ALBANIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Maksim Haxhia, Artan Hajdari and Eris Hysi, Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law
4. The Arbitral Tribunal 4.1 Limits on Selection
4.3 Court Intervention Court intervention in the appointment of arbitrators is limited to the circumstances provided by Law No 52/2023. The competent first-instance court at the seat may appoint an arbitrator where the parties’ agreed or statutory appointment mechanism has failed and no agreed appointing authority is able to resolve the failure. Before making an appointment, the court hears the parties’ views and considers any qualifications agreed for the arbitrator as well as the requirements of inde - pendence and impartiality. The court may appoint a person from lists maintained by permanent arbitral institutions. It should refuse to make an appointment where there is no arbitration agreement or the agree - ment is manifestly invalid. The court is required to decide the appointment application within the statu - tory period, and its appointment decision is not sub - ject to appeal. The court’s role is therefore supportive and residual; it does not replace a functioning party- agreed appointment process. 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators Law No 52/2023 contains detailed rules on challenge and termination of an arbitrator’s mandate. A chal - lenge may be based on failure to meet agreed quali - fications or on circumstances creating reasonable doubts as to independence or impartiality. The statute also identifies specific conflict situations, including: • prior involvement in the dispute; • certain family or close personal relationships; • direct interests in a related dispute; • employment or advisory links; • litigation or hostility; and • specified financial relationships with a party or representative. Unless the parties have agreed another procedure, a written challenge must be made within 15 days after the party learns of the relevant circumstance or, where already known, after constitution of the tribunal. If the arbitrator does not withdraw and the other party does not accept the challenge, the tribunal decides it. A rejected challenge may be referred to the competent first-instance court within 30 days. The court’s deci -
Party autonomy is the starting point for the selec - tion of arbitrators. The parties may agree on a sole arbitrator or an arbitral panel; where a panel is used, the number of arbitrators must be odd. If the parties do not determine the number, the statutory default is three arbitrators. The law does impose minimum eligibility and integrity requirements. An arbitrator must be a natural person with full legal capacity, must be independent and impartial and must satisfy any qualifications agreed by the parties or required by the rules of the selected arbitral institution. A person with a final criminal con - viction or a final judicial prohibition from exercising public functions is not eligible. Nationality is not pre - scribed as a general restriction. The principal practical limits on party choice therefore arise from mandatory eligibility requirements, agreed qualifications and con - flicts of interest rather than from a closed professional category of eligible arbitrators. 4.2 Default Procedures The parties may agree their own appointment proce - dure. In an ad hoc three-member tribunal, the statu - tory default requires each party to appoint one arbitra - tor within 30 days after commencement and the two party-appointed arbitrators to appoint the chair within a further 30 days. For a sole arbitrator, the parties have 30 days to agree the appointment. If the agreed or statutory appointment process fails, a third party designated by the parties may act as appointing authority. Where no such third party has been designated, or it fails to act within the statutory period, the territorially competent first-instance court at the seat may make the appointment. Law No 52/2023 does not contain a detailed bespoke appointment mechanism for multiparty arbitration comparable to the special multiparty provisions found in some institutional rules. Multiparty cases should therefore be addressed expressly in the arbitration agreement or through suitable institutional rules; oth - erwise, the statutory fallback may require court sup - port where the appointment process breaks down.
17 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook