ZRP
Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii

Schoenherr - Focus on privacy. Just how confidential is arbitration?

21 Mai 2018   |   Victoria Pernt, Associate - Schoenherr

Arbitrations, at least if seated in Austria, are likely to be more confidential than state court proceedings, even without particular confidentiality agreements.

 
 
With courts worldwide shattering the common misconception that arbitration is intrinsically confidential, parties are left wondering: just how confidential is arbitration?

The answer is: it depends.

As with most aspects of arbitration, confidentiality rests with the parties. Yet, many arbitration agreements do not address confidentiality, and parties often struggle to amend their arbitration agreements once a dispute has arisen and battle lines have been drawn.

In those cases, it is the governing arbitral law that, together with the applicable institutional rules, informs the scope of confidentiality covering that particular arbitration. The "confidentiality default" likely to apply under Austrian law is summarised below.


Arbitral proceedings and connected court proceedings may be private

Although Austrian statutory law does not contain any explicit provisions on the privacy of arbitral proceedings, such privacy is universally recognised and often implied in arbitration agreements. It is further fostered by Section 616(2) of the Austrian Civil Procedure Code ("ZPO"), which permits parties with legitimate interests to request exclusion of the public in court proceedings connected to arbitration. It is argued that since Section 616(2) ZPO provides for privacy in court proceedings connected to arbitration, privacy should be afforded, all the more, to arbitral proceedings themselves.

Awards may be (partially) published

Even without the other party's consent, a party may publish the ruling or a redacted version of the award, if not the entire award itself. The applicable institutional rules may also contain provisions on publication. The Vienna International Arbitral Centre, for instance, may publish anonymous summaries or extracts of awards, unless the parties object.

Arbitrators are subject to a confidentiality obligation

Confidentiality obligations of arbitrators are universally recognised. They are derived from the contractual duty of care, laid down in guidelines and codes of ethics, and often implied in arbitration agreements. Arbitral institutions are generally under a similar obligation.

Parties may be subject to a (limited) confidentiality obligation

Neither Austrian statutory law nor case law expressly provides for a general duty of confidentiality. However, such a duty may be implied in Austrian law. Under Section 172(3) ZPO, if the public is excluded from a hearing, the content of that hearing may not be made public. Section 616(2) ZPO permits such exclusion of the public in the arbitration context. Therefore, it can be argued that Austrian law supports a general duty of confidentiality of the parties to an arbitration.

Nevertheless, even if such a duty existed, it would be subject to certain limitations. It would not prohibit disclosures required by law, challenges or enforcement of the award, or seeking assistance from courts in the course of the arbitration. It also would not prohibit disclosures to a smaller and closed group (such as potential purchasers), as only publications to "the public" are prohibited. Nor would such a duty prohibit the disclosure of at least the ruling of the award or a redacted version of it.

Can parties make their arbitration more confidential?

Yes, parties can and do influence how confidential their arbitration is. For one thing, parties should consider their confidentiality preferences when choosing the applicable institutional rules and governing arbitral law. The confidentiality provisions vary greatly by country. For example, the arbitral laws of New Zealand, Spain, England, France and Singapore recognise a general confidentiality obligation of the parties, while those of Australia, Sweden and the US do not. Naturally, choosing the right institutional rules and arbitral law requires sufficient familiarity with their respective key provisions.

Parties also can (and should) enter into confidentiality agreements. While confidentiality may at times be implied in a particular contract, relying on an implied obligation is hardly a risk worth taking. Parties are thus well advised to carefully draft tailored confidentiality provisions together with their arbitration agreement. For instance, these provisions could require that documents exchanged in the arbitration remain confidential, that witnesses and experts testifying in the arbitration sign confidentiality clauses, and, crucially, could subject breaches of confidentiality to contractual penalties.

Arbitrations, at least if seated in Austria, are likely to be more confidential than state court proceedings, even without particular confidentiality agreements. Nevertheless, parties are well advised to take the reins and include confidentiality provisions in their arbitration agreements. After all, it is up to them to determine just how confidential their arbitration will be.

 
 

PNSA

 
 

ARTICOLE PE ACEEASI TEMA

ARTICOLE DE ACELASI AUTOR


     

    Ascunde Reclama
     
     

    POSTEAZA UN COMENTARIU


    Nume *
    Email (nu va fi publicat) *
    Comentariu *
    Cod de securitate*







    * campuri obligatorii


    Articol 11 / 2005
     

    Ascunde Reclama
     
     
     
    BREAKING NEWS
    ESENTIAL
    Hațegan Attorneys obține o hotărâre definitivă referitoare la impozitarea parcurilor fotovoltaice. Componentele cu valoare ridicată nu sunt considerate construcții
    Immofinanz vinde către Speedwell două terenuri în nordul Bucureştiului. Ce avocați de la PNSA și TZA au coordonat echipele
    AkzoNobel a bătut palma cu Oresa Ventures pentru achiziția Fabryo Corporation. Avocații Popovici Nițu Stoica & Asociații au fost alături de fond, Schoenherr a asistat cumpăratorul
    Mușat & Asociații: Numărul de mandate în domeniul protecției datelor cu caracter personal s-a dublat față de anul precedent
    Penaliștii de la Mareș|Danilescu|Mareș în asociere cu Dan Lupașcu au obținut sesizarea CCR în ”Dosarul Gala Bute”, în care îl apără pe Rudel Obreja. Argumentele cu care avocații au obținut decizia favorabilă la ÎCCJ
    Cum lucrează performanta echipă de 46 de avocați ai Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații specializați în practica de Dispute Resolution. Mandate cu greutate printre cele 4.200 de litigii ”lucrate” anul trecut, arbitraje internaționale cu pretenții de 4,9 mld. $ și servicii integrate pe zona de penal-comercial
    Promovări la Suciu Popa. Iulian Cioienaru devine partener, alți doi avocați urcă în poziția de Senior Associate
    Cum lucrează avocații specializați în litigii și arbitraj de la Voicu & Filipescu. Cu accent pe litigiile comerciale, firma soluționează cu succes cazuri în toate domeniile relevante pentru activitatea companiilor publice sau private
    Pe piața de capital, sunt oportunități pentru toate tipurile de companii, spun avocații Bondoc & Asociații. Proiectele uneia dintre cele mai mari și experimentate echipe de Capital Markets din România
    Schimbări în structura parteneriatului Schoenherr București
    NICULEASA LAW FIRM convinge Tribunalul Bucureşti să sesizeze Curtea de Justiție a Uniunii Europene pe mai multe probleme ce privesc raportul dintre procedura penală și cea fiscală
    PeliFilip a asistat Ministerul Finanțelor Publice în premieră într-o operațiune de preschimbare de titluri de stat în dolari
     
    Citeste pe SeeNews Digital Network
    • BizBanker

    • BizLeader

        in curand...
    • SeeNews

      in curand...