Establishment in a silent partnership agreement of the jurisdiction of the arbitration court for disputes arising out of this contractual relationship is irrelevant for disputes over the existence of such relationship.

1. A finding by the courts of two instances that an arbitration award is unenforceable is essentially a consequence of the judicially confirmed invalidity of the award, depriving it of force and effect.

2. The objective invalidity [of the arbitration award] could occur only if the scope of authority of the arbitration court was not specified at all or was extended generally, without closer description, to any and all disputes between the parties.

An arbitration provision in a collective agreement would have legal effect only when the agreement was signed by both parties (§ 884 of the [former Austrian] Civil Code), or by their attorneys-in-fact “specifically” authorized to conclude the agreement (§ 1008 of the [former Austrian] Civil Code).

This provision [former Civil Procedure Law Art. 1370¹] that consideration of claims referred to in Civil Procedure Law Art. 1370 shall lie with the court which would have jurisdiction in the event of a judicial dispute should be understood as reiterating the general rule with respect to jurisdiction of the court depending on the amount sought by the plaintiff.

1. Only the arbitration court, and not a party, is authorized to submit a demand for legal assistance.

2. With respect to the form of the award and evidentiary measures, the arbitration court is not bound by civil procedure regulations.

There is no provision in the code prohibiting the parties from including a provision in a valid arbitration clause that if one of the arbitrators refuses to take part in the proceeding or sign the award, the other remaining arbitrator or arbitrators together with the presiding arbitrator shall constitute the complete arbitration court appointed in accordance with § 577 of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code.

The defendant’s objection to appointment of a super-arbitrator is not justified by Civil Procedure Law Art. 1370¹, which clearly vests this right with the court, and the arbitrators’ mutual selection of the super-arbitrator is not provided for in the statute.

An arbitration award may be served on a party who has departed to a place unknown after issuance of the award, via a guardian for an absent person, appointed by the court for this purpose.

Because it was found that the petitioner had not signed the arbitration clause, through placement of her signature or her mark, it was correctly ruled that the arbitration award issued on the basis of such clause was ineffective, and with respect to both petitioners; from the nature of the legal relationship which was to be determined by the arbitration award, there is an apparent uniformity of interest for both of the petitioners.

An arbitration agreement is governed by provisions of public law, not private law. Under the regulations concerning the judicial system, a person who is formally subject to guardianship due to mental illness may not become a judge; therefore, applying this rule by analogy, a person is not capable of serving as an arbitrator who at the time of appointment as an arbitrator was formally subject to guardianship due to mental illness, notwithstanding the claim that such person was already in fact mentally fit at that time or upon issuance of the award.