A falta de acuerdo entre las partes sobre el número de árbitros que decidirán la controversia, ésta será resuelta por un solo árbitro. Las partes probablemente siempre acuerden arbitrar ante un panel cuando la disputa sea cuantiosa y/o compleja, pero es ciertamente innecesario obligar a dos partes a arbitrar una disputa de 10.000 euros ante tres árbitros sólo porque un demandado se empeñe en encarecer el proceso para el demandante. Es cierto que el demandante puede recuperar las costas pero las tiene que pagar inicialmente para que el proceso se lleve a cabo.

Registradores y notarios podrán ser árbitros. Intuimos que jueces, magistrados y fiscales en activo continuarán sin poder ser árbitros. Creemos que la ley de arbitraje no debiera discriminar positivamente como lo hace ahora. Otra cosa distinta es que los miembros de estos colectivos quieran actuar como árbitros, o que les interese.

Estos colectivos tienen un denominador común, su extraordinaria preparación y su independencia. En arbitraje serán imparciales, por supuesto, hasta que lauden; entonces habrán de tomar partido y a una de las partes no le va a gustar la decisión del señor notario o registrador. Un notario es independiente del abogado que trae contratos a su notaría, pero si el abogado pierde varios arbitrajes ante su notario, ¿cambiará de notario? No debiera, pero somos humanos. Es probable que estos colectivos terminen bien por no aceptar ser árbitros, o por construir una base deontológica específica para cuando sean llamados a actuar como árbitros.

¿Continuará siendo el plazo para laudar de seis meses? En nuestra opinión no debiera contemplarse un plazo de esta naturaleza. Seis meses son generalmente suficientes pero pueden poner en peligro un laudo sobre cuestiones complejas que necesiten más tiempo. Lo que sí se debiera contemplar es un pronunciamiento del árbitro clausurando oficialmente el periodo de audiencia, bien porque las partes manifiesten haber presentado la totalidad de sus casos, bien porque el árbitro considere que ya no hay lugar a más. A partir de dicha fecha, el árbitro tendría que dictar su laudo dentro de un plazo razonable sin posibilidad de prórroga excepto con el consentimiento expreso de ambas partes.

Los gastos relacionados con el arbitraje serán decisivos a la hora de promocionar el arbitraje. Hay gastos porque el arbitraje es un método extrajudicial voluntario. Hay gastos de administración y hay que compensar a los árbitros. Hay gastos relacionados con el procedimiento arbitral, igual que los hay en un juicio ordinario…peritos, testigos, informes de todo tipo, etc. Todos estos gastos –que  ha de asumir la empresa española o extranjera—están contemplados hoy en la vigente ley de arbitraje en su artículo 35.1.

Hay un gasto que no está contemplado expresamente en este artículo, los honorarios correspondientes a la representación letrada. No se mencionan ¿Prohibido? No, no necesariamente. Si en otras jurisdicciones este gasto es expresamente recuperable en arbitraje, ¿porqué no admitirlo como "costa del arbitraje" en España? Desde luego el empresario ha de pagar a su abogado para que le represente en un arbitraje.

En nuestra opinión el árbitro debiera poder pronunciarse en su laudo sobre TODAS las costas y gastos debidamente justificados, sin excepción, que se deriven de un procedimiento arbitral.

¿Promocionar el arbitraje?, ¿descargar a la Justicia…? Sugerimos que el Estado considere incentivar fiscalmente a las empresas que acudan al arbitraje mediante una reducción de un porcentaje de las costas arbitrales en su impuesto de sociedades. La posibilidad de que las empresas puedan recuperar en arbitraje sus gastos de representación letrada, así como un incentivo fiscal al empresariado son iniciativas que probablemente contribuirían a promocionar el arbitraje.

¿Quién administrará los arbitrajes?, ¿asociaciones sin ánimo de lucro?, ¿corporaciones de derecho público?. No hay nada prohibido expresamente, es decir, la ley vigente no excluye expresamente a nadie, pero estas personalidades jurídicas –y no otras—se hallan mencionadas expresamente en nuestra vigente y ya antigua ley de arbitraje.

Es sencillo, al Legislador del 88 ni se le pasaba por la cabeza que la iniciativa privada pudiese "administrar Justicia". En el 2003 nuestro mundo, en toda su amplitud, es distinto y la iniciativa privada convive necesariamente con la pública. Es importante distinguir entre administrar y arbitrar. Son dos funciones distintas que conviven con objeto de proporcionar un servicio completo a quienes deseen resolver sus diferencias en sede arbitral.

Nos preguntamos si el Estado aprovechará esta oportunidad para predicar con el ejemplo y contemplar la posibilidad de que el sector privado pueda usar el arbitraje para resolver las diferencias que surjan como consecuencia de su contratación con la Administración Pública. Si el arbitraje es considerado un método más eficaz y económico que los procedimientos judiciales ordinarios, asumimos que la Administración Pública querrá para sí misma estas ventajas. Conceptualmente se podría adoptar la misma filosofía que adoptan los empresarios que se adhieren al sistema arbitral de consumo, es decir, el Estado se somete voluntariamente al arbitraje a discreción de la empresa cuyos servicios haya contratado.

Quizás no sea una buena idea implantar el arbitraje contencioso administrativo sin propiciar la creación de una infraestructura adecuada para ello, que hoy no existe en España, ni prácticamente en ningún otro país. Se podría, desde luego, experimentar con este concepto y promover un programa piloto para un número limitado de arbitrajes bajo la supervisión conjunta de nuestro Poder Judicial y Ministerio de Justicia, y con la participación de nuestros colegios de abogados, asociaciones empresariales, etc.

Arbitraje, arbitraje, arbitraje. Se nos presenta una oportunidad única para contemplar la mediación mercantil en esta ley. La mediación se abrirá camino de una manera u otra y pronto porque es una tendencia internacional imparable. En nuestro propio entorno inmediato, la Dirección General de Justicia e Interior de la Comisión Europea ya ha anunciado que en el 2004 prevé presentar una propuesta de directiva para promover la mediación. (circular JAI.A.3/DS/ic - D/03/5456)

Si hemos esperado 15 años para enmendar la ley de arbitraje, unos meses más no nos perjudicará. Contemplemos la mediación. Hablemos de ADR en general, no sólo de arbitraje.

Ya se nos ocurre un nombre para esta nueva ley, "Ley ??/04, reguladora de los métodos extrajudiciales". Seríamos los primeros en llamarla así. Arbitraje, mediación, evaluación neutral, mini-juicio, etc.  Hagamos el esfuerzo y seamos pioneros si queremos liderar. Y desde luego confiamos que la nueva ley sea traducida oficialmente a otros idiomas. El español es una lengua internacional pero hay otras. Si nuestros futuros árbitros hablan inglés, o francés o chino, nuestra ley "reguladora de los métodos extrajudiciales" tiene que ser comprendida por muchos si desea nacer con vocación de liderazgo internacional. Asimismo, las traducciones debieran ser igualmente auténticas e independientes sin posibilidad de que el "original" en español sea la versión que decida controversias sobre  interpretación de significado de los textos traducidos.

No estamos mejorando lo que funciona. Estamos enmendando lo que a todas luces no ha funcionado nunca en nuestro país. Así las cosas, el esfuerzo que se está realizando desde el Ministerio de Justicia habrá de dar fruto si aprovecha la oportunidad para liderar y convertir a España en un auténtico referente internacional. Por su propia naturaleza, estamos ante una ley de uso voluntario que indudablemente aportará innumerables ventajas al empresariado español e internacional. Una decidida, agresiva y continuada promoción de sus bondades será el factor determinante no ya para consolidar, sino para construir una cultura proclive al uso del arbitraje y de la mediación en nuestro país, paso necesario e imprescindible para que otros confíen en nosotros.

José Antonio García Álvaro

ARBITRAJE y MEDIACIÓN (ARyME)

Madrid, 28 de Agosto de 2003

ADR Act of 2004

On July 18, 2003, the Spanish Council of Ministers approved the introduction before Congress of a bill which will amend our Arbitration Law of 1988.

We do not have the text of the bill as it has not yet been introduced before Congress because it is being reviewed by the Judiciary and the State Council at the request of Government. We do know, however, that the bill has 46 articles instead of 63, and that unofficial reports suggest that it will indeed introduce substantial procedural and substantive improvements. This is what is unofficially known about this bill.

This is truly the core of what Legislators wish to change, as it appears to be their intention to situate Spain at the forefront of international commercial arbitration particularly vis-à-vis Latin American countries.

According to the law today in effect, an award is international only when it has been rendered outside Spain. According to reports, the new law will adopt article 1 of the UN Model Law for International Commercial Arbitration of 1985, itself containing five distinct paragraphs.

The reason to adopt the UN model law to define "international" is to prevent truly international arbitration cases heard and awarded in Spain from being subject to vacateur in accordance with our domestic procedures regulating vacation processes. Instead, an "international" case will be treated as truly international, its enforcement and recognition falling within the  exclusive jurisdiction of Spain's Supreme Court in application of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958.

We assume that the entire content of Title IX and X of the current law will be modified to mirror current international arbitration practice. As it is written today, the Supreme court can deny enforcement and recognition if it finds the arbitration clause to be null and void, or when it finds that applicable law has no connection with the subject matter decided by the arbitrators. Current practice allows the arbitrators to rule on these matters when brought to their attention, their ruling deemed to be final and binding upon the parties, absent their express agreement on either issue. In our opinion, vacateur by the Supreme Court should only befall when (i) the Supreme Court finds that the issues arbitrated by the parties are not arbitrable according to our laws, (ii) the award infringes Public Order, (iii) the award makes a pronouncement on matters not presented by the parties to the judgment of the arbitrator(s).

It appears that under the new law, the arbitrators will be given a great deal of autonomy to hear and decide motions requesting interim or injunctive relief. Needed amendment indeed. However, interim relief measures run the risk in many jurisdictions of taking effect well after the award is rendered. One thing is ordering injunctive relief; another quite different is judicial enforcement. Arbitrators in Spain do not have yet the power of issuing neither subpoenas nor interim awards directly enforceable in courts of law having jurisdiction over the matter. We assume this will change, and assume that subpoenas and interim awards granting injunctive relief will not be subject to party challenge or judicial review.

An award in Spain cannot be enforced until it is recognized or the process to vacate is fully concluded, processes which can take up to a year in Madrid's courts. It seems that Legislators will opt to allow provisional enforcement of awards while recognition  or vacation processes are ongoing.

It appears that arbitration at law wins over equity arbitration in the new law, that is, absent an express agreement of the parties, the arbitrators will have to be licensed attorneys at law and will have to render a legal opinion.

Most arbitrators worldwide are attorneys who irremediably award at law since it is their profession. However, in some jurisdictions, an incorrect application of legal principles and laws constitutes grounds for vacating an award. In Spain an incorrect application of applicable law does not constitute a reason to vacate it, as this reason in not one of five upon which a party may move to vacate an award. Relevant case law has expressly rejected motions to vacate grounded on an incorrect interpretation of applicable law reasoning that if parties truly wished an strict application of the law (and the many jurisdictional recourses it contemplates), then the parties should not have opted to arbitrate but to litigate.

We certainly hope that the new law does not allow vacateur on grounds of an incorrect application of applicable law, as it would irremediably lead in many instances to a judicial rehearing on the merits and a possible remand to the same or new panel.

It seems that awards will not need to be notarized. Fine, this will save the parties some 150-200 euros and an additional ten-day process which may jeopardize the validity of the award on grounds of being rendered outside the time limit established by the parties because, when does an award become an award?, when the original is signed by the arbitrator?, when it is notarized?, when it is delivered and received by the parties after notarization? This is not clear in our current law.

Absent an express agreement of the parties, arbitration cases will have to be decided by a sole arbitrator. In most complex international cases, parties will almost undoubtedly choose to arbitrate before a panel of three arbitrators. It does, however, seem sensible not to force the expense of a panel of three arbitrators upon parties with modest disputes.

Certain professionals are barred from acting as arbitrators under current Spanish law, to wit, notaries, registrars, justices, magistrates and prosecutors, district attorneys, public defenders, and the like.

It seems that the new law will not expressly discriminate against any professional from the possibility of acting as an arbitrator. We are not yet quite clear as to justices, magistrates, etc. In our opinion, the law should not expressly discriminate any professional whatsoever. A different matter is if the Judiciary or other professional associations choose not to allow their membership to act as arbitrators for whatever reasons of their own.

Will arbitrators continue to have to render an award within six months from the date when the last arbitrator is appointed? In our opinion this strict time limit is counterproductive and dangerous, and it serves no useful purpose at all.

Six months is sufficient a period of time to hear and decide most cases. International arbitration, by its very nature, tends to be a bit more complex; administratively speaking, international arbitration is more burdensome and takes longer, online ADR mechanisms notwithstanding. In our opinion, arbitrators should be allowed to officially close the record either when parties expressly manifest that they have concluded their respective cases, or when he/she is satisfied that the record is complete. Upon closure, the law should establish a reasonable time limit within which to render an award, and the arbitrator should not be able to extend it except with the consent of both parties.

The possibility of allowing the arbitrator to award all arbitration fees and expenses incurred by parties will be a decisive factor to promote arbitration in Spain. Fees and expenses are incurred in arbitration because it is a private, voluntary dispute resolution method necessitating administration and neutrals both charging fees for their services. These fees include counsel fees which parties must unavoidably pay.

Our current law does not expressly authorize the arbitrator to award counsel fees. Forbidden? not necessarily, but these fees are omitted as allocable arbitration fees. In our opinion, the arbitrator should be empowered to award all fees without exception, including reasonable counsel fess

Furthermore, if Congress really wants to promote a greater use of arbitration, particularly domestic arbitration to alleviate the burden now weighing upon our Judiciary, then we would propose not only the possibility of recovering counsel fees paid, but tax incentives in such a way that parties could deduct a percentage of administrative and neutral fees associated with arbitration processes from corporate tax obligations.

Who will be allowed to administer arbitrations? The question itself may surprise many, but Spain still finds it rather difficult to trust or allow private initiative in certain areas. Our current law does not prohibit anyone from engaging in case administration, but only not-for-profit and professional associations are expressly mentioned in the law.

The 1988 Legislator in Spain did not even remotely envisioned that private initiative would "administer Justice", and so it did not prohibit any possibility expressly. The world has changed a bit in Spain since 1988 and, today, public and private initiatives are learning to cohabitate thus making for a modern society. We'll just have to wait and see what happens on this issue.

Arbitration, arbitration, arbitration. We now face a unique opportunity to regulate commercial mediation, an ADR method seldom used in Spain except in family related disputes. Mediation is slowly but surely acquiring international recognition as a favored ADR method ideal to be employed prior to adversarial binding arbitration. As a matter of fact, the Justice and Interior Department of the European Union has recently announced that it plans to issue a recommendation leading to a directive for member states to promote mediation throughout Europe. If we have waited fifteen years to amend the arbitration law, we might as well wait a few more months and make it a truly comprehensive ADR law.

We already have a name in mind for this law: "ADR Act of 2004". Also, we hope that the text of the new act will be officially translated to several languages, all translations being equally authentic so as to avoid disputes based on meaning, that is, the Spanish version should not be the standard against which translations are interpreted. Spanish is indeed an international language spoken by hundreds of millions of people, but if the new law is to become an international standard, it must be understood by many other people speaking many other languages.

We are not improving a law that works; rather, we are amending a law that has failed to produce an ADR culture in Spain during the past fifteen years. We are before a voluntary law, that is, using ADR is not mandatory. Because of its nature, merely passing this law will not contribute in and of itself to consolidating a non-existing ADR culture, although it is an step in the right direction.

The Ministry of Justice of Spain has set out on a journey to promote ADR. The new law will surely be a good law. Promoting its use will, however, be the deciding factor.

José Antonio García Álvaro

ARBITRAJE y MEDIACIÓN (ARyME)

Madrid, 28 de Agosto de 2003