On March 21, 2022, Member States of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) approved amendments to ICSID&#8217;s rules for resolving disputes between foreign investors and host States. The amended rules come into effect on July 1, 2022.
The goal of the amendment was to draw on the lessons learnt from the over 700 ICSID proceedings conducted to date and to modernize, simplify and streamline the proceedings. Some important amendments to the ICSID Arbitration Rules address concerns relating to efficiency, costs of proceedings, greater transparency and security for costs.
The amended arbitration rules provide for greater transparency in the conduct and outcome of the proceedings through new provisions on the publication of documents and the presence of observers at the hearing. As per the amended rules, absent a clear objection within 60 days, parties will be deemed to have consented to the publication of the award. Likewise, tribunals may permit third parties, including the non-disputing treaty party, to make submissions in the proceedings. An additional feature addressing transparency includes disclosure obligations concerning third party funders that apply throughout the proceedings. Parties must now disclose the names and addresses of entities and persons from whom they are receiving funding, and if the funder is a judicial person, then the parties must also disclose who controls the funder.
The amendment also aims at reducing the environmental footprint of ICSID proceedings through the greater use of technology and less paper-intensive procedures. Under the new rules, all filings will be electronic, unless there are special reasons to maintain paper filings.
In order to streamline proceedings and make them more efficient, the amendment has introduced specific timelines for different phases of the proceedings, the most noteworthy being that awards will henceforth have to be rendered no later than 240 days after the last submission. Special procedures have also been introduced for applications to dismiss claims for a manifest lack of legal merit, bifurcation, preliminary objections and provisional measures. New provisions on expedited procedures provide that the parties to an arbitration can, at any time, consent to an expedited arbitration procedure, unless they have opted out. In the case of expedited proceedings, the award must be rendered 120 days after the hearing. The amendment also introduces a requirement that tribunals convene case management conferences at the outset to narrow the issues in dispute.
The amended rules also purport to change the current ICSID practice of requiring each party to bear their own costs by specifically stating the factors that the tribunal must take into consideration when making cost decisions. These include (a) the outcome of the proceeding or any part of it; (b) the conduct of the parties during the proceeding; (c) the complexity of the issues; and (d) the reasonableness of the costs claimed. A new provision on security for costs lays down the procedure and the factors that tribunals must consider when deciding on whether to award security for costs.
Furthermore, access to ICSID arbitration and conciliation has been broadened by granting access to the ICSID Additional Facility Rules in cases where both the claimant and the respondent state are not ICSID Contracting States or nationals of a Contracting State. Under the amended Additional Facility Rules, Regional Economic Integration Organizations, such as the European Union, may also be party to the proceedings.
New rules on mediation and fact-finding have also been added, which may be used as stand-alone procedures or in combination with arbitration proceedings.

ICSID adopts new rules and regulations

Receptive to widespread criticism, the President of India passed a further ordinance in November 2020, amending the Act once again. The 2020 Ordinance now provides that «[t]he qualifications, experience and norms for accreditation of arbitrators shall be such as may be specified by the regulations». On February 12, 2021, these changes were incorporated into the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2021 passed by the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Indian Parliament.
One of the reasons cited by the legislator to delete such qualifications was «to promote India as a hub of international commercial arbitration by attracting eminent arbitrators to the country». It thus appears that the Indian legislator has paid heed to voice of the international arbitration community and backtracked on its previous decision to limit the role of arbitrators in Indian seated arbitrations to only Indian qualified advocates.
It is now for the Arbitration Council of India (ACI), the newly created body set up by the 2019 Amendment, to frame these regulations. The ACI will be composed of members of the central government or persons nominated by the same. It remains to be seen whether the future rules will effectively open international arbitration in India to foreign practitioners – or whether they ultimately contain restrictions similar to those previously suggested. As of now, it is also open when these new regulations will come into force. Only time will tell.

Arbitration in India: one more amendment in the Indian legislator's cap

Scope of the Indian Arbitration Act
The 1996 Act is divided into two parts. Part I applies to arbitration proceedings where the seat is in India, irrespective of whether such arbitration is domestic or international. Part II applies to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Conven­tion and the Geneva Convention.
The 2015 Amendment
The 2015 Amendment extensively overhauled the 1996 Act by introducing sweeping changes. Note­worthy provisions included clear demarcations on the powers of the Indian courts to intervene in for­eign-seated arbitrations, a stinging point until then. In particular,
<ul>
<li>the 2015 Amendment limited the intervention of Indian courts in foreign arbitrations to specific listed matters, including interim relief and the taking of evidence;</li>
<li>Indian courts were further barred from interven­ing in the appointment of arbitrators or from set­ting aside foreign arbitral awards;</li>
<li>the 2015 Amendment put an end to the practice through which Indian courts used the public pol­icy exception to review the merits of a dispute at the setting aside or enforcement phase; and</li>
<li>the 2015 Amendment finally stated that an ap­plication to set aside the award did not suspend enforcement, thus correcting an anomaly of the 1996 Act that had often been used by the losing party to delay enforcement.</li>
</ul>
The 2015 Amendment was lauded as arbitration-friendly and was considered by overseas observers as a step in the right direction for India&#8217;s future as a center for international arbitration. The more recent 2019 Amendment has left pundits more skeptical.
The 2019 Amendment
The most important changes introduced by the 2019 Amendment include 1) the establishment of the Ar­bitration Council of India, 2) new powers of appoint­ment for arbitral institutions, 3) revised time limits, 4) new provisions on confidentiality, 5) clarification on the temporal application of the 2015 Amend­ment, and 6) imposition of restrictions on who can serve as an arbitrator in Indian-seated arbitrations. The Amendment has also introduced a few provi­sions that touch upon foreign-seated arbitrations.
1. Arbitration Council of India
The 2019 Amendment empowers the Indian central government to establish the Arbitration Council of India, a government body to overlook arbitration in India. Functions of the Council include
<ul>
<li>framing policies for grading arbitral institutions and accrediting arbitrators;</li>
<li>developing institutional arbitration;</li>
<li>advising the central government on matters re­lated to arbitration; and</li>
<li>promoting arbitration in general in India through training programs and certifications.</li>
</ul>
The Council is to be composed entirely of members of the central government or persons nominated by the same.
While it is laudable that the government has set up a body to promote institutional arbitration in India, the means used are debatable. Over-arching gov­ernmental control in the newly formed Arbitration Council forebodes more red tape and delay. Most importantly, in a country where the government is still one of the biggest litigators, the creation of a government-controlled council that has the power to grade arbitrators and advise on policy matters re­lated to arbitration raises legitimate questions of in­dependence.
2. Appointment of Arbitrators
In order to expedite the appointment of arbitrators where the parties had failed to do so, the 2015 Amendment conferred such powers directly on the Supreme Court in the case of international commer­cial arbitrations.
The 2019 Amendment has further amended this process: henceforth, parties may directly approach arbitral institutions designated by the Supreme Court. But there is a catch—the Supreme Court can only designate institutions graded by the Council.
It remains unclear whether international arbitration institutions such as the ICC or SIAC that have a presence in India would now be required to undergo the yet-to-be-established approval process to oper­ate in the Indian arbitration market.
3. Time-limits for the Conduct of Proceedings
The 2015 Amendment had introduced an overall time limit of eighteen months from the date of ap­pointment of the tribunal for the making of the award, following which an extension could only be obtained before the courts.
Faced with the criticism that a fixed time limit was unfeasible in complex arbitrations and unneces­sarily put into peril any award that failed to respect these limitations, the 2019 Amendment relaxed these provisions in international commercial arbitra­tions. Now a best-efforts obligation has been intro­duced under which the tribunal must endeavor to dispose of the matter within twelve months from the date of completion of the pleadings.
The elimination of a fixed time limit for international arbitrations is a positive development. However, as per the revised Act, the pleadings must nonetheless be completed within six months of the tribunal&#8217;s ap­pointment. In sum, the new provisions therefore amount to nothing other than giving with one hand and taking back with the other. The feasibility of a strict time limit of six months for pleadings in com­plex arbitrations is also somewhat dubious.
4. New Provisions on Confidentiality
According to the new law, the arbitral tribunal, the arbitral institution and the parties must maintain confidentiality of the arbitral proceedings, except for the award, which can only be disclosed if such dis­closure were necessary for its implementation and enforcement.
A provision on confidentiality is certainly a welcome step. It is however regrettable that the legislator chose to impose a blanket ban and ignore legitimate exceptions to confidentiality, such as where disclo­sure is required by legal duty or to enforce a legal right.
5. Temporal Application of the 2015 Amendment
The temporal application of the 2015 Amendment, namely whether it applied to pending arbitral pro­ceedings that had started before it entered into ef­fect, led to several conflicting decisions from various High Courts across the country. The issue was of considerable importance given that the 2015 Amendment shrunk the grounds on which an award could be set aside or refused enforcement. The matter was initially put to rest by the Supreme Court in its judgment in BCCI vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. of 2018, wherein the apex court held that the new rules applied to all pending annulment applications before the courts, irrespective of the date of commence­ment of the proceedings.
Regrettably, the BCCI doctrine has been overturned by the 2019 Amendment. As per the new rules, the 2015 Amendment will only apply to arbitral proceed­ings commenced on or after October 23, 2015. The legislator therefore took no heed of the Supreme Court&#8217;s admonition that this solution would effec­tively defeat the very purpose of the amendment as far as decreasing delays and court intervention were concerned.
6. Uncertainty on the Nationality of Potential Ar­bitrators in Indian-seated Arbitrations
Perhaps one of the most controversial and far-reaching provisions introduced through the 2019 Amendment pertains to the nationality of arbitrators that can be appointed under the Act. A new sched­ule has been introduced that provides the «qualifica­tions, experience and norms» required for the grad­ing and accreditation of arbitrators in Indian-seated proceedings by the newly created Arbitration Coun­cil. The new schedule ominously starts with the words «[a] person shall not be qualified to be an ar­bitrator unless&#8230;» and then lists nine categories of persons that qualify under the Act. These include lawyers, accountants or company secretaries—but always «within the meaning» of Indian law. This seemingly innocuous provision appears to exclude foreign qualified lawyers, who are not allowed to practice law in India, from being appointed as arbi­trators. Other general norms applicable to arbitra­tors that also suggest the same include the neces­sity to «be conversant with the Constitution of India».
The contours of this schedule are not clearly de­fined, and the Act therefore puts a question mark on whether foreign qualified nationals can sit as arbi­trators in Indian-seated arbitrations. An answer in the negative would, however, seriously affect India&#8217;s attractiveness as a seat of international arbitration.
7. Impact on Foreign-seated Arbitrations
The revised Act leaves the provisions relating to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India largely untouched. One notable change is a further limitation on the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of referring a dispute to foreign-seated arbi­tration. Prior to the amendment, the court could refuse such referral if it found the arbitration agree­ment «null and void, inoperative or incapable of be­ing performed». The 2019 Amendment limits the scope of the court&#8217;s review to a prima facie analysis.
Some Concluding Thoughts
India&#8217;s tryst with arbitration can be likened to a waltz where for every step forward, there is an opposite and equal step backwards. While the 2015 Amend­ment was certainly a step in the right direction, the 2019 Amendment has left commentators and prac­titioners confused and critical.
Some of the amendments such as the acknowl­edgement of the importance of institutional arbitra­tion and clarifications on confidentiality are encour­aging. Others appear more likely to set back rather than further the cause of international arbitration in India.
All in all, the 2019 Amendment falls short of expec­tations. Foreign investors that were hoping for stronger alternative dispute measures, commensu­rate with the recent promises of the Indian govern­ment to ease doing business in India, will have to wait. While India appears determined to mark its presence on the international scene, it stays unwill­ing to shake off the shackles of protectionism that have so far prevented it from becoming a truly inter­national arbitration hub.
For now, the recommendation to foreign investors doing business in India remains the same: Indian substantive law continues to be a viable option in international commercial contracts. Likewise, for­eign-seated arbitrations under international rules such as the ICC or the LCIA do not seem affected. But the benefits of choosing India as the seat of an international arbitration remain limited; in fact, they might have just become smaller as a result of the 2019 Amendment.

Arbitration in India

Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit

Gesellschaftsrecht / M&A

Immobilien

Alpiq_bw

Alpiq and Bouygues Construction initiated <a href="https://www.alpiq.com/alpiq-group/media-relations/media-releases/media-release-detail/bouygues-construction-expands-its-arbitration-claim-against-alpiq" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arbitration proceedings</a> against each other in 2019 to resolve their disputes regarding the post-closing purchase price adjustment and alleged breaches of representations and warranties, with a total amount in dispute of approximately CHF 320 m. The matter was placed before a Swiss arbitral tribunal constituted under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration comprising Prof. Sébastien Besson (Chairperson), Dr. Roberto Dallafior and Dr. Urs Weber-Stecher. It involved the analysis of complex accounting and valuation issues. On December 22, 2020, Alpiq announced that the parties had reached a <a href="https://www.alpiq.com/alpiq-group/media-relations/media-releases/media-release-detail/arbitration-proceedings-settled" target="_blank" rel="noopener">settlement</a> under which Alpiq agreed to refund CHF 54.5 m to Bouygues Construction.
&nbsp;
Homburger&#8217;s arbitration team was led by partner Mariella Orelli and included counsel Kirstin Dodge, associates Bénédict Thomann, Dilber Devitre, Okan Uzun, Pietro Meineri and junior associate Magdalena Stock (all Arbitration). Homburger&#8217;s arbitration team was assisted by Homburger&#8217;s Corporate M&amp;A partners Hansjürg Appenzeller and Daniel Häusermann and Real Estate partner Stefan Gäumann, as well as expert teams from BDO London led by Nick Andrews and David Mitchell. On the clients&#8217; side the matter was dealt with by Peter Schib, Head Group Legal, and Martin Schindler, Head Corporate M&amp;A and Infrastructure.

Homburger successfully represented Alpiq in arbitration proceedings arising from Alpiq's sale of its Engineering Services Business to Bouygues Construction in 2018

Sie ist Mitglied von verschiedenen below-40 Schiedsgerichtsgruppen und ist als Anwältin in Frankreich zugelassen.

Dilber
Devitre

Zulassung

Homburger successfully represented Alpiq in arbitration proceedings arising from Alpiq's sale of its Engineering Services Business to Bouygues Construction in 2018

ICSID adopts new rules and regulations

Arbitration in India: one more amendment in the Indian legislator's cap

Arbitration in India

Investment Treaty Arbitration 2022: Switzerland

Investor-State Arbitration 2022

Investor-State Arbitration 2021

Join the Team

Dilber Devitre

Karriere

Sprachen

Zulassung

Teams

DilberDevitre

Zulassung

Homburger successfully represented Alpiq in arbitration proceedings arising from Alpiq's sale of its Engineering Services Business to Bouygues Construction in 2018

ICSID adopts new rules and regulations

Arbitration in India: one more amendment in the Indian legislator's cap

Arbitration in India

Investment Treaty Arbitration 2022: Switzerland

Investor-State Arbitration 2022

Investor-State Arbitration 2021

Join the Team

Dilber Devitre

Karriere

Sprachen

Zulassung

Teams

Dilber
Devitre