Legal News

Opposite results in two SCC emergency arbitrations (Evrobalt v Moldova and Kompozit v Moldova)

Opposite results in two SCC emergency arbitrations (Evrobalt v Moldova and Kompozit v Moldova)
Published on: 04 August 2016
Published by: LexisPSL
  • 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?

Article summary

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. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents