Legal Guidance and Research / Experts / Andreas Reiner
Andreas Reiner#3776
External Chmaber

Dr. Andreas Reiner

ARP Attorneys

Active as sole arbitrator, tribunal chair, co-arbitrator and party counsel in arbitrations under institutional rules of the ICC, LCIA, VIAC, ICSID, the Court of Arbitration of the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Permanent Court of Arbitration of the Croatian Chamber of Commerce, the Arbitral Institute of the Finnish Chamber of Commerce, the Association Française de l’Arbitrage (AFA), the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania (CCIR), UNCITRAL and in a variety of other ad hoc arbitrations.

Practice Area

Panel

  • Contributing Author

Qualified Year

  • 1989

Qualification

  • Ph.D

Education

  • University of Vienna

5 Contributions by Andreas Reiner

Arbitral jurisdiction and anti-suit relief under Austrian law: Kompetenz-Kompetenz, objections, court intervention and dismissal of actions, setting aside awards
PRACTICE NOTES
Arbitral jurisdiction and anti-suit relief under Austrian law: Kompetenz-Kompetenz, objections, court intervention and dismissal of actions, setting aside awards
This Practice Note examines challenges to arbitral jurisdiction and the availability of anti-suit relief under Austrian law. Note: the decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) (OGH) referenced below are not reported by LexisNexis®. Determination of jurisdiction by the arbitral tribunal Power of arbitrators to rule on their own jurisdiction/Principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz In keeping with international arbitral practice, Austrian Arbitration Law—specifically section 592(1) of the Austrian Civil Code of Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, the ACCP)—which in substance follows Article 16 of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law, recognises the arbitral tribunal’s authority to decide on its own jurisdiction (the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz). This authority encompasses determinations on the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. ACCP, s 592 (Competence of the Arbitral Tribunal to Rule on its own Jurisdiction) states, in essence, that the arbitral tribunal is empowered to determine its jurisdiction...
Arbitration
Austrian arbitration interim measures under the ACCP and AEA: court and tribunal powers, requirements, procedure, enforcement, refusal, damages and suspension
PRACTICE NOTES
Austrian arbitration interim measures under the ACCP and AEA: court and tribunal powers, requirements, procedure, enforcement, refusal, damages and suspension
This Practice Note examines interim relief in support of arbitration under Austrian law. Note: the decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) (OGH) mentioned below are not reported by LexisNexis®... It outlines the interim measures available from Austrian courts to aid arbitration, as well as those that arbitral tribunals may grant under Austrian law. Austrian arbitration rules are contained in Chapter Four of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (ACCP). In contrast to the UNCITRAL Model Law, Austrian legislation does not draw a distinction between domestic and foreign arbitrations. The provisions of Chapter Four (sections 577 to 618) govern arbitrations seated in Austria, while certain provisions apply irrespective of the place of arbitration (ACCP, s 577(2))... Sections 585 and 593 ACCP regulate interim relief in arbitration: the former addresses interim measures issued by state courts, and the latter governs measures ordered by arbitral tribunals. Note: Austrian judgments cited in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis®... Interim measures by courts Under ACCP, s 585, parties may apply to state courts for interim remedies...
Arbitration
Challenging arbitral awards in Austria: ACCP Section 611 grounds, procedure and Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) decisions
PRACTICE NOTES
Challenging arbitral awards in Austria: ACCP Section 611 grounds, procedure and Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) decisions
This Practice Note considers challenging (setting aside) arbitral awards under Austrian law. Note: The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) (OGH) rulings mentioned herein are not published by LexisNexis®. Section 611 of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (ACCP) (Zivilprozessordnung) governs applications to annul arbitral awards delivered by tribunals seated in Austria: Recourse to the courts against an arbitral award is available solely through a claim seeking to set it aside. The same route applies where the award concerns the tribunal’s determination of its own competence. No alternative appellate mechanism is provided, and jurisdictional findings are treated in the same manner under this regime...
Arbitration
Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Austria: formal requirements, courts, procedure, partial enforcement and refusal grounds under the ACCP, AEA and New York Convention
PRACTICE NOTES
Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Austria: formal requirements, courts, procedure, partial enforcement and refusal grounds under the ACCP, AEA and New York Convention
This Practice Note explores the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under Austrian law Note The decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) (OGH) mentioned below are not reported by LexisNexis®. Austria’s regime for recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards consists of national statutes, international treaties, and bilateral and multilateral accords. Two domestic statutes are central: the Austrian Enforcement Act (AEA) and the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (ACCP), which sets out Austrian arbitration provisions. Section 614 ACCP governs the recognition and declaration of enforceability of foreign arbitral awards, meaning awards issued by tribunals seated outside Austria: recognition and the declaration of enforceability of foreign arbitral awards proceed under the Enforcement Act (Exekutionsordnung), unless international law or EU legal instruments provide otherwise. The formal requirements for the arbitration agreement are also satisfied if the agreement complies both with section 583 and with the formal requirements under the law governing the arbitration agreement the production...
Arbitration
State Immunity and Arbitration in Austria: Jurisdictional Waiver, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against State Assets, and 2012 OGH Guidance on Commercial Property and Burden of Proof
PRACTICE NOTES
State Immunity and Arbitration in Austria: Jurisdictional Waiver, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Against State Assets, and 2012 OGH Guidance on Commercial Property and Burden of Proof
This Practice Note considers the role of state immunity in relation to arbitration proceedings in Austria. For an introductory guide to state immunity within the arbitration context, see Practice Note: State immunity and arbitration—general considerations. For further Practice Notes covering state immunity across numerous jurisdictions worldwide, including England and Wales, refer to our State immunity subtopic: State immunity—overview. States and state-owned enterprises regularly participate in cross-border commercial dealings. Agreements concluded by states—particularly those with private counterparties from other nations—commonly incorporate arbitration clauses. Consequently, states frequently become participants in international arbitral proceedings. The involvement of states in arbitration brings the doctrine of state immunity to the fore. A central question is whether a state may rely on immunity during the arbitral process itself or subsequently to resist recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award. A 2012 decision discussed in this Practice Note illustrates the Austrian Supreme Court’s approach to a state’s reliance on immunity when opposing enforcement of an arbitral award. Note: The decisions of the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) (OGH) mentioned below are not reported by LexisNexis®...
Arbitration
Expert page AD
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.