Art. 2 Rules of the CA at the BCCI

* Award on Domestic Arbitration Case No. 136/02, ruled on 19.06.2003

IN SO FAR AS THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE ALLOWS ALTERNATIVE JURISDICTION OF MORE THAN ONE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED ARBITRATION INSTITUTION, SUCH A CLAUSE IS VALID, SINCE IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT MANDATORY RULES OF LAW.

THE JURISDICTION OF ONE OF THE TWO DESIGNATED ARBITRATION INSTITUTIONS IS IN ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE CLAIMANT’S RIGHT OF CHOICE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ANY OBJECTION BY THE DEFENDANT TO THE CHOICE ALREADY MADE IS INADMISSIBLE.

The parties to the present contract for services have explicitly stated that “all disputes which arise from this contract or are related to it are to be resolved by the Court of Arbitration at the BCCI and/or the BCI in accordance with their relevant rules”. The way the arbitration clause is formulated clearly demonstrates the parties’ willingness to submit all their disputes to arbitration. At the same time, such a clause has one peculiarity in so far as it allows for alternative jurisdiction of more than one specifically designated arbitration institution. A clause of that kind is valid, since it does not contradict any mandatory rules of law. The problem is that the jurisdiction of one of the two explicitly designated arbitration institutions, is in addition subject to the claimant’s exercise of his/her right of choice. The terms of the contract illustrate that the arbitration clause is formulated in such a manner, that it provides for the claimant to choose which arbitration institution is to have jurisdiction, while any objection on behalf of the defendant about the choice already made by the claimant is inadmissible.

In accordance with the above, the Arbitral Tribunal is of the opinion that the present arbitration clause is a valid one that grants the claimant with the right to choose, and the choice has been made. The inclusion of an arbitration clause into the contract and the filing of a claim with the CA at the BCCI are such facts, which in their entirety are sufficient to ground the CA at the BCCI jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.

* The award was published in collection 2002-2003 under reference No. 153, p. 366