The demand for a holding that the arbitration clause is deprived of legal force is properly grounded on §583(2)(2) of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code, pursuant to which an arbitration clause loses its binding force not only when an arbitrator expressly referred to in the clause refuses to perform the obligation imposed on him as a result of accepting the duties of an arbitrator, but also when this is done by an arbitrator appointed by a party pursuant to the arbitration clause. In both of these instances, both parties have a right to demand a ruling that the arbitration clause is deprived of legal force.

An arbitration award may be effective only for or against a person who in a written document has submitted a disputed right or disputed legal relationship to determination by the arbitration court.

The date of issuance of the award by the arbitration court should be stated in the award itself. A subsequent declaration by the arbitrators, even though made in writing, is of no legal significance because the functions of the arbitration court cease entirely upon issuance of the award (Art. 1394 of the [former Russian] Civil Procedure Code). Nor is it permissible to admit the testimony of witnesses in order to determine the date of the arbitration award. The infraction committed by the arbitration court in omitting the date does not invalidate the award if the award was filed with the state court prior to the end of the period in which the award was supposed to made and it is confirmed through this procedure that the deadline was not missed.

The amended Art. 1367, 1370 and 1370¹ of the [former Russian] Civil Procedure Code, insofar as they contain substantive legal norms, that is with respect to a compulsory submission to arbitration and appointment of arbitrators without the consent of both parties, may not be applied with respect to general arbitration clauses concluded before entry into force of the act of 16 July 1925 [amending the former Russian Civil Procedure Code].

A clause providing for a panel composed of two arbitrators in the event that one of the arbitrators refuses to take part in the hearing and issuance of the award is legally possible and effective, but in that case the two arbitrators would have to conduct the hearing and issue the award. Then, without a doubt, only the two arbitrators holding sessions and deciding the case would be required to sign the arbitration award (§592 of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code).

The deadline under §596 par. 2 of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code for challenging an arbitration award is undoubtedly a preclusive deadline, which is even stricter than a statute of limitations. If in the case of the latter the limitations period is interrupted by filing a petition that is duly supported (Civil Code §1497), then it follows from the nature of a preclusive deadline that failure to support the petition (in the given case) within a period of 3 months results in loss of the right to challenge the award.

1. §577 of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code, stating that the arbitration clause is legally effective if the parties are competent to conclude a settlement with respect to the matter in dispute, does not exclude at all the possibility of a third party joining the dispute before the arbitration court, when the parties who prepared the given arbitration clause consent thereto—even if only implicitly—and express their trust in the third party in such implicit manner.

2. The plaintiff’s challenge to the procedure followed by the arbitration court, specifically that despite a change in the composition of the panel because of a new presiding arbitrator, the arbitration court failed to conduct the entire hearing again before the new panel, that it did not hear the witnesses or the parties but limited itself to using the evidence admitted previously, is ineffective, because unless otherwise agreed by the parties the procedure before the arbitration court is designated by the arbitrators themselves, within their free discretion (§587 par. 1 of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code).

3. A ruling on the costs of the dispute does not violate §595(5) of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code because the issue of costs is closely connected with the principal claim and should be covered by the award, and the party on which to impose the obligation to pay the costs depended on the arbitration court’s discretion.

As pursuant to §577 par. 3 of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code an arbitration agreement must be concluded in writing, the prior oral appointment of arbitrators has no legal significance whatsoever, and no intent of the parties can shift the effectiveness of the written agreement back to an earlier date. Prior to the written agreement, neither the arbitration court nor the arbitrators exist, and even express waiver of the objection of the invalidity of the arbitration award on these grounds would be ineffective (§§ 595 and 598 of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code).

Use of a default procedure patterned on the Civil Procedure Code is impermissible before the arbitration court. Notwithstanding a party’s failure to join issue in the dispute, the arbitration court has a duty to determine and assess the state of facts, and only within those limits may it use the party’s failure to proceed as grounds for accepting disputed facts to be admitted to be true.

1. The Supreme Court does not share the legal view that because of dispatch and service of a copy of the arbitration award on the plaintiff after 10 May 1927, the award in question should be regarded as not having been issued during the period specified in the submission to arbitration, and thus invalid. Because the award was adopted by all three arbitrators and signed by them prior to 10 May 1927, the award must be regarded as issued on time, regardless of when it was served on the parties.

2. The award in question is invalid because the plaintiff was not heard by all three arbitrators prior to resolution of the case covered by the submission to arbitration.