§ 6. Discussions

Alptuğ Tokeşer - The arbitrators do not have public authority (or authority of state) and using public power (power of state) to serve notices is not applicable. Most arbitration institutions also serve their notices using services like FedEx. According to the new rules of the ICC, if electronic notification is possible, meaning if it can be sent to an email address, it is more environmentally friendly and, in this post-covid era where physical presence becomes more uncertain, notifications are usually carried out this way. Moreover, avoiding a notification is not much of a solution for someone who refuses to accept the notification anyway. If the notification is delivered to known registered addresses or the address stated in the contract, and it is shown that the notification was sent to that address, it will not be easy to avoid participation in the enforcement phase by claiming that you were not duly served. I don’t think this argument will be easily accepted. I don’t think this argument will easily be accepted. If we look at international examples, there are instances where parties avoid notifications for reasons beyond personal preferences. For instance, in many investment arbitration files, especially the files arising from the Occupation of Crimea, Russia initially acted as if those cases did not exist. However, when decisions turned against them, and they were required to pay compensations, they realized their mistake and started participating in those cases.

As far as I know, there is no arbitration institution that exercises public power…

Participant 2 - My question is related to the future of ISTAC. Currently,…

Prof. Dr. Ziya Akıncı - The second question is more challenging, so if you…

As the Turkish Service of Process Act sets the rules unless otherwise stipulated,…

As is the case in many other arbitration centers, we have a special provision that…

Participant 3 - Good afternoon. Omar Al Nwaylati I’m a Lebanese lawyer and international arbitrator. I would like to thank ISTAC for amazing seminar, I would like to thank the prominent speakers for their valuable contributions. I like to mention some comments not to contradict but to add up on the things that were mentioned by our colleagues. To start with Dr. Areou…

Alptuğ Tokeşer - Well, personally I think the issue was basically two thresholds. Before covid the most aspects of this remote working it was rather an unusual way of doing things. Unusual thing to have a hearing in virtual setting. I remember traveling to quite a bit distance just to have a procedural hearing to discuss procedural aspects. I think covid taught us that this was absolutely not necessary. That the most of these things can be done virtually. And since they come out of the necessity I think people had more difficult time to argue that a hearing done in a virtual setting would end up in a violation of right to be hard which is in

Alptuğ Tokeşer - The right to be heard is turning into a state of paranoia. While trying one party’s Right to be Heard, the process is getting out of control to the extent that, in my opinion, it may lead to a violation of other party’s rights. You may argue that this depends on the current circumstances, but what we refer to as guerrilla tactics that prolongs and stalls the process. In reality, we are trying to resolve a dispute here. As İsmail Hoca said, our job here is to resolve the dispute. We have a conflict. However, I believe we should talk about the abuse of the right to be heard rather than preserving it, for the party that acts to prevent the resolution of the dispute. We need to address the misuse of the legal right to be heard. In my personal experience, which I have encountered

Aşağıda bir kısmını gördüğünüz bu dokümana sadece Profesyonel + pakete abone olan üyelerimiz erişebilir.