Interim measures in Brazil are regulated by the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (Federal Law No 13.105/2015 (BCCP)), which sets out various types of available interim measures, each of them applicable to specific reliefs sought, with a general purpose to ensure the effectiveness of a final decision, either judicial or arbitral. Also, the Brazilian Arbitration Act (BAA), which regulates arbitration in Brazil (Federal Law No 9307/96), provides that before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal the parties of the arbitration may request for interim measures before the courts. After the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the BAA grants the arbitral tribunal the exclusive power to grant any request for interim measures and also maintain, modify or revoke the interim measures granted by the courts. The legal requirements for interim remedies are essentially the same in the context of arbitration or in judicial proceedings. As a consequence, the general legal landscape provided in the BCCP may serve as guidance for the analysis of interim measures even

This Practice Note considers the availability of interim measures in support of arbitration in China under the law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The term ‘China’ and ‘PRC’ here refer to Mainland China, exclusive of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. This Practice Note has been updated to take into account the amended law of 2025 which came into effect on 1 March 2026. All references to articles of the Arbitration Law is as amended. In China, arbitral tribunals do not have the power to order interim measures, that are directly enforceable by PRC courts, regardless of the arbitration rules to be applied to the arbitration. Moreover, arbitral tribunals are prevented from ordering such measures even if the applicable arbitration rules expressly grant it with such power. In simple terms, a party to arbitration must first file its application for interim measures to the arbitration institution. From there, the arbitration institution will transfer the application to the competent court. Arbitration

This Practice Note sets out the types of interim measures in support of arbitration that are available in Egypt and the conditions that must be satisfied to grant them. Introduction The Egyptian Law of Civil and Commercial Procedures (LCCP) has not given a general definition of interim measures. It merely dealt with the different types of interim measures under separate provisions. See: Types of interim measures below. Similarly, the Egyptian Arbitration Law (EAL) has not defined interim measures. It merely states under Article 24(1) that an arbitral tribunal may order interim measures if the disputing parties confer upon it such power and either party requests it. See EAL, Article 24(1). Such approach is similar to that adopted by many arbitration institutions. However, judicial practice and jurisprudence define interim remedies as temporary, preliminary or tentative protection measures provided to meet an immediate risk or a particular necessity; they may be considered conservatory or provisional. They are meant to secure the requesting litigant against irreparable loss or injury while an action is

This Practice Note considers the availability of interim measures from the German courts in support of arbitration proceedings and the powers of arbitral tribunals to grant such relief under German law. Note: all German judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis®. Introduction to interim measures under German arbitration law Germany is a traditionally arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, which also extends to granting interim measures (vorläufiger Rechtsschutz) in support of arbitration proceedings. The German law on arbitration is set out in the 10th book of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO)). The German Federal Ministry of Justice has published an unofficial English translation of the ZPO. Quotations from the ZPO in this Practice Note are taken from that translation. German arbitration law is closely modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985) (the Model Law). This means, inter alia, that both state courts and the arbitral tribunal, once constituted, have concurrent jurisdiction to grant

Interim measures often become necessary in arbitration to protect a party before, during the course of arbitration and potentially after an award has been made. Such measures are usually granted to ensure that the award rendered may be enforced against relevant assets is not ineffectual. This Practice Note addresses the interim measures available under Indian law to parties to arbitration. Note: Indian judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis®. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (as amended) The Indian law on arbitration is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (ACA 1996). The ACA 1996 was amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 (the 2015 Amendment) and subsequently by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2019 (the 2019 Amendment). This Practice Note discusses the legal position under the ACA 1996 and after the 2015 and 2019 Amendments. ACA 1996 consists of four parts. Part I governs any arbitration having its seat or place within

For arbitration proceedings seated in Italy and started after 28 February 2023, the reformed CPC, (s 818) empowers arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures, provided that the parties have agreed so, even by incorporating third-parties’ rules into their arbitral agreement, prior to the start of the arbitration proceeding. The 2023 Reform The newly amended CPC, s 818 provides that arbitrators now have the power to grant interim measures only if this power is expressly provided to them in (i) the arbitration agreement, also by incorporating third-entities’ regulations, (eg rules of national or international arbitral institutions); or (ii) a written agreement entered into before the start of the arbitration proceeding. As noted, this system is applicable for arbitration proceedings started after 28 February 2023. Arbitral tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction over interim measures after the acceptance of the appointment by the tribunal. Before this moment, or if the arbitral tribunal is not expressly granted the power pursuant to CPC, s 818, the parties can apply

Interim remedies in Japan—introduction Interim measures are intended to preserve a party’s rights and assets, to prevent harm or maintain the status quo, and to regulate conduct pending a decision on the merits. In international arbitration they are frequently decisive of the practical effectiveness of the process. The Japanese position is one of recent and deliberate modernisation. Arbitration seated in Japan is governed by the Arbitration Act (Act No. 138 of 2003) (the ‘Arbitration Act’), originally based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (1985). Until 1 April 2024, the Act contained only an abstract provision on interim measures and, critically, no mechanism for their enforcement, so that an interim measure depended on the parties’ voluntary compliance and was, in practice, little used. The Act was amended by Act No. 15 of 2023, in force on 1 April 2024, to align Japan with the 2006 revisions to the Model Law. The amended Act

This Practice Note considers the availability of emergency and interim measures in support of arbitration in New York in the United States of America. Like U.S. federal law, New York state law embodies a strong public policy in favor of arbitration which is reflected in state common law and the state arbitration act. This policy makes New York an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction and the New York courts will, in appropriate circumstances, grant emergency and interim relief in support of arbitration. Parties can obtain such relief before the arbitration starts and then while the arbitration is ongoing. This Practice Note focuses on the most common emergency and interim remedies available under the United States Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA), which applies to arbitrations involving interstate or international commerce, and New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, the code of civil procedure that applies in New York’s state courts. A party’s first decision is whether to seek interim relief from a court or an arbitrator. Many

Interim measures in support of arbitration in Russia—the legal framework Depending on a category of a dispute and(or) legal status of the parties, the provisions of either the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (APC) or Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (the CPC) shall apply. According to paragraph 1 of Article 241 of the APC, decisions of foreign courts and arbitral tribunals are recognised and enforced on the territory of the Russian Federation provided that such recognition and enforcement is stipulated by international treaties and state federal laws. Identical provisions are provided for in Chapter 45 of the CPC. Being a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention), Russia guarantees recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards on its territory under provisions and binding regulations of the Law of the Russian Federation On

This Practice Note considers the availability of interim and emergency measures from arbitral tribunals and the Korean courts under the law of South Korea. The Korean Arbitration Act (KAA) is based on the 1985 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law (the Model Law), including the provisions relating to the availability of interim measures. On 30 November 2016, the amended KAA came into force to permit the enforcement of interim measures issued in arbitral proceedings subject to the Act, namely an arbitration seated in South Korea, adopting the interim measures provisions of the 2006 version of the Model Law. The amended provisions regarding interim measures apply to cases filed after that effective date. There is no exclusivity under Korean law for the courts or for arbitral tribunals with respect to interim measures, and parties may apply for interim measures from either the court (KAA, art 10) or from an arbitral tribunal (KAA, art 18). Korean courts are generally pro-arbitration and willing to order provisional

Interim Remedies in the Netherlands–introduction Interim measures are intended to prevent irreparable harm, preserve the status quo, or temporarily regulate conduct pending a decision on the merits, and must be reversible and non-prejudicial. The Dutch State courts have a longstanding liberal approach of ordering urgent interim measures in preliminary relief proceedings. This practice is also adopted in arbitration. The Dutch law on arbitration is set out in the 4th book of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP), and is also referred to as the Netherlands Arbitration Act. The Netherlands Arbitration Act grants tribunals the power to grant urgent preliminary relief since 1986 and this is done in many arbitration cases. This practice note will discuss what makes the Dutch practice of interim remedies rather unique and how judges and arbitrators decide and order interim remedies. Applying to the tribunal for interim relief–when and how Introduction The Netherlands Arbitration Act authorizes the tribunal to order any interim measure in connection with the claim or counterclaim that the

Brief period of moratorium when certain criteria are in place, prior to either administration or Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVA).