SCC Case 19/1997 - Chapter 2 - SCC Arbitral Awards - 1999-2003
About the Editors:
Sigvard Jarvin has been involved in more than 215 international arbitrations under the arbitration rules of the ICC, the Stockholm Arbitration Institute, the Dutch Arbitration Institute, the American Arbitration Association, LCIA, UNCITRAL, the Cairo Regional Centre, and other arbitration organizations. He was general counsel to the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris (1982-1987) and member of the Court (1988-1995). He also chaired the ICC working party revising the ICC/CMI Maritime Arbitration Rules (1997-1998).
Mr. Jarvin was the rapporteur at the 1990 and 1998 ICCA Congresses and was chairman of the foreign section of the Swedish Bar from 1999 to 2000, and he is also a member of the board of the Institute of Arbitration Law at Stockholm University and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and the International Arbitration Club, London. He is cited yearly as one of the best arbitration lawyers in France in Chambers Global — The World’s Leading Lawyers , published by Chambers & Partners.
Annette Magnusson, is a Professional Support Lawyer at the firm of Mannheimer Swartling, Stockholm. She was formerly Assistant Secretary General and legal counsel for the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.
Observation Commentary by:
Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez, Partner SAI Abogados, Formerly General Counsel of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, seved as Chief Legal Counsel for the government of Mexico during negotiations of NAFTA.
Originally from SCC Arbitral Awards 1999-2003
(1) Is “the Arbitration Court in Stockholm” a reference to ad hoc or institutional arbitration?
(2) Resfusal by a party to participate in the proceedings.
(3) Value added tax on the arbitrators' fee.
(1) The word “arbitration” in the Russian language can mean both institutional and ad hoc arbitration. When written with a capital “A” and in the context, it refers to an institutional arbitration according to the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.
(2) Failure of a party to appear at a hearing or otherwise to comply with an order of the Arbitral Tribunal will not prevent the Arbitral Tribunal from proceeding with the case and rendering an award.
(3) It is doubtful whether the decision of the European Court of Justice, rendered on 16 September 1997, relating to value added tax on arbitrators' fees has effect in Sweden. The arbitrators decide that the SCC Institute shall withhold an amount corresponding to the value added tax from the arbitrator’s fee.
Parties: Claimant: X, Contractor (Cyprus)
Respondent: Y, Owner (Russian Federation)
Place of arbitration: Stockholm
II. SCC case 19/1997
(1) Is the Arbitration Court in Stockholm a reference to ad hoc or institutional arbitration?
(2) Refusal by a party to participate in the proceedings.
(3) Value added tax on the arbitrators’ fee.
Observations by Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez