The Supreme Court of Lithuania has upheld the cassation appeal prepared by FORT Vilnius involving unprecedented legal questions with respect to the due process of arbitration
The Supreme Court of Lithuania has upheld the cassation appeal prepared by FORT Vilnius regarding legal questions whether arbitration process could be considered as due process, where the founders and management of the arbitration institution represent one of the parties to the arbitration case. According to the cassator, any external objective observer would reasonably have apprehensions with respect to the due process, which is organised by one of the parties to a dispute or their legal advisors.
In ruling dated on 1 September 2016 the Supreme Court of Lithuania construed that the arbitration institution or its chairperson, who have connections with the representatives of one of the parties to the arbitration case, cannot be treated as impartial and independent appointing authority in the arbitration case. Subsequently, respective situation implies that unilateral appointing of the arbitrator in the particular case is illegitimate. Therefore the Supreme Court of Lithuania recognised the obvious impediment of the impartiality and, consequently, infringement of the cassator’s rights to the due process.
“We very appreciate the decision of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, whereby the right to the due process was secured by stipulating detailed interpretations with respect to the content and extend of applicability of due process guarantees. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Lithuania supported our professional confidence that the administration of unbiased justice may not tolerate possibilities for legal counsels to establish arbitration institutions and thereby orchestrate resolution of disputes of their clients. We are proud having a possibility to contribute to formation of case-law with regard to the independency and impartiality of the arbitration institution” – comments Mindaugas Žolynas, partner of FORT Vilnius, one of the drafters of the cassation appeal.
For more information please refer: