If the parties do not appear at the time set for announcement of the arbitration award, or if the award was not announced to the parties, the award is deemed to be announced on the last day of the period set for issuance of the award.

The finding ... that the parties entered into an arbitration clause and obtained an arbitration award with the intention of circumventing regulations of law imposing requirements for transfer of ownership is sufficient grounds to refuse to issue a writ of enforcement (Zw. Pr. Vol. X, Part 1, Art. 1528).

1. The state court could only either find the arbitration award enforceable in its entirety or refuse to find the award enforceable also in its entirety, as it is not the place of the state court in considering a case seeking recognition of an arbitration award as enforceable to review which of the reasons behind the award are justified or unjustified, or which item in an accounting was proved or acknowledged by a party, or to enter at all into consideration of the merits of the dispute.

2. The arbitration court may apply § 319 of the [former German] Civil Procedure Code, i.e. correct obvious errors of calculation, typographical errors or the like. It may not, however, amend its material content after service of the award on the parties, unless both parties consent to such amendment.

3. Resignation of appointment is a declaration by arbitrators that they refuse to perform their duties, that they renounce the agreement with the parties obliging them to resolve the dispute.

4. In light of the declaration by the arbitrators in the presence of the parties that they resign their appointments, and thus renounce the agreement to perform the duty of arbitrators, pursuant to § 1033 of the [former German] Civil Procedure Code the arbitration agreement ceased to be in force, and expired.

5. In light of expiration of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrators who resigned their appointments had no legal basis to take up their rights and obligations again upon the unilateral request of the plaintiff without the consent of the defendant, as they did.

The fact that one of the arbitrators served the arbitration award on the defendant in his residence, and the defendant after reading the award left it with the arbitrator without acknowledgement, promising to take the award back after payment of the fee due to the arbitrator, does not yet constitute service of the arbitration award within the meaning of § 592 of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code.

1. Written form is the mandatory form for an arbitration clause (§ 577(3) of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code) and thus the arbitration clause may not be supplemented by oral agreement, not to mention in an implied manner.

2. The bounds within which an arbitrator should rule are determined solely by the terms of the arbitration clause, confirmed in writing.

1. If the arbitration clause covered only a dispute over principal, excluding the issue of interest, and the arbitration court considered the case only within such bounds, there cannot be any barrier to the party then commencing a case before the state court for interest; if, however, the parties submitted to the arbitration court not only the issue of principal, but also interest, in such case failure by the arbitration court to consider the dispute over interest cannot deprive the party of the right to then pursue such dispute before the state court, as otherwise the dispute over interest would be excluded altogether from judicial consideration, with the party left powerless to oppose it.

2. The arbitration court’s exceeding the scope of the authority vested in it by the arbitration clause results in invalidity of the arbitration award, but narrowing of such scope does not.

Art. 1387 of the [former Russian] Civil Procedure Code authorizes arbitration courts to rule in disputes between the parties not on the basis of general regulations of judicial procedure and not on the basis of provisions of substantive law, but according to its own conscience—but not by any means to resolve fictitious disputes arising out of collusion between the parties in order to circumvent regulations of law.

1. From the perspective of Austrian civil procedure regulations, failure to submit the original arbitration clause to the arbitration court does not justify ineffectiveness of the arbitration award, as this result follows under § 595(1) of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code only from lack of an arbitration clause.

2. The state court is not a higher instance with respect to the arbitration court, and thus determinations made by the arbitration court within its discretion may not be appealed against.

3. The lack of justification of an arbitration award is not included in § 595 of the [former Austrian] Civil Procedure Code as grounds for ineffectiveness of the arbitration award.

1. A party’s lack of confidence in an arbitrator may not constitute grounds for the arbitrator to decline to perform the duties. The arguments in the petition for review seeking to demonstrate that an arbitrator is a decision-maker and at the same time the trusted confidante of the party that appointed him are erroneous.

A party does demonstrate its confidence by choosing someone as an arbitrator in its case, but in the sense that the selected arbitrator will resolve the dispute impartially, not looking only to the interests of the party appointing him as an arbitrator. The arbitrator is not a judge only of that party, but of both parties, and the duty of impartiality arises out of his character as a judge.

2. Regardless of whether it is a matter of non-justiciability or lack of jurisdiction of the court, the arbitration court may not hold an arbitrator liable for payment of costs, but only one of the parties conducting the dispute, for costs caused by conducting the dispute itself.

1. As the code does not mention intervention by the state court with respect to removal of arbitrators, an interpretation drawn from the justification for the code, for which the applicants argue, would be justified if there were no other provisions indicating that in any instance in which the participation of the state court in an arbitration proceeding is to be permissible, a specific provision of the code is required.

2. As the code does not specifically provide for participation by the state court in the removal of arbitrators, consideration and resolution of this matter lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitration court.