KluwerArbitration ITA Arbitration Report, Volume No. XXIV, Issue No. 3 (March 2026)
July 11, 2026
The Institute of Transnational Arbitration (ITA), in collaboration with the ITA Board of Reporters, is happy to inform you that the latest ITA Arbitration Report was published: a free email subscription service available at KluwerArbitration.com delivering timely reports on awards, cases, legislation and current developments from over 60 countries and 12 institutions. To get your free subscription to the ITA Arbitration Report, click here.
The ITA Board of Reporters have reported on the following court decisions.
Harry Nettlau, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, and Fabrice Vollborn, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, ITA Reporters for Germany
A clause providing that disputes shall be resolved by an arbitral tribunal on the basis of a separate arbitration agreement that shall be concluded is sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal, even if such separate arbitration agreement is not concluded. Such a clause generally reflects the parties’ intention to refer legal disputes arising from a specific legal relationship to an arbitral tribunal and to exclude the jurisdiction of state courts. Furthermore, an arbitration clause which is concluded in relation to a specific contractual relationship is not limited to the term of the contract, but extends to all claims arising from such contractual relationship, even if the contract has since expired.
Harry Nettlau, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, and Fabrice Vollborn, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, ITA Reporters for Germany
The principle of a uniform decision on the merits, which makes a joinder of parties necessary under German law, is not a fundamental principle of the German legal system. Disregard of such necessary joinder in an arbitral award does not constitute a violation of public policy as a ground for annulment pursuant to Sec. 1059(2) no. 2(b) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, or “ZPO”). A party alleging a “surprise decision” as a violation of its right to be heard has to substantiate in the annulment proceedings what it would have submitted in the arbitration if the arbitral tribunal had notified the party of the tribunal’s view on the relevant issue. An arbitral tribunal does not have a duty to provide information and guidance to parties in the manner that a German court has pursuant to Sec. 139 ZPO, unless the parties specifically agreed to apply the rules of state proceedings in the arbitration.
Germany: BGH – I ZB 42/25, Federal Court of Justice of Germany, I ZB 42/25, 18 December 2025
Harry Nettlau, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, and Berta Boknik, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, ITA Reporters for Germany
If a German court sets aside an arbitral award due to a violation of a party’s right to be heard, such violation does not necessarily prevent the court from remanding the case back to the arbitral tribunal pursuant to Sec. 1059(4) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, or “ZPO”). A remand to the arbitral tribunal is excluded at least in cases of severe procedural violations, particularly in cases of an obvious, grave violation of a party’s right to be heard. While multiple violations may indicate such obvious and serious violation of the right to be heard, they are not definitive proof.
Harry Nettlau, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, and Berta Boknik, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, ITA Reporters for Germany
Both, the objection that no arbitration agreement exists as well as the objection that the written form requirement has not been complied with, are precluded when raised for the first time in proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award on the grounds of an abuse of rights. Disputing the conclusion of a contract containing the arbitration agreement does not automatically include a challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
Avishai Azriel, Deputy Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, ITA Reporter for Israel
The court addressed the proper legal framework for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award that had also been approved by a foreign court. It held that the primary route remains the New York Convention and the Arbitration Law, while enforcement through foreign judgments law is only exceptional.
Avishai Azriel, Deputy Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, ITA Reporter for Israel
The court considered a request to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards rendered by a sole arbitrator in an ICC arbitration. The application was granted, as the court found that the Respondent failed to establish any of the limited grounds for refusal under the New York Convention. The court further rejected the Respondent’s objections that recognition must first be sought in the place of arbitration and that enforcement cannot be pursued in a jurisdiction with no connection to the parties, holding that the Convention permits direct and parallel enforcement in any contracting state regardless of such connections.
Avishai Azriel, Deputy Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, ITA Reporter for Israel
The court considered an application to stay court proceedings in favor of arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement in an earlier agreement between the Applicant and one of the Respondents. The application was denied, as the court found no sufficient basis to extend the arbitration agreement to all of the Respondents or to a later alleged agreement, on the basis of which the court proceedings commenced.
Israel: Metrohm AG v. Dr. Golik Ltd., District Court of Tel Aviv, 30851-06-25, 21 July 2025
Avishai Azriel, Deputy Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, ITA Reporter for Israel
The court considered an application for a mandatory interim order requiring a former distributor to transfer customer and order information to the Claimant, in support of ongoing international arbitration. The application was granted, as the court found that it was empowered to grant interim relief under Israeli procedural law and the Arbitration Law as ancillary assistance to arbitration. The court held that the Claimant satisfied the statutory conditions for interim relief, including strong prospects of success, a favorable balance of convenience, and the necessity of the relief to prevent irreparable harm.
Avishai Azriel, Deputy Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, ITA Reporter for Israel
The court considered a request to compel third-party witnesses in Israel to provide testimony and documents for use in an international arbitration seated in the United States. It held that Israeli law does not grant courts authority to compel evidence for international arbitral proceedings absent an explicit statutory basis. The decision emphasizes the territorial nature of judicial powers, the consensual limits of arbitration, and the absence of a legal framework enabling evidentiary assistance to international arbitration outside the structured mechanism of international legal assistance.
Avishai Azriel, Deputy Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, ITA Reporter for Israel
The court considered a request to recognize and enforce an international arbitral award rendered in Russia. The application was granted, as the court found that none of the grounds for refusal under the New York Convention had been established. The court rejected objections that enforcement required prior recognition or an enforcement order in the seat of arbitration, and held that allegations relating to the underlying contractual dispute did not meet the high threshold of public policy sufficient to deny enforcement.
Avishai Azriel, Deputy Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, ITA Reporter for Israel
The court considered a request to recognize and enforce an international arbitral award rendered in London. The request was granted, as the court found that none of the grounds for refusal under the New York Convention had been established. In particular, the court emphasized that the public policy exception under Article V(2) of the Convention is interpreted narrowly and applies only in rare and exceptional cases involving fundamental violations of the legal order or matters affecting the public at large. Allegations of factual or legal error, unfairness, or concealment in the arbitral proceedings do not meet this threshold.
Avishai Azriel, Deputy Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, ITA Reporter for Israel
The case pertains to an appeal concerning a stay of proceedings based on an international arbitration agreement and the effect of such stay on interim relief. The court upheld the stay of proceedings but clarified that interim measures may still be granted notwithstanding referral to arbitration.
Avishai Azriel, Deputy Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, ITA Reporter for Israel
The court considered a request to recognize and enforce an ICSID arbitral award against the State of Spain. Although the ICSID Convention uses mandatory language requiring contracting states to recognize awards as binding, the court held that exceptional circumstances may justify declining enforcement requests. The court denied the request, relying mainly on public interest, international comity, and Israel’s lack of connection to the dispute.
Avishai Azriel, Deputy Counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration, ITA Reporter for Israel
The court considered an application to stay court proceedings in favor of international arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement contained in a distribution agreement, as well as an application to dismiss the claim against a related company for lack of cause. The applications were granted, as the court found that the arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and that there was no sufficient basis to maintain the claim against the related company.
Comments (0)
Your email address will not be published.
