(1) Jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal; whether the agreement to arbitrate can be concluded from parties conduct before a state court.
(2) State immunity as a bar to arbitration?
(3) Issue of succession of parties.
(1) A declaration by a party before a state court that a claim which had been brought against it should be referred to arbitration constituted an acceptance by that party to arbitrate.
(2) Sovereign immunity was no obstacle to arbitral jurisdiction.
(3) The seller of the assets of a company owned by it was held responsible for the performance of the company’s obligations since the seller took possession and disposed of the company’s assets.
Claimant: Republic of Kazakhstan
Respondent: MTR Metals Ltd. (Cyprus)
II. The Decision By the Svea Court of Appeal Subject-Matters:
(1) Jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
(2) Possible bias of the arbitral tribunal.
(3) One arbitrator excluded from the deliberations?