One of the most important properties of the arbitration procedure, if not the most important, is the efficacy of that procedure in comparison to regular court proceedings. Efficacy of the arbitration procedure can further be defined as the quality of the decisions passed, the executability of those decisions and, no less important, the speed at which the decision was made in the arbitration procedure.<\/p>\n
It could be concluded that the first element, quality of the decision, has in principle never been contested among the parties in the arbitration. This is because the quality of the decision depends predominantly on the quality of the application of the material norms, and is not doubted a priori due to the nature of the arbitration process itself, the reputation of the arbitrator and the specific, concentrated procedure<\/p>\n
The second element, executability of the decision, also in and of itself must give good results.\u00a0 This is because the party losing the case can be expected to have a much greater readiness to execute the order from the decision without further seizures, because the party itself chose this procedure through its own explicit will, without the force of law.\u00a0 If we accept the above conclusions as regular and rational, the third element that determines the efficacy of the procedure, the speed of the procedure, is not guaranteed in and of itself, and therefore I feel it necessary to actively address this element.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, I am convinced that the speed of the procedure in the area of process law always offers room for improvement. It is interesting to observe that no parties in either court or arbitration procedures would ever complain that their procedures have been carried out “too quickly”.<\/p>\n
If the parties are satisfied with the decision and accept the same as proper, it can never be premature, only late. If one of the parties is not satisfied with the decision, this will not be due to the reason that the decision was made too quickly; instead the reason could be a different legal interpretation or violation of a right.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-399","works_articles","type-works_articles","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n