1) Request to set aside an arbitral award on the ground that one coarbitrator failed to attend the deliberation (Swiss PILS -LDIP, Art 190, para 2, lit.a).
2) Request to set aside an arbitral award on the ground that the parties were not treated equally and a party was refused the opportunity to be heard (PILS, Art. 190, para 2, lit.d).
3) Alleged failure by the arbitral tribunal to deal with all the claims (PILS , Art. 190, para 2, lit.c).
4) Alleged violation of public order on the ground that the arbitrators had failed to examine a violation of Greek and European competition law (PILS, Art. 190, para 2, lit.e).
1) The co-arbitrator had the opportunity to attend the deliberation. That the ICC Court was about to examine a challenge against the chairman was not sufficient ground for the deliberation between the arbitrators to be suspended.
2) Each party had full opportunity to present its case and name its arbitrator.
3) The arbitral tribunal ruled on all claims.
4) Greek and European competition laws are not part of Swiss public policy and not ground for setting aside under PILS, Art. 190, para 2, lit.e.
Claimant: X (Greece)
Respondent: Y (Netherlands)