'Ce qu'on voulait faire, c'est en le faisant qu'on le découvre.' 1

In December 1997, Robert Briner published an article in the ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin entitled 'The Implementation of the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration'. 2In his article, he stated: 'The 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration constitute, from various viewpoints, the most important revision of the ICC arbitration system since 1955 . . .' He underlined the necessity for the Court 'to decide on the appropriate way to deal with the application of these new Rules'. He further stated that 'it is not at present possible to envisage all questions which will arise in connection with the application of the new Rules'.

More than seven years later, the multitude of interesting questions that have arisen in the course of applying the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration3confirms the truth of Robert Briner's statement. On the occasion of this Liber Amicorum, it seems appropriate to review the implementation of those Rules as it has taken place under his exceptional leadership and guidance. This article will consider some of the changes that have occurred in the ICC Court's practices and highlight certain questions that have been addressed by the ICC Court in applying the 1998 Rules.

A discussion of the implementation of the 1998 Rules must be seen in the context of the significant modifications that have occurred in the composition of the Court itself and its Secretariat since Robert Briner's arrival at the ICC in January 1997. At that time, the ICC Court was made up of seventy-one members from fifty-three countries. Today there are 124 members from eighty-six countries. The Secretariat of the Court at the time of Robert Briner's arrival comprised thirty-four persons; at present it has sixty staff members. 4[Page919:]

The important increase in both the numbers and geographic reach of the Court and its Secretariat has been paralleled by the cases presented to the Court. During 1996, 433 requests for arbitration were filed with the Court. Last year, in 2004, 561 requests were received, representing approximately a 30 per cent increase. On 31 December 1996, 881 cases were pending, compared with 1,110 cases on 31 December 2004. A total of 1,145 parties from ninety-five countries were involved in the cases filed in 1996, whereas in 2004 there were 1,682 parties from 116 different countries. In 1996, 739 arbitrators from fifty-eight countries were appointed or confirmed by the Court. In 2004, these numbers had increased to 952 arbitrators from sixty-one countries. Finally, ICC arbitrations took place in thirty-eight different countries in 1996, as compared to a record forty-nine countries in 2004. Robert Briner's unfaltering willingness to travel to all parts of the globe in his role as principal ambassador for ICC arbitration has clearly contributed to these increases.

In order to deal with the greater number of cases and render the process more rapid, the structure of the Court sessions has been modified. Since 1998, under Article 4(5)(a) of Appendix II to the Rules, committees of the Court have been given the authority to approve awards on a final basis, without the need to wait for a plenary session. Court sessions have been added to the calendar, so that at present there are generally four committee sessions and one plenary session each month. These structural changes have allowed cases to move through the system much more quickly.

The 1998 Rules included a first set of changes intended to make ICC procedures take place more rapidly. A second group of changes were intended to take into account many of the developments that had taken place in the practice of international arbitration. This article will discuss several of the modifications in each of these categories and consider the effect of the respective provisions in practice. [Page920:]

Provisions aimed at making the procedure more rapid

When considering how to speed up the ICC arbitration process under the 1998 Rules, particular attention was given to the early stages of the procedure. Specific modifications were adopted to enable the file to be transmitted more rapidly to the arbitral tribunal. 5

Article 9(2)

Article 9(2) allows the Secretary General of the Court to confirm arbitrators that 'have filed a statement of independence without qualification or a qualified statement of independence [that] has not given rise to objections'. Last year, in 2004, of the 952 arbitrators appointed or confirmed in ICC cases, 447 arbitrators- or 47 per cent-were confirmed by the Secretary General of the Court. More than 65 per cent of the arbitrators nominated by the parties or the coarbitrators were confirmed by the Secretary General. This provision has clearly allowed arbitral tribunals to be constituted more rapidly with, in certain cases, full arbitral tribunals being constituted without any need for the intervention of the Court. 6

Although Article 9(2) specifies that '[i]f the Secretary General considers that [an arbitrator] should not be confirmed, the matter shall be submitted to the Court', in practice this provision has almost never needed to be implemented. Either the proposed arbitrators have submitted unqualified statements of independence or qualified statements which have not led to an objection, allowing the Secretary General to confirm them, or there has been an objection to their nomination, with or without a qualified statement of independence, in which case their confirmation has been considered by the Court. In a very limited number of cases, however, in light of the wording of the arbitration clause, the Secretary General has preferred to leave the confirmation decision to the Court.

Several recent examples under the 1998 Rules demonstrate that in standard, non-fast-track cases, the arbitral tribunal can be constituted, pursuant to Article 9(2), in less than one or two months from the filing of the request for arbitration. In three recent cases, the sole arbitrator was proposed by the parties and confirmed by the Secretary General in respectively twenty-six, forty-two and forty-four days following the filing of the request for arbitration. Similarly, in three recent cases involving a three-member arbitral tribunal, in which the parties nominated their coarbitrators and either the parties or the coarbitrators nominated the chairman, the entire tribunal was confirmed by the Secretary General in respectively thirty-four, forty-four and forty-eight days from the filing of the request for arbitration. 7[Page921:]

Article 30(1)

The 1998 Rules included important modifications regarding payment of the advance on costs in ICC cases. Article 30(1) provides : 'After receipt of the Request, the Secretary General may request the Claimant to pay a provisional advance in an amount intended to cover the costs of arbitration until the Terms of Reference have been drawn up.'

Prior to the 1998 Rules, the advance on costs was fixed by the Court, and one half of the advance had to be paid before the file could be transmitted to the arbitral tribunal. Each side was thus requested to pay one quarter of the advance on costs to allow the transmission to take place. This arrangement made it possible for a respondent that wished to delay the procedure to slow down the transmission of the file by refusing to pay its share. Under this system, the Secretariat would have to request payment several times from the respondent before asking the claimant to pay instead so as to receive the necessary payment for transmission of the file to the arbitral tribunal.

The mechanism of the provisional advance established under Article 30(1) of the 1998 Rules, and the practice of transmitting the file to the arbitral tribunal, once constituted, upon payment of such provisional advance, now allow the claimant more control over the speed with which the file is transmitted to the arbitrators. Furthermore, unlike the previous system, where the advance on costs requested before transmitting the file was based on the principal claims and counterclaims, the provisional advance is fixed solely on the basis of the principal claims.

The simplification of the initial payment process through the use of the provisional advance has clearly allowed time to be saved in getting the file to the arbitrators. In a recent case the file was transferred to the sole arbitrator twenty-eight days after the filing of the request for arbitration. In two cases with three-member tribunals the transfer was made in respectively thirty-four and thirty-seven days, again from the date of receipt of the request for arbitration. 8[Page922:]

It is interesting to note that although Article 30(1) provides that the Secretary General may request the claimant to pay the provisional advance, in a few rare cases where the claimant was actually a 'false' claimant that did not want the matter to proceed, the provisional advance was paid by the respondent, and the matter went forward. Also, in related cases in which the claimant in one matter becomes the respondent in the other, each side sometimes ends up paying a provisional advance, which, if the two matters are consolidated, may lead to the two provisional advances being merged. Of course, in the event that consolidation takes place between two or more cases, the provisional advance may be subject to readjustment, taking into account the regressive nature of the ICC cost scales.

Under the 1998 Rules, and considering the discretion granted to the Secretary General by Article 30(1), it has been the practice generally not to fix a provisional advance in fast-track matters. Rather, the full advance on costs has been requested before transmitting the file to the arbitral tribunal. This practice aims to ensure that payment issues will not lead to delays detrimental to the rapidity of the proceeding. 9

Articles 18(4) and 22

The 1998 changes aimed at speeding up the procedure included two provisions designed to allow the ICC Court to more closely monitor the advancement of the procedure once it is in the hands of the arbitral tribunal. 10

Pursuant to Article 18(4), the arbitrators, after consulting the parties, should establish a provisional timetable at the time of drawing up the Terms of Reference or as soon as possible thereafter. The arbitrators are also obliged to communicate any subsequent modifications of the provisional timetable to the Court. This provision has enabled parties and arbitrators to focus on the scheduling of the procedure while providing the Court and its Secretariat with an additional tool for more closely following the advancement of the procedure. [Page923:]

Although this provision has been generally well received, it has in one case served as the basis for a meritless challenge where a party claimed that the arbitrators had not respected its rights in fixing the provisional timetable. In another case, again on the basis of Article 18(4), an objection was received, this time directed against the Secretariat of the Court, which was unjustly accused of not fulfilling its role to make the arbitrators respect the provisional timetable.

The requirement for arbitrators to close the proceedings under Article 22 and inform the Secretariat of the approximate date when a draft award will be submitted to the Court has provided an additional means for the Secretariat to exert pressure on arbitrators to move their cases forward. The period between the closing of the proceedings and the rendering of the final award has often been identified as a stage when procedures may unjustifiably slow down. In practice, the Secretariat has had some difficulty in getting arbitrators to comply with this provision. 11Accordingly, it has become an issue that is frequently raised with the Court and which is closely monitored when time limit extensions are granted for the rendering of awards.

Article 32

Although fast-track cases had been administered by the Court prior to the 1998 Rules, there were no provisions specifically covering them. At the time of drafting the 1998 Rules, the decision was taken not to adopt specific fast-track rules. Rather, it was decided to include a provision in the 1998 Rules which would allow the necessary flexibility for fast-track cases, while still ensuring that the Court could extend time periods, if required, for the proper conduct of the proceedings under the Rules. Article 32(1) states: 'The parties may agree to shorten the various time limits set out in these Rules.' This is completed by Article 32(2), which states: 'The Court, on its own initiative, may extend any time limit which has been modified pursuant to Article 32(1) if it decides that it is necessary to do so in order that the Arbitral Tribunal or the Court may fulfil their responsibilities in accordance with these Rules.'

The ICC Court receives various requests for arbitration based on fast-track clauses, but each clause may differ as to what part of the proceeding will be accelerated. Sometimes the fast track provision refers to the time limits for[Page924:]

constituting the arbitral tribunal. In other cases, it refers to the time period for rendering an award starting from receipt of the request for arbitration. Sometimes the fast track provision only starts to run once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted. In other cases, it may begin running only once the arbitral tribunal has met with the parties. In yet other cases, the fast track provision only applies to the time limit within which the arbitrators must render their award once they have closed the proceedings.

For a fast track proceeding to be successful, all of the parties must be willing to cooperate. Often, the parties may agree to modify an unrealistic fast-track provision so that the time limits more accurately reflect the complexity and circumstances of the case. In a recent matter, the clause provided that the award should be rendered within thirty days from transmission of the file to the arbitrators. In the Terms of Reference, the parties agreed to change such time limit in view of the nature of the dispute. In certain matters, however, when it is not possible to meet the requirements of the clause and one of the parties does not agree to modify the provision, the Court may be required to rely on Article 32(2) to extend the time limits.

Under the 1998 Rules, the ICC Court has successfully administered several fast track proceedings. In one case, the clause provided that the arbitral tribunal should be appointed within five days of the filing of the request for arbitration. The Court appointed all three members within three days, with the use of Article 1(3) which allows the Chairman of the Court to take urgent decisions on behalf of the Court.

In a recent matter, the clause provided that the final award should be rendered within six months from the request for arbitration. The case was a large, complex, multiparty dispute concerning a shareholders' agreement. The final award was rendered within the six-month period following the request, with the ICC Court carrying out its scrutiny of the draft award within two days of receiving the text.

In another series of three cases involving energy concession agreements, the clause provided that the final award should be rendered within six months from the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. In all three cases, the fast-track provision was respected. In one of the cases, in which there was a dissenting opinion with the final award, the scrutiny process was completed within five days of receipt of the draft award by the ICC, the award was signed the following day and notified within one week of having been received by the ICC. [Page925:]

However, as stated above, if one party wishes to block a fast track proceeding, the ICC Court may be required to rely on Article 32(2) to extend the time limits set forth in the arbitration clause. In one case, the clause provided that the final award should be rendered within six months of the request for arbitration. The constitution of the tribunal alone took five-and-a-half months. The respondent refused to modify the time limit set forth in the clause. The ICC Court extended the time limit pursuant to Article 32(2). In response to objections from the respondent concerning such extension, the arbitral tribunal rendered a partial award holding that the ICC Rules prevailed over the time limit set forth in the arbitration clause. 12

Provisions reflecting developments in international arbitration

A second category of changes in the 1998 Rules were in response to some of the significant developments that had taken place in the practice of international arbitration.

Article 10

The percentage of multiparty cases administered by the ICC Court has increased in keeping with the growing complexity of international business. In 1997, at the time of the revision, 21 per cent of the 452 requests for arbitration received by the ICC Court involved more than two parties. Multiparty cases have steadily increased since then, with 31 per cent of the 561 cases filed in 2004 involving more than two parties. These matters sometimes involve a large number of parties. For example, recent cases have been filed with twenty-one claimants against forty-three respondents, one claimant against eighty-one respondents, and thirty-four claimants against one respondent.

Prior to the 1998 Rules, the constitution of three-member arbitral tribunals in multiparty cases had presented certain difficulties. The Dutco case raised the issue of the equality of the parties in the selection of the arbitrators in such matters. 13In practice, following the Dutco decision, in cases where there might be a problem of equality, the Court tried to work out solutions with the parties enabling joint nominations to be made or, failing that, if the clause permitted, the Court decided upon the appointment of a sole arbitrator. [Page926:]

Article 10 was added to the 1998 Rules to deal with this issue. Pursuant to Article 10(1), where the dispute is to be referred to three arbitrators, the multiple claimants, jointly, and the multiple respondents, jointly, shall nominate an arbitrator. Article 10(2) continues: 'In the absence of such a joint nomination and where all parties are unable to agree to a method for the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court may appoint each member of the Arbitral Tribunal and shall designate one of them to act as chairman.'

As the drafters specifically decided to use the word 'may' in Article 10(2), the Court is not required to appoint each member of the arbitral tribunal when there has not been a joint nomination. Rather, the Court will consider whether there is a true question of equal treatment of the parties and whether the parties that have not made the joint nomination have differing interests. The Court will also take into account the law at the place of arbitration and possible places of enforcement. Often, when the Court threatens to apply Article 10(2), the parties will subsequently make a joint nomination.

The Court has decided to appoint all three members of the arbitral tribunal in relatively few cases. In one matter, the place of arbitration was London. Two of the five respondents refused to agree to joint nomination of a coarbitrator. The Court decided to appoint all three members of the arbitral tribunal as the various respondents had divergent interests.

In another case, with Paris as the place of arbitration, the respondents failed to nominate a coarbitrator jointly. Once again, the respondents had differing interests. When the parties were notified that the Court would apply Article 10(2), they tried to agree on a method for constituting the tribunal, but were unsuccessful. The Court thereupon appointed all three members of the arbitral tribunal.

In both of the previous cases, the Court appointed all three members directly. This is in compliance with the last sentence of Article 10(2), which provides that the Court shall choose any person it regards as suitable, applying Article 9 and seeking a proposal from an ICC national committee only when it considers this to be appropriate. Additionally, the Court did not appoint the arbitrator who had been nominated by the claimant side in either of these cases.

However, in a case with Hong Kong as the place of arbitration and where all the parties on one side were from the same country, the Court sought a proposal from the ICC national committee in that country, and directly appointed the coarbitrator for the other side since the parties were of different nationalities. The Court also directly appointed the chairman. [Page927:]

Occasionally, the Court must deal with the problem of non-participating parties in multiparty settings. In such cases, it is impossible to receive a joint nomination from the side which includes the non-participating party. The Court may decide to accept the nomination by the participating parties provided there is no objection from the non-participating parties within a given time limit. This is done in order not to take away the important right of the participating parties to propose their arbitrator.

As the parties are free under Article 7(6) to agree upon the method of constituting the arbitral tribunal, in certain multiparty cases the parties have provided in their arbitration clause that all three arbitrators shall be appointed by the Court, including the chairman. Such clauses seek to ensure that the Court will appoint all three members of the arbitral tribunal rather than allowing the Court to have discretion under Article 10(2).

Article 12(5)

Although the ICC Court had dealt with the problem of truncated tribunals prior to 1998, the 1998 Rules included a specific provision concerning this issue. Pursuant to Article 12(5), '[s]ubsequent to the closing of the proceedings, instead of replacing an arbitrator who has died or been removed . . ., the Court may decide, when it considers it appropriate, that the remaining arbitrators shall continue the arbitration'.

Fortunately, the ICC Court has rarely been required to implement this provision. In one recent case, however, the interesting question was raised as to whether such provision would also apply to a partial award. After the arbitral tribunal had closed the proceedings for the partial award and fully deliberated, the chairman of the arbitral tribunal died. In accordance with Article 12(5), the ICC Court consulted the parties and the remaining arbitrators. One party agreed that the coarbitrators should continue alone, while the other side did not object. Accordingly, the ICC Court decided that the coarbitrators would render the partial award on jurisdiction, on the understanding that if the award held that the arbitral tribunal did have jurisdiction, a new chairman would be appointed subsequent to the award. As the award did find in favor of arbitral jurisdiction, the arbitral tribunal was thereafter reconstituted.

Article 18(1)(d)

Although the 1998 Rules maintained the requirement that Terms of Reference be established in ICC cases, Article 18(1)(d) did away with the necessity for arbitrators to list the issues to be determined. Article 18(1)(d) states that[Page928:] the Terms of Reference shall include, 'unless the Arbitral Tribunal considers it inappropriate, a list of issues to be determined'. In practice, this provision has not caused much change. Arbitrators who previously found it useful to include a list of issues continue to do so. Others, who had preferred to insert language to avoid a listing, maintain their previous practice, with the comfort of this being explicitly recognized by the 1998 Rules. It appears from experience that the majority of arbitrators prefer to include a list of issues in their Terms of Reference.

Article 23

Prior to the 1998 Rules, it was considered that arbitrators in ICC proceedings had the authority to order interim or conservatory measures. Article 23 explicitly recognizes this power of the arbitrators, subject to a contrary agreement by the parties. Article 23 also clarifies that it is possible for a party to request interim relief from a competent judicial authority without such action being deemed to constitute a waiver of the arbitration agreement.

As permitted by Article 23, interim measures in ICC cases are granted in both procedural orders and awards. Based on experience, it seems that ICC arbitrators prefer to grant interim measures by procedural orders, although some awards are rendered. When the request for interim relief is rejected, this is generally done in the form of a procedural order. Sometimes, when interim relief is granted in a procedural order, the arbitral tribunal will subsequently include its decision in an award.

Arbitrators may hesitate to grant an interim measure if it is closely linked to the merits of the case and may be perceived as a prejudgment of the final decision. However, interim measures have been granted, for example, forbidding a party to dispose of property that was the subject of the dispute; ordering a party holding a performance bond to constitute a bank guarantee in favor of the opposite party for the same amount as the performance bond; forbidding a party to dispose of certain shares of stock; ordering parties to deposit shares in a trust; and enjoining a party from selling or distributing a product. Additionally, certain arbitral tribunals have granted security for costs as an interim measure, but in the majority of cases such requests have been refused.

Article 23 provides that an arbitral tribunal may order interim measures as soon as the file has been transmitted to it. In urgent matters, arbitral tribunals have rendered interim measures shortly after the transmission of the file, and therefore before the Terms of Reference. These interim measures are almost always in the form of a procedural order. However, in one case, the arbitral[Page929:] tribunal had issued an order instructing the respondents to place money and share certificates in an escrow account. As the respondents did not comply with the arbitrators' order, the claimants requested an award so that they could start enforcement proceedings against the respondents in a State court. The arbitrators rendered an award confirming their interim order, declaring expressly that they had the power to render such an award under Article 23 before the Terms of Reference had been established.

Article 29

The ICC Court had already handled applications for correction and interpretation under the 1988 Rules of Arbitration, although those rules did not specifically provide for such requests. 14The 1998 revision therefore once again codified what was being done in practice, and set forth the procedure to be followed in such situations.

In order to clarify certain ambiguities connected with the application of Article 29, on 1 October 1999, the Secretariat of the Court issued a note on the correction and interpretation of awards. This note is now sent out to all arbitral tribunals upon receipt of an Article 29 application by the Secretariat.

The number of Article 29 requests received by the Court was initially very low. For the 269 awards rendered in 1999, there were only nine applications for correction or interpretation. However, as the procedure became better known, the number of requests increased, reaching a level that has remained relatively stable in recent years. In 2004, when 345 awards were approved by the Court, there were forty-three such requests. Fifteen were for correction, twelve for interpretation and sixteen for correction and interpretation. Claimants made eighteen of the requests, respondents nineteen, on five instances both claimants and respondents made the application, and in one matter the arbitral tribunal corrected the award on its own initiative pursuant to Article 29(1).

If the arbitral tribunal accedes to a request for correction or interpretation, the arbitrators render an addendum that forms part of the award. In 2004, twenty addenda were issued. If the application for correction or interpretation is rejected, the arbitrators deliver a decision. During 2004, eighteen decisions were rendered in ICC cases. Both addenda and decisions are submitted to the ICC Court for scrutiny. [Page930:]

Article 2(7) of Appendix III to the 1998 Rules provides that when there is an application for correction or interpretation by the parties under Article 29(2), 'the Court may fix an advance to cover additional fees and expenses of the Arbitral Tribunal'. The Court has been extremely reluctant to apply this provision, considering that in cases where the request for correction or interpretation leads to an addendum, the arbitrators should not be paid an additional amount since they are responsible for the supplementary work that is required. As concerns decisions, the Court does not want to encourage arbitrators to invest too much time in rejecting applications that have no merit.

As was expected by the drafters of the 1998 Rules, Article 29 is sometimes used as a means of appealing the arbitral tribunal's award. Although the arbitrators reject such applications, they often provide further reasoning and justification for the award in their decisions.

In certain cases, after refusing the request for correction or interpretation, the arbitral tribunal then made an order allocating costs claimed by the parties relating to the application. It can be questioned whether such an order should be called an addendum or a decision.

Some interesting procedural issues have been seen relating to correction and interpretation. In one case, a final award was rendered, and thereafter an Article 29 application was made. While the application was pending, one of the parties brought a challenge against a member of the arbitral tribunal. The ICC Court rejected the challenge, and the arbitral tribunal later rendered its Article 29 decision.

Another procedural question that has been raised concerns the use of Article 29 applications to try to suspend the enforcement of the award. The interplay of Article 29 with time limits under national laws for setting-aside proceedings has also been a subject of discussion.

The possibility for arbitrators to correct or interpret their awards has been a positive change as it allows the award to be modified without the need for State court intervention. It gives the modified award a greater chance of enforcement, and may also lead to parties spontaneously performing an award that would otherwise have been contested. [Page931:]

Conclusion

The above discussion is a very brief overview of certain changes that have been implemented in ICC arbitration with the 1998 Rules. Experience with these Rules shows that ICC arbitration continues to evolve and, although probably not in the near future, the Rules will need once again to be updated in order to remain as efficient and effective as possible. Implementation of the 1998 Rules, which represented a major revision of ICC arbitration, has made the past seven years a particularly challenging time. The ICC Court has been extremely fortunate in having at its head during this period Robert Briner, who, through his vast experience, was able not only to assist in the application of the Rules, but also to help ICC arbitration respond to the needs of international business. Robert Briner searched for practical solutions that aided the parties, while ensuring that the system remained neutral, just and effective. His personal integrity, open-mindedness, and willingness to always consider new solutions were essential to this work in progress.

As the 1998 Rules continue to apply in future cases, some of the practices introduced by Robert Briner will in time certainly undergo change. However, Robert Briner's passion for arbitration, his curiosity for learning, his keen sense of humanity and his truly international vision will remain instilled in those who have had the pleasure of working with him. [Page932:]

1
Alain, Avec Balzac.

2
R. Briner, 'The Implementation of the 1998 ICC Rules of Arbitration' (1997) 8:2 ICC ICArb. Bull. 7.

3
ICC Rules of Arbitration, ICC Publication 808, hereinafter referred to as the '1998 Rules' or simply the 'Rules'.

4
As of 1 July 2005, the Secretariat of the Court was made up of sixty members representing twenty-five nationalities, working in nineteen different languages.

5
The need to constitute an arbitral tribunal rapidly may be of particular importance in cases where interim measures are requested.

6
In accordance with Article 9(2), all such confirmations by the Secretary General of the Court are reported to the ICC Court.

7
It is important to note that these were not fast track matters in which the parties had shortened the time periods for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

8
The increased rapidity in the early stages of the procedure through the use of the provisional advance can also be seen in the time required for the establishment of the Terms of Reference. In a recent non-fast-track matter, in which there was a three-member arbitral tribunal, the Terms of Reference were signed within an exceptionally short period of fifty-seven days following the filing of the request for arbitration.

9
Of course, this is only relevant in cases in which the fast-track provision concerns the rendering of the award and not just the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

10
Article 24 of the 1998 Rules states that the arbitral tribunal must render its final award within six months of the Terms of Reference. At the time of the drafting of the 1998 Rules, it was debated whether this time limit should be extended, since in large, complex matters the final award is generally rendered after such six-month period. It was decided to keep the six-month time limit, since, in practice, this provision allows the Court and its Secretariat to monitor cases frequently to try to ensure that they advance properly. Indeed, every extension of this six-month time limit by the Court is decided on the basis of a presentation of the case by the Secretariat and an explanation of the reasons why such an extension is necessary.

11
This was particularly true shortly after the adoption of the 1998 Rules. It seems that arbitrators have now become more accustomed to this provision. However, certain arbitrators seem to consider that Article 22 should not apply for the rendering of a partial or interim award. The Court practice is to insist that arbitral tribunals also close the proceedings for partial or interim awards.

12
The Respondent subsequently attacked the arbitrators' award before a State court. No decision has yet been rendered by the State court.

13
Cass. civ. 1re, 7 January 1992, Sociétés BKMI et Siemens v. Société Dutco Construction.

14
When deciding whether to accept such applications, the Court took into account whether the correction or interpretation was allowed under the applicable law.