Despite these provisions, zhejiang Yisheng is indeed alleged that the arbitration agreement is an ad hoc arbitration agreement and is therefore invalid. First, it is considered that the Ningbo court accepted the challenge and concluded that the arbitration agreement was invalid. However, the decision was referred to the Zhejiang Court of Justice and subsequently to the Supreme Court of the Rpc as part of the CPP reporting and verification system. The ICC`s arbitration regulation provides for the application of an expedited procedure for cases of lesser value. If the parties wish to exclude the application of the expedited procedure provisions, they must expressly object to it by adding to the above clause the following wording: first, since the decision is made on the version of fact, that is, after the adoption and management of arbitration by CSC, the question arises as to whether the same conclusion would be reached in a case. in which the chosen institution refuses to manage according to the rules that are not its own and a party asks for the execution. Arbitration Agreement. The answer would probably be “no” and the clause would be considered unenforceable. Similarly, it was concluded in the contrary opinion attached to the decision. Contracting parties are free to tailor the clause to their particular circumstances. For example, they can determine the number of arbitrators because the ICC arbitration regulation contains a presumption in favour of an individual arbitrator. It may also be desirable that they set the place and language of arbitration and the law applicable to merits. The ICC arbitration regulation does not limit the free choice of the parties to the place and language of arbitration or the law governing the contract.
In this case, the Svea court held that the fundamental intention of the parties was “that potential disputes between the parties be resolved by arbitration and that the objective was for the Stockholm arbitration to take place before CSC.” “[t]he question is that CSC agreed and also managed the arbitration process. It is therefore clear that the arbitration agreement was enforceable,” the tribunal heard from the conflicting parties of the arbitration agreement, namely CSC as an arbitration institution and the ICC rules as applicable rules. Invista had previously commenced arbitration proceedings against Zhejiang Yisheng, under the terms of a licensing agreement, which includes that it is scheduled for arbitration under the aegis of CIETAC, but in accordance with UNCIC arbitration rules. Such clauses are often referred to as hybrid arbitration clauses. These requirements must be met at the time the parties enter into the arbitration agreement. If ICC arbitration is chosen as the preferred method of dispute resolution, it should be decided when negotiating separate contracts, contracts or arbitration agreements. However, if both parties agree, this can be included even after a dispute. The respondent responded by stating that “[she] always intended to avoid the risk of having to bring an action against the applicant in the Russian courts” and that “the parties clearly agreed that the disputes should be settled through arbitration before CSC.”