Facts
Turkish steel producer Egemetal Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (appellant) and German Fuchs Systemtechnik GmbH (respondent) concluded a contract on March 26, 1993, for the delivery of a steel plant equipment. After technical problems arose, the appellant filed a request with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) to initiate arbitration proceedings. The arbitral tribunal appointed Dr. Wilfried Heinemann as a technical expert, against whom the appellant later objected due to bias. The arbitral tribunal rejected the objection and the appellant filed a constitutional complaint with the Federal Court.
The appellant argued that the contested decision violated the principle of equal treatment and procedural public policy. It claimed that the expert had proven to be biased due to his commercial contacts with the appellant. However, the arbitral tribunal and the Federal Court rejected this complaint, as the appellant had raised the objection belatedly.
Considerations
The Federal Court stated that procedural public policy also includes procedural defects that do not fall under Art. 190 para. 2 lit. a-d PILA. However, it found that the appellant had raised the objection belatedly, as it had been aware of the expert's commercial contacts several months earlier.
The court emphasized that the parties must be guaranteed an independent assessment of the requests and factual allegations submitted to the court in accordance with the proceedings. However, it also stated that a violation of procedural public policy only exists if fundamental and universally recognized procedural principles are violated.
…