Hakem Heyeti Sekreteri Kimdir ?

Öz

Hakem heyeti sekreteri/hakem sekreteri, hakemler tarafından onlara verilen görevleri yerine getirerek tahkim yargılaması sürecine katkıda bulunmak amacıyla çalışan kişilerdir. Sekreterler tahkim yargılamasına sağlayacakları katkı için tayin edilmelerine rağmen, uygulamada sekreter kullanımı red taleplerine yol açabilecek veya sürecin düzgün işleyişini etkileyecek riskleri de beraberinde getirebilmektedir. Bu makalede, sekreter kullanımının yararları ve avantajlı olmayabilecek yönleri tartışıldıktan sonra çeşitli tahkim kurumlarının düzenlemelerindeki farklılıklara ve ilgili mahkeme kararlarına odaklanılarak sekreterlerin faaliyetlerinin kapsamına ilişkin çelişen görüşler incelenmektedir. Son olarak, karşılaşabileceği riskleri en aza indirmeleri için taraflara çözümler sunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tahkim,Sekreter,Intuitu personae,Yetki,Karar verme

Qui est le secrétaire du tribunal arbitral ?

Öz

Le secrétaire du tribunal arbitral est une personne qui collabore et contribue à la mission du tribunal en effectuant les tâches qui lui sont confiées par les arbitres. Bien que les secrétaires soient engagés pour les avantages qu’ils procurent, le recours à des secrétaires d’arbitrage peut également comporter des risques pouvant entraîner des contestations ou nuire au bon déroulement des procédures. Après avoir discuté des avantages et des inconvénients de cette mission, le présent document examinera les points de vue contradictoires sur les activités autorisées des secrétaires, en mettant l’accent sur les divergences entre les règles des différentes institutions arbitrales ainsi que sur les décisions de justice pertinentes. Enfin, il proposera des solutions pour minimiser les risques que les parties peuvent rencontrer.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Arbitrage,Sécretaire,Intuitu Personae,Mandat,Prise de décision

Who is the Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal ?

Öz

The secretary to the arbitral tribunal/arbitral secretary is a person who works with the tribunal for the purpose of contributing to the process by carrying out the tasks entrusted to him/her by the arbitrators. While the secretaries are appointed for the advantages they provide, practice of using arbitral secretaries may also entail risks that may provoke challenges or affect the smooth running of the proceedings. After discussing the benefits and not-so-bright sides of such a practice, this paper examines the contradictory views on the permissible scope of secretaries’ activities by focusing on the discrepancies amongst the regulations of different arbitral institutions as well as on the relevant court decisions. Finally, it offers solutions for minimizing the risks that the parties may encounter.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Arbitration,Secretary,Intuitu personae,Mandate,Decision making

Destekleyen Kurum

The author received no grant support for this work.

Kaynakça

1. Afonso FS, The Fifth Arbitrator? The Role of Artificial Intelligence to Tribunals in International Arbitration (Lisbon Arbitration 18 décembre 2018) consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
2. Aguilar-Alvarez G, ‘Foreword’ dans Conseil International pour l’Arbitrage Commercial, Young ICCA Guide on Arbitral Secretaries (The ICCA Reports No.1) (International Council for Commercial Arbitration 2014) vii
3. Akıncı Z, Milletlerarası Tahkim (4e, Vedat Kitapçılık 2016).
4. Alangoya YH, Medeni Usul Hukukumuzda Tahkimin Niteliği ve Denetlenmesi (İstanbul Üniversitesi 1973).
5. Andersson S, ‘A Fourth Arbitrator or an Administrative Secretary? A Study on the Appointment and Authority of Arbitral Secretaries in Swedish Arbitral Proceedings’ (Mémoire de maîtrise en droit de l’arbitrage, Université d’Uppsala, 2015).
6. Ashford P, Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration (Juris 2009).
7. Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, ACICA Guideline on the Use of Tribunal Secretaries consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
8. Berger B et Kellerhals F, International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland (3e, Beck/Hart 2015)

9. Berwin Leighton Paisner, Research based report on the use of tribunal secretaries in international commercial arbitration (2015 Berwin Leighton Paisner) consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
10. Blackaby N et autres, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (6e, Oxford University Press 2015).
11. Blavi F et Vial G, ‘The Tribunal Secretary in International Arbitrations’ (2017) 30 New York International Law Review 1.
12. Boltenko O, ‘Stop Ignoring the Elephant in the Room!’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog 9 juin 2014) consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
13. Born G, International Commercial Arbitration (2e, Kluwer Law International 2014).
14. Caner BK, ‘Enerji Şartı Anlaşmasının Muvakkaten Uygulanması ve Anlaşmadan Çekilme Hakkında Bir Değerlendirme’ (2014)3 Ankara Barosu Dergisi 315.
15. Cavalieros P, ‘La Confidentialité de l’Arbitrage’ (2006)2 Les Cahiers de l’Arbitrage 56.
16. Chambre de Commerce Internationale Cour International d’Arbitrage, Note aux Parties et aux Tribunaux Arbitraux sur la Conduite de l’Arbitrage selon le Reglement d’Arbitrage CCI (Cour International d’Arbitrage 2019) consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
17. Clay T, L’arbitre (Dalloz 2001). Commission des Nations Unies Pour le Droit Commercial International, Aide-mémoire de la CNUDCI sur l’organisation des procédures arbitrales (Mars 2012) consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
18. Commission des Nations Unies Pour le Droit Commercial International ‘Draft Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings: report of the Secretary-General (A/CN.9/423)’ dans Yearbook of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Vol. XXVII (A/CN.9/SER.AI) (United Nations 1996) 45.
19. Conseil International pour l’Arbitrage Commercial, Young ICCA Guide on Arbitral Secretaries (The ICCA Reports No.1) (International Council for Commercial Arbitration 2014).
20. Dayındarlı K, ‘İhtiyarî Tahkimde Hakem Ücretleri’ dans Karayalçın Y (ed), Prof. Dr. Ali Bozer’e Armağan, (Bankacılık Enstitüsü Yayınları 1998) 539.
21. Douglas Z, ‘The Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal’ dans Bernhard Berger et Michael E. Schneider (eds) Inside the Black Box: How Arbitral Tribunals Operate and Reach Their Decisions (ASA Special Series No. 42) (Juris 2014) 87.
22. Eisemann F, ‘Déontologie de L’Arbitre Commercial International’ (1969) 4 Revue de I’Arbitrage 217.
23. Feit M et Chassot CT, ‘The Swiss Federal Supreme Court Provides Guidance on the Proper Use of Arbitral Secretaries and Arbitrator Consultants under the Swiss lex arbitri: Case Note on DFC 4A_709/2014 dated 21 May 2015’ (2015) 33 ASA Bulletin 897, 907.
24. Finland Arbitration Institute, Note on the Use of a Secretary consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
25. Gaillard E et Savage J (eds), Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 1999).
26. Göksu T, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (Dike 2014).
27. Gómez KF, Key Duties of International Investment Arbitrators: A Transnational Study of Legal and Ethical Dilemmas (Springer 2019).
28. Heuman L, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure (Juris 2003).
29. Hong Kong International Arbitration Center, Guidelines on the Use of a Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
30. Hughes B, ‘The Problem of Undisclosed Assistance to Arbitral Tribunals’ dans Patricia Shaughnessy et Sherling Tung, The Powers and Duties of an Arbitator: Liber Amicorum Pierre A. Karrer (Kluwer Law International 2017) 161.
31. İnci B, ‘Hakem Sözleşmesi ve Hakem Yargılaması’ (2006) 67 Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 380.
32. Jensen Ole, Tribunal Secretaries in International Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2019).
33. Joint Report of the International Commercial Disputes Committee and the Committee on Arbitration of the New York City Bar Association, Secretaries to International Arbitral Tribunals, (2006) 17 American Review of International Arbitration 575.
34. Jones D, ‘Ethical Implications of Using Paralegals and Tribunal Secretaries’ (2014) 17 Hors Serie 251.
35. Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Guidelines for Use of Clerks and Tribunal Secretaries in Arbitrations consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
36. Karadelis K, ‘The Role of the Tribunal Secretary’ (Global Arbitration Review 21 décembre 2011) consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
37. Kaufmann-Kohler G et Rigozzi A, Arbitrage international : droit et pratique à la lumière de la LDIP, (2e, Bern 2010).
38. Kaufmann-Kohler G et Rigozzi A, International Arbitration: Law and Practice in Switzerland (3ème, Oxford University Press 2015).
39. Kayalı D, Milletlerarası Ticarî Tahkimde Hakemlerin Bağımsızlığı ve Tarafsızlığı (Seçkin 2015).
40. Keutgen G et Dal G (avec la collaboration de Dal M et Matray G), L’arbitrage en droit belge et international (3e, Bruylant 2015).
41. Kleiman E, ‘Arbitre, Intuitu Personae’ dans Laurent Lévy et Yves Derains (eds) Liber Amicorum en l’honneur de Serge Lazareff (Pedone 2011) 361.
42. Lalive P, ‘Inquiétantes dérives de l’arbitrage CCI (sur un recent “Oukase” du Secrétariat de la Cour d’Arbitrage CCI)’ (1995) ASA Bulletin 634.
43. Lalive P, ‘L’Article 190 al. 2 LDIP a-t-il une utilité ?’ (2010) 28 ASA Bulletin, 726.
44. Lalive P, ‘Le choix de l’arbitre’ dans Mélanges Jacques Robert, Libertés, (Montchrestien 1998) 353.
45. Lalive P, ‘Mission et Démission des Arbitres Internationaux’ dans Marcelo Kohen, Robert Kolb, Djacoba Liva Tehindrazanarivelo (eds) Perspectives of International Law in the 21st Century / Perspectives du Droit International au 21e Siecle: Liber Amicorum Professor Christian Dominica in Honour of His 80th Birthday (Bilinguale, Brill-Nijhoff 2011) 269.
46. Lalive P, ‘Un Post-Scriptum et Quelques Citations’ (1996) ASA Bulletin 35.
47. London Court of International Arbitration, LCIA Notes for Arbitrators, consulté le 10 septembre 2019. Loquin E, ‘Les obligations de confidentialité dans l’arbitrage’ (2006)2 Revue de l’Arbitrage 323.
48. Malacka M, ‘Party Autonomy in the Procedure of Appointing Arbitrators’ (2017) 17(2) International and Comparative Law Review 93.
49. Marguerat J et Blakemore TN, ‘Note: A. SA v. B. Sàrl, Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, 1st Civil Law Chamber, Case No. 4A_709/2014, 21 May 2015’ 2016 13 Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem 199.
50. Maynard S, ‘Laying the fourth arbitrator to rest: re-evaluating the regulation of arbitral secretaries’ (2018) 34 Arbitration International 173.
51. Mcasey B, ‘International Arbitral Institutions’ dans Freya Baetens (ed), Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication (Cambridge University Press 2019) 51.
52. Menz JU et George A, ‘How Much Assistance Is Permissible? A Note on the Swiss Supreme Court’s Decision on Arbitral Secretaries and Consultants’ (2016) 33 Journal of International Arbitration 311, 313.
53. Menz JU, Miss Moneypenny vs. the Fourth Musketeer: the Role of Arbitral Secretaries (Kluwer Arbitration Blog 9 juillet 2013) consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
54. Mistelis LA, ‘Efficiency. What Else? Efficiency as the Emerging Defining Value of International Arbitration: between Systems theories and party autonomy’ (15 avril 2019) Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 313/2019 consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
55. Moses ML, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (Cambridge University Press 2018). Mosk RM, ‘Deliberations of Arbitrators’ dans Caron D et autres (eds), Practising Virtue: Inside International Arbitration 486.
56. Özdem BH et Sert MY, ‘Uluslararası Tahkimde Çıkar Çatışması Hakkında Uluslararası Barolar Birliği Kılavuzu’nun İncelenmesi’ (2019) 8(1) Uluslararası Ticaret ve Tahkim Hukuku Dergisi 151.
57. Özsunay E, ‘Tahkim Yargılamasında Mahremiyet’ (2004)2 İstanbul Barosu Dergisi 89. Partasides C et autres, ‘Arbitral Secretaries’ dans Conseil International pour l’Arbitrage Commercial, Young ICCA Guide on Arbitral Secretaries (The ICCA Reports No.1) (International Council for Commercial Arbitration 2014) 23.
58. Partasides C, ‘The Fourth Arbitrator? The Role of Secretaries to Tribunals in International Arbitration’ (2002) 18 Arbitration International 147.
59. Partida S, L’arbitre international : étude de droit comparé (Master 2 Recherche de Droit européen comparé, Université Paris II Panthéon – Assas, Séjour de recherche à la Harvard Law School 2011) consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
60. Piers M et Aschauer C, ‘Conclusion’ dans Piers M et Aschauer C (eds) Arbitration in the Digital Age The Brave New World of Arbitration 283.
61. Polkinghorne M et Rosenberg C, ‘The Role of the Tribunal Secretary in International Arbitration: A Call for a Uniform Standard’ (2014) 8 Dispute Resolution International 107.
62. Poudret J et Besson S, Comparative Law of International Arbitration (Sweet & Maxwell 2007). Redfern A et autres, Law and Practice of International Arbitration (4e, Sweet & Maxwell 1999).
63. Restemayer CJ, ‘Secretaries Always Get a Bad Rep: Identifying the Controversy Surrounding Administrative Secretaries, Current Guidelines, and Recommendations’ (2012) 4 Yearbook on Arbitration Mediation 328.
64. Reyhani Yüksel S, ‘Tahkim Tarafları ve Hakem Arasında Yapılan Hakemlik Sözleşmesinin Maddi Hukuk Açısından Değerlendirilmesi’ (2016) 22 Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi: Özel Sayı Prof. Dr. Cevdet Yavuz’a Armağan 2436.
65. Rovine AW, Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers (Brill - Nijhoff 2010).
66. Rubino-Sammartano M, International Arbitration Law and Practice, (3e, Juris 2014).
67. Schwartz EA, ‘The Rights and Duties of ICC Arbitrators’ dans Jean-François Bourque (ed) Special Status of the Arbitrator, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin: 1995 Special Supplement (ICC Publishing 1995) 67.
68. Schweizer P, ‘Correspondance Au Sujet de L’Article 190(2) LDP: Quelques lignes en réponse à l’article du Professeur Lalive « L’article 190 al. 2 LDIP a-t-il une utilité ? »’ (2011) 29 ASA Bulletin 66.
69. Singapore International Arbitration Center, Practice Note for Administered Cases - On the Appointment of Administrative Secretaries (2 février 2015) consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
70. SOAS University of London et Broderick Bozimo Company, Enquête SOAS sur l’Arbitrage en Afrique Arbitrage Interne et International: Perspectives par les praticiens africains de l’arbitrage 2018 consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
71. Souleye A, ‘Fourth chair: the controversial role of arbitral tribunal secretaries’ (Young ICCA Blog 16 Février 2017) consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
72. Taşkın A, Hakem Sözleşmesi, (Turhan Kitabevi 2005). Tarman ZD, ‘Tahkim ve Gizlilik’ (2008)1 Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 305.
73. Timlin T, ‘The Swiss Supreme Court on the Use of Secretaries and Consultants in the Arbitral Process’ (2016) 8 Yearbook on Arbitration Mediation 268.
74. Tüysüz C, ‘Milletlerarası Ticari Tahkimde Gizlilik Yükümlülüğü’ (2017) 37(2) Public and Private International Law Bulletin 846.
75. Üral N, ‘Avrupa Enerji Şartı Antlaşmasının Onaylanmamış Olmasının Hakem Mahkemesinin Yetkisi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Yukos Davası’ (2009) 8(1) İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 71.
76. Waincymer J, Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2012).
77. White & Case et Queen Mary University of London School of International Arbitration, 2012 International Arbitration Survey: Current and Preferred Practices in the Arbitral Process, consulté le 10 septembre 2019.
78. Yasan C, ‘Milletlerarası Tahkimde Gizlilik’ (2011)1 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 777.
79. Yıldırım F, ‘Tahkimde İptal Davası ve İptal Davasının Amaçları Bakımından Bazı Değerlendirmeler’ (2016) 22 Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi: Özel Sayı Prof. Dr. Cevdet Yavuz’a Armağan 3006.
80. Yu H et Ahmed M, ‘Keeping the Invisible Hand under Control? -Arbitrator’s Mandate and Assisting Third Parties’ (2016) 19(2) Vindobona Journal of International Commercial Law and Arbitration 213.