- Opposite results in two SCC emergency arbitrations (Evrobalt v Moldova and Kompozit v Moldova)
- Practical implications
- What was the factual background?
- What did the emergency arbitrators decide?
- Does the cooling-off period in the treaty bar an application for emergency arbitration?
- Do the SCC Rules 2010 apply to disputes arising out of treaties concluded before 2010?
- Does a potential award of damages in the main arbitral proceedings eliminate the need for emergency arbitration relief?
- What effect does an SCC emergency arbitration award have?
Arbitration analysis: Two recent Swedish Chamber of Commerce (SCC) emergency arbitration awards in investment arbitrations against the Republic of Moldova, with different conclusions based on a similar factual and legal background, inject uncertainty regarding the interpretation of conditions for granting interim relief in investment arbitration, while reaffirming positions on certain long-debated issues. Elena Burova at the CIS Arbitration Forum discusses both cases.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial