Newsletter-21

169 ARBITRATION LAW proposal on the grounds that the conference call was planned between the conciliator and the counsel only. In this respect the Claimant sug- gested to hold the meeting as initially planned with the attendance of only the counsel and the conciliator or postpone the meeting to a later date with the participation of parties’ representatives and hold it physi- cally in Paris. The Respondent agreed to postpone the meeting and stated that there was no such agreement that the party representatives could not attend. On January 16, 2015 Claimant filed a request for arbitration and initiated arbitration proceedings against the Respondent. Claimant further informed the conciliator that it has no intention to pursue con- ciliation due to the failure of the Respondent. Even though the con- ciliator informed the Claimant that the conciliation proceeding could not be closed until the discussion under Art. (5)(1) of the ADR Rules are satisfied and communicated new dates for a meeting in Paris; the Claimant proceeded with arbitration in any event. Following the conciliator informed the parties and ADR Center that Claimant’s position to be interpreted as a withdrawal of the request of conciliation. The ADR Center also interpreted as a withdrawal. Fi- nally, the ADR Center declared the proceedings terminated as a result of Claimant’s failure to pay its share of advance payment. Arbitral Proceedings Following Claimant’s request for arbitration the Respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and claimed that it lacks jurisdiction. Respondent based its claim on the grounds that conciliation which is provided as a mandatory prerequisite of arbitra- tion was not complied and the Art. 5(1) of the ADR Rules has not been fulfilled. Art. 5 (1) of the ADR Rules provides that the neutral (in this case the conciliator) and the parties shall promptly discuss and seek to reach an agreement on the settlement mechanism and shall discuss the specific procedure to be followed. Thereafter the arbitral tribunal with a preliminary award decided that it has jurisdiction. The arbitral tribunal found that conciliation