224 / 522
defective intentions shall be resolved as per Art. 4 of the IAA. The
invalidity of an arbitration agreement by virtue of an incompetent rep-
resentative may be eliminated by subsequent consent. Moreover, the
authority to execute an arbitration agreement by proxy shall only be
allowed given that the power of attorney constitutes a special authori-
ty thereof (TCO Art. 504).
Breach of Procedure in Appointment of the Arbitrators
In accordance with such provision, the procedure to be complied
with, in terms of appointment of the arbitrators, shall be the procedure
determined by the parties under the arbitration agreement or the pro-
cedure envisaged under the IAA. The IAA provisions enable the par-
ties to determine the number of the arbitrators, such as many institu-
tional arbitration institutions, or the UNCITRAL Model Law. The
mandatory rule to which the parties must comply with is that the num-
ber of the arbitrators should be an odd number. As per the IAA, the
claimant shall inform the respondent as soon as an arbitrator is
appointed and the respondent shall appoint an arbitrator within 30
days. If the respondent does not appoint an arbitrator, the arbitrator
shall be appointed by the civil court of first instance. Following the
appointment of the two arbitrators, such arbitrators shall appoint the
presiding arbitrator. In cases where the presiding arbitrator cannot be
determined, the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the civil
court of first instance. In order for this appointment to be considered as
a reason to set aside, this procedure shall be considered to have been in
violation.
Not Ruling within the Time Limit
In accordance with Art. 10 of the IAA, the duration of arbitration
is 1 year. This duration commences as of the date of appointment of the
arbitrator in proceedings with a single arbitrator, and as of the date of
preparation of the first meeting minutes of the arbitral tribunal in pro-
ceedings with multiple arbitrators. The parties may agree otherwise
regarding the commencement of the time limit. There are different
opinions in the Doctrine regarding this reason. It is sometimes seen to
create an unjust reason to set aside for the losing party.
208
NEWSLETTER 2015