Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism based on the principle of party equality, which allows parties to resolve a private-law property dispute through arbitrators independent individuals selected or appointed by the parties rather than through the court system, provided that the parties have agreed to this in writing.

Thus, the essence of arbitration lies in the resolution of a dispute not by a court but by an alternative body the arbitral tribunal mutually agreed upon by the parties. The significance of arbitration is particularly evident both in the manner of dispute resolution and in the legal consequences resulting therefrom. In particular, arbitration enables parties to resolve their dispute in a timely, impartial, and effective manner, which includes the possibility of enforcement of the arbitral award.

How Does the Arbitration Process Work?

The advantages of arbitration stem from its fundamental procedural principles, including: Autonomy - Parties are free to choose the arbitral institution, appoint arbitrators, determine the procedural rules and applicable law, select the language of the proceedings, and define the scope and specifics of the dispute. This makes arbitration more flexible and tailored to the parties’ needs.

Equality of Parties - Arbitration proceedings are based on party equality, and the disputing parties enjoy equal rights and responsibilities to substantiate claims, present evidence, and make arguments.

Independence and Impartiality - The arbitral tribunal is an independent body, free from any external influence or partiality toward either party. Parties may choose arbitrators or delegate this authority to the arbitral institution, ensuring independence and impartiality.

Confidentiality - Arbitral proceedings are private. Third parties do not have access to the details of the dispute, which is often critical for the protection of the parties’ interests.

Time Efficiency - Arbitration typically allows for a faster resolution of disputes compared to court proceedings, resulting in potential cost savings for the parties.

Enforceability - Arbitral awards, once recognized, are subject to enforcement under mandatory rules, and therefore are legally binding and enforceable.

Before initiating arbitration, it is important to ensure compliance with formal requirements of the arbitration agreement. Specifically, arbitration can proceed only if the arbitration clause is valid, clearly defines the scope of the dispute, the applicable law, the language, seat of arbitration, and other essential elements. Furthermore, the agreement must not be void, expired, or incapable of being performed. Hence, the parties must assess in advance whether the nature of their relationship and potential disputes fall within the jurisdiction of arbitration.

Differences Between Arbitration and Court Proceedings

Arbitration serves as an alternative to litigation. Despite both being dispute resolution mechanisms, arbitration and court litigation differ in several key aspects:

Legal Nature - Courts, as part of the judiciary branch of government, exercise public authority in the administration of justice. Their powers and jurisdiction are strictly governed by law, which limits the autonomy of the parties. In contrast, arbitration allows greater party autonomy.
Procedural Rules - Court procedures are strictly regulated by law, and unlike in arbitration, parties cannot modify these rules. Arbitration allows parties to agree on different procedural rules based on their autonomy.
Selection of Decision-Maker - In court proceedings, parties cannot choose the judge. In arbitration, parties have the right to appoint arbitrators, which allows the dispute to be resolved by professionals with expertise in the relevant field.
Confidentiality - Unlike arbitration, court proceedings are public, except in legally defined exceptions.
Appeals - There is a major difference in the appeal mechanisms. Court decisions may be appealed in higher courts (appeal and cassation), where procedural or substantive legal errors may be reviewed. Arbitral awards, however, may only be set aside on limited grounds such as procedural violations or breaches of public policy.
Timelines - Arbitration is often considered a means of relieving the court system, which is frequently overburdened. Despite statutory deadlines, court decisions may be delayed. Arbitration proceedings are generally shorter, saving time for the parties.
International Disputes - In the context of international relations and investment treaties, parties—especially foreign investors—may prefer arbitration to avoid influence from national court systems. Arbitral tribunals formed under international conventions provide more efficient enforcement mechanisms across member states compared to recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments.

When Is It Worth Choosing Arbitration?

Considering the above differences, the question arises: when should arbitration be used?

The use of arbitration depends on the parties’ goals and interests. If the parties seek: a swift resolution, confidentiality, participation of subject-matter experts in the decision-making process, avoidance of bureaucratic and rigid court procedures, then arbitration may be the more suitable option than litigation. Furthermore, the nature of the relationship (e.g., international vs. domestic) may lead the parties to prefer arbitration particularly when they wish to avoid the complexities associated with recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments.

In summary, arbitration is a highly flexible and efficient method of dispute resolution. However, the effectiveness of arbitration depends on the nature of the business relationship, the type of dispute, and the specific interests of the parties involved.