BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Nathalie Colin, Maria-Clara Van den Bossche, Kevin Xhebexhia and Florence Frühling, Freshfields
essary measures to constitute the arbitral tribunal (Article 1680, Section 1 BJC). The Court’s decision is generally final and not subject to appeal, except when it refuses to make an appointment. This judicial inter - vention is limited to situations where the parties have not provided an alternative mechanism or where the designated institution fails to perform its role. Accord - ingly, such intervention is unlikely where the parties have opted for a reputable arbitral institution. 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators An arbitrator may be challenged if: • there are well-founded doubts as to their inde- pendence or impartiality; or • they lack the qualifications agreed upon by the par - ties (Article 1686, Section 2 BJC). The BJC does not list specific grounds for challenging an arbitrator; however, clear conflicts (such as close personal or professional ties to a party or its coun - sel) or ongoing disputes are generally disqualifying. Challenges must be raised promptly, within 15 days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and can - not be based on circumstances known at the time of appointment. 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements Arbitrators, like judges, must be independent and impartial throughout the entire arbitration process. They cannot have personal, professional or financial ties with a party, and must disclose any circumstances that could raise doubts about their neutrality, both at the time of appointment and during the proceedings (Article 1686, Section 1 BJC). Both the CEPANI Rules (Article 14) and the ICC Rules (Article 12) require arbi - trators to sign a declaration of independence and to report any new conflicts immediately. In practice, the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration – though not legally binding – are widely accepted as the international standard. They are frequently used by practitioners and arbitral institutions – including in Belgium – as a benchmark for assessing arbitrators’ independence and disclo - sure.
While independence is not a matter of public policy and may therefore be waived, such waiver must be informed (ie, parties must be aware of the circum - stances that could give rise to a challenge) and prefer - ably documented.
5. Jurisdiction 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction
Article 1690, Section 1 BJC enshrines in Belgian law the principle of kompetenz - kompetenz (competence- competence), granting arbitral tribunals the power to decide on their own jurisdiction independently and without prior court involvement. 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention The BJC gives the arbitral tribunal the possibility to rule on its own jurisdiction and only provides for lim - ited circumstances in which Belgian courts may inter - vene with respect to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. Court Intervention Before and Pending Arbitration Proceedings Belgium courts may be required to assess the jurisdic - tion of an arbitral tribunal in the context of proceed - ings on the merits of a dispute where an arbitration clause exists between the parties (Article 1682, Sec - tion 1 BJC). In such case: • the defendant may invoke the existence of an arbi - tration agreement to object to the jurisdiction of the court (exceptio arbitri); and • the court will then assess the validity of that arbi - tration agreement (and thus the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal). Importantly, such assessment does not preclude the arbitration proceedings from being initiated or contin - ued if already initiated in parallel (Article 1682, Section 2 BJC). In its landmark ruling of 27 November 2025, the Bel - gian Court of Cassation conclusively held that State courts – whether ruling in summary proceedings or on the merits – lack the authority to order the suspen - sion or termination of pending arbitration proceedings (so-called anti-arbitration injunctions); such measures
127 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook