NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

226 NEWSLETTER 2020 granted, the EA should render a decision within 15 days of transmis- sion of the file. In section D of the Report, the substantive standards the EA’s may consider have been examined. The substantive criteria for grant- ing emergency relief that an EA may consider may be listed as ur- gency, likelihood of the success on the merits, risk of irreparable harm, risk of aggravation of the dispute and proportionality of the measure sought 12 . Particularly, the requirement related to urgency is a high standard. These criteria should be familiar to parties as they are usu- ally required under national laws as well. Additionally, it is noted that EAs also regard secondary considerations such as whether security should be provided pursuant to Article 28 of the ICC Rules or simply whether the relief sought is appropriate 13 . Conclusion It is also important to note that ex parte emergency orders are incompatible with the ICC EA provisions on the grounds that the re- spondent does not have the opportunity to be heard 14 . Therefore, in such cases, the only viable option is applying to state courts. Parties should also consider the enforcement of the EA’s decision, which is still problematic 15 . This topic is covered in Section IV of the Report. The Report provides useful guidance for all parties and should be ex- amined by applicants prior to making an application for an interim measure. It further provides possible solutions to certain problems that have been identified by the contributors. 12 Please see para 151 et seq. of the Report. 13 Please see para 34 of the Report. 14 This is the finding of the Task Force in para 24 of the Report. 15 Except for Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Singpore, where national law express- ly provides for the enforcement of EA orders, Please see para 36 of the Report.