 362 new cases for the LCIA and 503 for the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC). The five most preferred sets of arbitral rules are the ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA and UNCITRAL Rules according to the Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey, a recurring feature of the arbitration landscape that the industry has now grown used to seeing as a periodic barometer of its progress. In the most recent survey, the most preferred arbitral seat is London, with users citing the stability of its commercial law and highly regarded judiciary. Singapore was the second most popular seat, with users noting that it is receiving a larger share of Asian disputes as many US and West - ern companies have relocated out of Hong Kong. The Reform of the Arbitration Act (England and Wales) In the UK, the process of reform of the Arbitration Act 1996 has reached its conclusion as the Arbitration Act 2025 entered into force on 1 August 2025. By far and above the most reform of the Arbitration Act 2025 is to introduce a new statutory rule that, in the absence of an express choice from the parties of the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the applicable law will be the law of the seat. This reform overturns the effects of Enka v Chubb , a Supreme Court decision of October 2020 that decided the vexed question of how to determine the law applica - ble to an arbitration agreement. In Enka v Chubb , the Supreme Court held that the default choice is the law of the contract. This is significant because, where an arbitration agreement is governed by foreign law, key provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 do not apply, with the result that parties are deprived of the full pro - tection and support of the English courts for arbitra - tions seated in London. The Arbitration Act 2025 now provides welcome clarity to the choice of law applicable to arbitration agreements by implementing a straightforward statu -

8 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

tory rule that the arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the seat, absent an express choice of law. As a consequence, parties who choose London as an arbitral seat – absent an express choice of law applicable to the arbitration agreement – now know that any dispute as to the scope or validity of the arbitration agreement will benefit from an arbitration- friendly jurisdiction, offering a robust legal framework that supports and facilitates the arbitration process, and where arbitration agreements are respected and enforced. Other key changes include the strengthening of arbi - trator powers to make awards on a summary basis and to issue peremptory orders and a codification of the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure. New Arbitral Rules In 2025, the SIAC introduced new arbitration rules. One of the key changes in the SIAC Rules 2025 is to enhance its emergency arbitration procedure by permitting an emergency arbitrator to order ex parte interim relief. SIAC is one of the first major arbitral institutions to permit an emergency arbitrator to order interim relief on an ex parte basis. Other key changes include: (i) new rules on third-party funding to give tribunals wide-ranging powers to require details of third-party funding arrangements, (ii) a new “prelimi - nary determination” procedure and (iii) a new “stream - lined procedure” for disputes of low value. These new provisions all improve the time, cost-efficiency and attractiveness of SIAC arbitration. In 2024, the HKIAC approved a new set of rules. These rules are noteworthy for the additional pow - ers and duties they confer on the HKIAC. Under the 2024 Rules, the HKIAC may “take any measure nec - essary to preserve the efficiency or integrity of the arbitration”. This includes powers to suspend or cease administration of the arbitration and, in exceptional circumstances, to revoke an arbitrator’s appointment if the HKIAC concludes that an arbitrator has failed to fulfil their function. The new HKIAC Rules also contain new provisions addressing information security, the environmental impact of legal proceedings, multi-con - tract scenarios and additional powers for emergency arbitrators.

The Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) issued a new set of updated rules in 2023. Impor - tantly, the 2023 Rules provide for the establishment of an SCCA court to perform an administrative role to support arbitrations that are administrated under the SCCA rules. The SCCA also provides for an online dispute resolution system for the resolution of low- value disputes as well as an electronic filing system. The 2023 Rules are some of the most advanced rules in terms of embracing the use of modern technology to improve the efficiency of the dispute resolution process. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia followed up by issuing an updated Investment Law in 2024 that facilitates the establishment of foreign investments in Saudi Arabia. More recently, in 2025, the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia approved a resolution to strengthen and modernise the country’s arbitration laws and promote Saudi Arabia’s attractive - ness as a sophisticated and arbitration-friendly seat in the Middle East. All these measures are intended to provide an attractive investment climate for foreign investors. The Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbi - tration Commission (SHIAC), a leading arbitral institu - tion in the PRC, introduced new arbitration rules with effect from 1 January 2024. The 2024 Rules provide for emergency arbitration and interim relief, expanded provisions on joinder and consolidation, online arbitra - tion using SHIAC’s e-platform, and for the publication of awards with party consent. The Development of Arbitral Jurisprudence National apex courts have recently delivered several judgments that have had a meaningful impact on the development of arbitral jurisprudence. Perhaps the most prominent of these that captivated the attention of the arbitration community were rendered by the UK and US Supreme Courts. CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd v Antrix Corp. Ltd In June 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a sig - nificant decision with respect to the federal court’s jurisdiction over the enforcement of foreign arbitra - tion awards against a sovereign under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s decision and held that, under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction exists over a

9 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Morgan v Sundance Morgan v Sundance addressed the important ques - tion of the standard for determining whether a par - ty has waived its right to arbitrate a dispute by first engaging in litigation. Overruling decisions in nine circuits, the Supreme Court unanimously held that there is no requirement for an adverse party to show that it suffered prejudice as a result of the litigation proceedings for a waiver of a right to arbitrate to arise. The decision is important and may have wider ramifications because the Supreme Court reasoned that arbitration-specific procedural rules – such as a prejudice requirement – are incompatible with the FAA, even when those rules purport to support the pro-arbitration policies underlying the FAA. ZF UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance The UK Supreme Court confirmed that English courts have the discretion to issue anti-suit injunctions to support foreign seated arbitrations where English law governs the arbitration agreement. Prior to this deci - sion, the circumstances in which English courts would grant injunctive relief to support foreign-seated arbi - trations were uncertain. This decision is important as it confirms that parties can request an anti-suit injunc - tion from the English courts to enforce an arbitration agreement, even where the arbitration is not seated in England and Wales.

sovereign entity when “an immunity exception applies and service is proper”. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the FSIA does not require a showing of “minimum contacts” with the jurisdiction in which enforcement is being sought to establish per - sonal jurisdiction as set out in the International Shoe v Washington line of cases. The decision reflects the US courts’ long-standing pro-arbitration stance and a reluctance to impose restrictions on enforcement actions. Smith v Spizziri The US Supreme Court held that federal courts must stay, rather than dismiss, claims that are governed by an arbitration agreement. The decision is impor - tant as while a party can immediately appeal an order dismissing an action, there is no immediate right of appeal from an order staying the proceedings. The decision resolves a circuit split over whether Fed - eral Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3 requires a court to stay proceedings after compelling arbitration. The Supreme Court’s pro-arbitration decision reasoned that staying, instead of dismissing, lawsuits subject to an arbitration agreement is consistent with the super - visory role that the Federal Arbitration Act envisions for the courts and allows parties to seek relief related to the arbitration without filing a new case.

10 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA

Czech Republic

Germany

Slovak

Vienna

Austria

Law and Practice Contributed by: Florian Haugeneder, Patrizia Netal, Jurgita Petkutė and Natascha Tunkel KNOETZL

Hungary

Italy

Slovenia

Croatia

Contents 1. General p.14 1.1 Prevalence of Arbitration p.14 1.2 Key Industries p.14 1.3 Arbitration Institutions p.14 1.4 National Courts p.14 2. Governing Legislation p.14 2.1 Governing Law p.14 2.2 Changes to National Law p.14 3. The Arbitration Agreement p.15 3.1 Enforceability p.15 3.2 Arbitrability p.15 3.3 National Courts’ Approach p.15 3.4 Validity p.16 4. The Arbitral Tribunal p.16 4.1 Limits on Selection p.16 4.2 Default Procedures p.16 4.3 Court Intervention p.16 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators p.16 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements p.17 5. Jurisdiction p.17 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction p.17 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention p.17 5.3 Timing of Challenge p.17 5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/ Admissibility p.18 5.5 Breach of Arbitration Agreement p.18 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties p.18 6. Preliminary and Interim Relief p.18

8. Evidence p.19 8.1 Collection and Submission of Evidence p.19 8.2 Rules of Evidence p.19 8.3 Powers of Compulsion p.20 9. Confidentiality p.20 9.1 Extent of Confidentiality p.20 10. The Award p.20 10.1 Legal Requirements p.20 10.2 Types of Remedies p.20 10.3 Recovering Interest and Legal Costs p.20 11. Review of an Award p.21 11.1 Grounds for Appeal p.21 11.2 Excluding/Expanding the Scope of Appeal p.21

11.3 Standard of Judicial Review p.21 12. Enforcement of an Award p.21 12.1 New York Convention p.21 12.2 Enforcement Procedure p.22 12.3 Approach of the Courts p.22 13. Miscellaneous p.22 13.1 Class Action or Group Arbitration p.22 13.2 Ethical Codes p.23 13.3 Third-Party Funding p.23 13.4 Consolidation p.23 13.5 Binding of Third Parties p.23

6.1 Types of Relief p.18 6.2 Role of Courts p.18 6.3 Security for Costs p.18 7. Procedure p.19

7.1 Governing Rules p.19 7.2 Procedural Steps p.19 7.3 Powers and Duties of Arbitrators p.19 7.4 Legal Representatives p.19

11 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Florian Haugeneder, Patrizia Netal, Jurgita Petkutė and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

KNOETZL is Austria’s premier dispute resolution powerhouse, which has successfully developed into Austria’s largest dispute resolution team. The arbitra - tion practice encompasses international commercial arbitration, investment protection, and arbitration- related court proceedings. Key industries include construction and engineering, energy, banking, auto - motive, aviation, IT and telecommunications, life sci - ences, healthcare and pharmaceuticals. Members of

the arbitration team have successfully acted as coun - sel in some of the largest and most complex disputes in the CEE region in recent decades, under all the major arbitration rules. KNOETZL lawyers act as arbi - trators in a wide array of industries. Members of the firm are recognised as leading arbitration specialists and hold roles in major arbitral institutions and as - sociations.

Authors

Florian Haugeneder is a founding partner of KNOETZL and heads its arbitration practice. He has more than 20 years’ experience as counsel and arbitrator under the rules of the major arbitral institutions, including the German Arbitration Institute, ICC, ICSID, Danish Institute of Arbitration, Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, LCIA, SCC Arbitration Institute and Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC), as well as in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Florian lectures at the University of Vienna (receiving its Teaching Award in 2018) and is a faculty member of the Delos Remote Oral Advocacy Programme. He frequently speaks and publishes on international arbitration and investment protection. He is a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR and of the ICC Task Force on Corruption in Arbitration.

Patrizia Netal is a founding partner of KNOETZL and co-heads its arbitration practice. She has extensive experience in proceedings under the German Arbitration Institute, ICC, the Swiss Rules, the Vienna International

Arbitral Centre (VIAC) and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Acting as counsel and arbitrator, she has been involved in large-scale projects across the SEE and CEE regions, with a particular focus on energy, construction and engineering, aerospace, post-M&A disputes, and international sales contracts. Patrizia has been the vice-president of VIAC since 2022 and is a director of the Vis Moot. She is Austria’s steering committee member of the Pledge for Equal Representation in Arbitration. Patrizia lectures at the Austrian Arbitration Academy of the University of Vienna.

12 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Florian Haugeneder, Patrizia Netal, Jurgita Petkutė and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

Jurgita Petkutė is a partner at KNOETZL and has more than 15 years’ experience in high-value and complex arbitration disputes. Jurgita acts as counsel and arbitrator with a focus on the Baltic region. She has

Natascha Tunkel is a partner at KNOETZL, with over a decade’s experience in complex dispute resolution. A core part of her practice

includes international commercial arbitration with a special focus on new technologies. She acts as arbitrator and counsel under the major arbitral rules, such as ICC and ICSID, and practises as qualified mediator and certified mediation counsel. Natascha stands out for her exceptional knowledge of procedural law and is called upon in arbitrations that require injunctive or parallel action before the state courts or involve complex jurisdictional issues. She is a member of the VIAC’s Mediation Advisory Board, Vice Chair of the IBA Mediation Committee, and the Austrian delegate to the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR.

handled arbitration disputes under various substantive laws, as well as under a range of institutional arbitration rules (eg, the ICC, the SCC Arbitration Institute, the Finland Arbitration Institute, the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) and the Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration) and ad hoc arbitration rules. Jurgita’s experience includes large disputes stemming from construction agreements, contracts for the supply of goods, corporate, M&A and privatisation agreements as well as transportation, shipping and insurance agreements.

KNOETZL Herrengasse 1 1010 Vienna Austria Tel: +43 1 34 34 000 Email: office@knoetzl.com Web: www.knoetzl.com

13 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Florian Haugeneder, Patrizia Netal, Jurgita Petkutė and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

1. General 1.1 Prevalence of Arbitration

hoc proceedings conducted under, for example, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. 1.4 National Courts Austrian law provides for direct recourse to a special - ised chamber of the Austrian Supreme Court ( Ober- ster Gerichtshof , or OGH) as the first and final instance in proceedings to nominate or challenge arbitrators and to set aside an arbitral award. Practice in setting- aside proceedings has shown that well-reasoned decisions are generally rendered expeditiously (six to eight months, on average). As regards enforcement proceedings, the competence for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards remains with the district courts, generally at the place where the debtor or the assets are located. If the seat of the arbitration is in Austria, the arbitra - tion proceedings will be governed by Austrian arbitra - tion law. This is contained in the Fourth Chapter of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) (Sections 577‒618 of the CCP). Since 2006, the legislation governing arbitration in Austria has been largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”), with only a few minor deviations. Significantly, Austrian arbitration law does not differentiate between domestic and international arbitration. 2.2 Changes to National Law There have been no changes to Austrian arbitra - tion law in the past year, nor are there any changes planned in the immediate future. Any discussions regarding possible legislative changes are limited to clarifications (eg, regarding the delimitation of con - sumer and corporate disputes) and reinforcing Austria as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. 2. Governing Legislation 2.1 Governing Law

Austria has long been established as a European hub for international arbitration and Vienna ‒ in particular, as the capital city – is a preferred venue for arbitra - tions related to the SEE and CEE regions. The legal community boasts a number of arbitration specialists providing high-end counsel and arbitrator services. The Vienna International Arbitral Centre of the Federal Economic Chamber (VIAC) provides excellent and effi - cient administration of international arbitrations. The relevance of Austria as a seat for arbitrations and a significant arbitration hub is reflected by the presence of a regional office of the Permanent Court of Arbitra - There has been a notable increase in arbitration activity in domestic disputes, particularly concern - ing construction and engineering. In the international context, energy-related disputes are on the rise in Austria, owing to the changing dynamics in the Euro - pean energy market affected by the Russia–Ukraine war. The financial services and banking sector is also increasingly turning to arbitration for dispute resolu - tion. This increase is primarily due to the higher per - ception of arbitration as a suitable form of dispute resolution for complex disputes also in the finance market. 1.3 Arbitration Institutions The majority of international arbitrations in Austria are administered either by the VIAC under the Vienna Rules or by the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) under the ICC Rules of Arbitration. tion (PCA) in Vienna. 1.2 Key Industries A particular point of note is that VIAC established a Legal Tech Think Tank in 2024 which issued a Note on the Use of AI in Arbitration Proceedings in April 2025. A number of arbitrations with seat in Austria are also conducted under the rules of other renowned arbitral institutions, such as the German Arbitration Institute ( Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit , or DIS), the LCIA, and the Swiss Arbitration Centre. Aus - tria is often also the chosen place of arbitration in ad

14 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Florian Haugeneder, Patrizia Netal, Jurgita Petkutė and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

3. The Arbitration Agreement 3.1 Enforceability

dispute between the beneficiaries and the foundation (OGH 18 OCg 1/21b). In 2024, the Austrian Supreme Court addressed the objective arbitrability of disputes concerning share - holder resolutions in private limited partnerships if only some, but not all shareholders are parties to the arbitration. The Austrian Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration must ensure the inclusion of all sharehold - ers. In the absence of a mechanism that includes all shareholders and ensures legal effect on all share - holders, such shareholder disputes are objectively not arbitrable (OGH 18 OCg 3/22y). 3.3 National Courts’ Approach Austrian arbitration law does not provide rules to determine the law applicable to the arbitration agree - ment. The Austrian Supreme Court applies the con - flict-of-laws rule contained in Article V (1) lit a of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Conven - tion”) in order to determine the law applicable to the arbitration agreement outside the context of enforce - ment proceedings. Accordingly, the Austrian Supreme Court applies the law selected by party agreement. Such choice of law may also be agreed implicitly. A choice-of-law clause in the main contract may also extend to the arbitration agreement. At the same time, the Austrian Supreme Court has recognised the separate legal nature of an arbitration agreement and has emphasised that it is appropri - ate to determine the law applicable to an arbitration agreement on a case-by-case basis (see, for example, OGH 18 OCg 1/15v). In the absence of a choice of law, the law of the seat of the arbitration governs the arbitration agreement (see, for example, OGH 3 Ob 153/18y). Austrian legislation and the courts are arbitration- friendly in terms of enforcing arbitration agreements. In practice, courts apply the principle of “in favorem validitatis” – ie, when in doubt, the courts will inter - pret the intended scope of an agreement to favour arbitration (see, for example, OGH 18 OCg 6/20m and recently OGH 4 Ob 55/25d).

Austrian law requires that the arbitration agreement must identify the parties and the dispute or a defined legal relationship that are subject to the arbitration clause. Furthermore, the arbitration agreement must be in writing, either as part of a document signed by the parties or as an exchange of letters, telefax, emails or any other means of communication that provides a record of the arbitration agreement. As regards the exchange of documents, the Austrian Supreme Court has clarified that “exchanged documents” do not need to be signed, regardless of the means of communication used (see, for example, OGH 18 OCg 1/15v). Additional form requirements must be met if consumers or employees are parties to the arbitration agreements. 3.2 Arbitrability The definition of arbitrability is broad. The general rule is that pecuniary claims are usually arbitrable, where - as non-pecuniary claims are arbitrable if the parties have the capacity to enter into a settlement agreement with regard to the specific claim at issue. Disputes that fall under the competence of the administrative authorities are not arbitrable. Family law matters and all claims based on contracts that are – even only partly – subject to the Tenancy Act ( Mietrechtsgesetz ) or the Non-Profit Housing Act ( Wohnungsgemeinnützigkeitsgesetz ) cannot be made subject to an arbitration agreement, nor can claims concerning condominium property. In addition, certain (collective) labour and social security matters are not arbitrable. Disputes involving consumers or employees may only be submitted to arbitration (with additional form requirements) after the dispute has arisen. The addi - tional form requirements are extensive and lead to a very high threshold for validly concluding an arbitration agreement with consumers or employees, rendering arbitration agreements in these areas impracticable. In this context, the Austrian Supreme Court clarified that these restrictions do not extend to beneficiaries of a private foundation ( Privatstiftung ) in the event of a

15 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Florian Haugeneder, Patrizia Netal, Jurgita Petkutė and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

3.4 Validity Although legislation governing arbitration in Austria is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, the specif - ic wording of Article 16 (1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law concerning separability was not adopted. How - ever, the doctrine of separability is recognised by the courts, which evaluate the question of the validity of an arbitration clause contained in an invalid contract on a case-by-case basis by interpreting the intention of the parties (see, for example, OGH 18 OCg 1/15v). In practice, this will usually lead to the determination that the parties’ intent was that the arbitration agree - ment remains valid if the contract is null and void or terminated. Where the main contract is terminated by consent, the courts have held that the arbitration clause contained in the contract may also be consid - ered terminated if the parties’ intention was to termi - nate the entire contractual relationship. The parties are free to agree on a procedure to select the arbitrators. The only limitation under Austrian arbi - tration law is that an arbitral tribunal must not con - sist of an even number of arbitrators and that sitting Austrian judges are prohibited by law from accepting arbitrator mandates. 4.2 Default Procedures Austrian law provides for a default procedure if the parties have failed to designate a method for select - ing arbitrators or if the chosen selection procedure fails. However, in most cases, the parties will have chosen a set of institutional arbitration rules that deal with this issue. As a default, Austrian law provides that there shall be three arbitrators. In principle, each party shall nomi - nate the same number of arbitrators. However, Aus - trian law does allow for the joint appointment of one arbitrator by several parties – for example, in the case of multiparty arbitrations. 4. The Arbitral Tribunal 4.1 Limits on Selection If the parties have not determined a procedure for the appointment of the arbitrators, the default rule is:

• a sole arbitrator will be jointly appointed by agree - ment of the parties; and • a panel of arbitrators will be appointed by each party appointing one arbitrator and then these two party-appointed arbitrators will appoint the presi - dent of the arbitral tribunal. If a party fails to appoint an arbitrator or if no agree - ment can be found regarding the appointment of a sole arbitrator or the president of the arbitral tribunal or in multiparty arbitrations, a party may apply to the Austrian Supreme Court to make the default appoint - ment. 4.3 Court Intervention Courts are only involved in the appointment of arbitra - tors upon the application of (one of) the parties to sup - port the arbitral process. If there is no default proce - dure agreed upon by the parties, a party can request the Austrian Supreme Court to appoint an arbitrator if the other party fails to do so, or if no agreement can be reached regarding the appointment of an arbitrator, or in multiparty arbitrations. The Austrian Supreme Court will give due regard to the requirements provided for in the parties’ agreement if such agreement exists (see, for example, OGH 18 ONc 3/24x). Unless the par - ties have provided otherwise, the courts may also be called upon to decide on the application to remove an arbitrator (eg, owing to lack of independence or impartiality). 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators Austrian law provides for a default procedure if the parties have failed to agree on a challenge procedure (eg, by reference to institutional rules). The challenging party must submit a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal, which gives the challenged arbitrator the opportunity to resign from office, or the other party may agree that the chal - lenged arbitrator will be removed. If the challenged arbitrator does not resign or is not removed upon mutual agreement of the parties, the arbitral tribunal (including the challenged arbitrator) must decide on the challenge. If the challenge is unsuccessful before the arbitral tribunal, the challenging party may within four weeks apply to the Austrian Supreme Court as the court of first and last instance to decide on the challenge.

16 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Florian Haugeneder, Patrizia Netal, Jurgita Petkutė and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

If a challenge pursuant to an agreed challenge pro - cedure (eg, contained in institutional rules) is not suc - cessful, the challenging party may then apply to the Austrian Supreme Court for a review of the challenge decision within four weeks of receiving the decision. The option to appeal to the Austrian Supreme Court in these cases is mandatory and may not be waived. The legal standard for the challenge of an arbitrator is: • justifiable doubts concerning their impartiality or independence; or • the failure of an arbitrator to meet specific require - ments set out in the parties’ agreement. The Austrian Supreme Court routinely applies the International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration as non-binding guidelines. The mere fact that an arbitrator has not disclosed circumstances that may give rise to doubts concerning their impartiality or independence alone is not per se a ground for a challenge. 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements Arbitrators are required to be independent and impar - tial. Prior to accepting an appointment, the prospec - tive arbitrator must disclose any circumstances that are likely to give rise to doubts concerning their impar - tiality or independence. The obligation to disclose such circumstances is ongoing throughout the arbitral proceedings. According to decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court, the test is whether the circumstances of the case objectively lead to justifiable doubts regarding the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality (see most recently, for example, OGH 18 OCg 3/24a).

including a partial award on jurisdiction. If the place of arbitration is Austria and such proceedings are initi - ated, the question of jurisdiction will be reviewed and ultimately decided by the Austrian Supreme Court (see, for example, OGH 18 OCg 4/24y). 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention Under Austrian law, the courts may only address mat - ters concerning arbitration in limited cases and upon the request of a party. The rules on jurisdiction generally favour arbitration over court proceedings. Therefore, if a court action involving a matter that is subject to an arbitration agreement is initiated, the court must dismiss the claim – unless either: • the other party enters into the merits of the dispute without raising a jurisdictional objection; or • after an objection has been raised, the court finds that the arbitration agreement does not exist or is incapable of being performed. If an action is brought before a court while arbitral pro - ceedings are already pending, the court must dismiss the action, unless a party has already challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in the arbitration pro - ceedings and ‒ exceptionally – if the arbitral tribunal is not expected to reach a decision within a reason - able period of time. The initiation of court proceedings does not prevent an arbitration from being initiated or continued, nor an award from being rendered. Ultimately, the issue of whether (or not) an arbitral tri - bunal has jurisdiction may also be raised as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award, including an award on jurisdiction. 5.3 Timing of Challenge The plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have juris - diction must be raised no later than the first plead - ing on the substance of the dispute. A party is not precluded from raising such plea by the fact that it has appointed an arbitrator. The plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its jurisdiction must be raised as soon as the claim beyond the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction is made. A belated objection to the tribunal’s jurisdiction may be considered by the

5. Jurisdiction 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction

Austrian arbitration law recognises the principle of “competence-competence”. The arbitral tribunal may rule on a party’s challenge to its own jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal may also be raised as a ground to set aside an arbitral award,

17 CHAMBERS.COM

Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199