Subject Matters

(1) Determination of the jurisdiction in case of similar names of arbitral institutions

(2) Arbitrator’s knowledge of the language agreed in the arbitration agreement

(3) Competence – competence

(4) Issuance of the writ of execution

 

Findings

(1) The wording of the arbitration agreement and the notarized translations of the arbitral award, the Rules of arbitration and the list of arbitral institutions shall be taken in account.

(2) The parties’ agreement on the language for the arbitral proceedings had not been observed as the arbitrator held the proceedings in the official language of the state (Latvian), with the help provided by the interpreter, in English.

(3) The writ of execution shall not be issued if the award was made in violation of the provisions of the arbitration agreement and part D (Arbitration) of the Civil Procedure Law as the dispute had been referred to an arbitration court the parties had not agreed upon.

 

Parties

Claimant – Swedish company “Forscan Timber Export” AB

Respondent - Latvian company “Interwood”

 

Place of court proceedings: Riga, Latvia

 

Applicable law: Latvian Civil Procedure Law

 

Place of arbitration: Riga, Latvia