Reflecting on the Official Launch of the SCC Arbitration Rules in Bulgarian
THE AUTHOR:
Georgi Valev, Future LL.M. Candidate at the University of Cambridge
Enhancing Access to International Arbitration
On 15 May 2025, the official launch of the Bulgarian translation of the SCC Arbitration Institute’s (SCC) Arbitration Rules 2023 took place in Sofia, Bulgaria. The event’s significance is underscored by the fact that this is the first time any international arbitral institution’s rules have been translated into the Bulgarian language. As Velislava Hristova, the translator of the SCC Rules, noted in her opening remarks, the event signifies more than the mere publication of a legal text in another language. Rather, it encapsulates the growing and dynamic partnership between the Bulgarian business and legal communities and international arbitral institutions. It further aligns with the mission of making arbitration more transparent, accessible, and relevant to users across jurisdictions.
The Swedish Ambassador to Bulgaria, Katarina Rangnitt, and the President of the Sofia Bar Association, Zhana Kisyova echoed these sentiments. Rangnitt voiced the Swedish government’s belief in the positive effects of international arbitration and complimented the SCC for being a “beacon of excellence in arbitration”. She emphasised the significance of the SCC’s reliable framework being made available to a broader international audience. Kisyova noted the timeliness of the event, and underscored its importance for the promotion of arbitration at a challenging time for the Bulgarian arbitration community.
Following the opening remarks, Jake Lowther, Specialist Counsel at the SCC, first thanked Hristova for her work on the Bulgarian translation of the SCC Rules. He then presented a detailed overview of the SCC’s inner workings, as well as some statistical insights that illustrated the internationality of the SCC’s caseload. He emphasized the SCC’s commitment to providing dispute resolution that is efficient, diverse, independent, reliable, and progressive. With respect to the SCC’s proclivity to pioneer, Lowther recalled that in 1995 the SCC was among the first institutions to introduce rules for expedited arbitration. Today, approximately 35% of all SCC cases are administered under the SCC Rules for Expedited Arbitrations.
Different Expedited Insights
Following his presentation, Lowther was joined by Crina Baltag, Associate Professor, Stockholm University and SCC Board Member, and Beata Gessel-Kalinowska vel Kalisz, Senior Partner at GESSEL Attorneys at Law and Member of the SCC Arbitrators’ Council, for a panel discussion on expedited procedures in arbitration moderated by Stanislav Cherkezov, Legal Counsel at Huvepharma and CEO of Advance Green Energy. The panel represented a unique blend of arbitration practitioners who shared their views and experiences of the intricacies of expedited processes.
The Swedish Way
To kick off the discussion, Lowther discussed the rationale behind the introduction of expedited arbitration rules from the institutional perspective. He confirmed that it stemmed from the recognition that many disputes, either due to their nature or value, do not necessitate a full arbitral proceeding. In addition, expedited arbitration proves beneficial from an access to justice standpoint as it both significantly lowers the probability that parties would find the costs for arbitration prohibitive and is a much more time-efficient mechanism for the purposes of producing an enforceable arbitral award, ultimately making it a business-sensible option for many parties.
Reflecting upon trends from the types of disputes that are subject to expedited arbitral proceedings, Lowther confirmed that the SCC’s emergency arbitrator provisions had been used in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”), in part because of the SCC’s unique position in being able to provide such a mechanism. As to geography, Lowther noted expedited arbitration’s utility for Nordic parties due to their palpably pragmatic and “consensus-driven” approach to dispute resolution. For many arbitration users in the region, the procedural complexity rather than the relevant sector was a better indicator of suitability for expedited arbitration.
Baltag further noted that the significant usage of expedited arbitration at the SCC is even more impressive given that it is entirely attributable to the parties’ intent, as the application of the expedited rules is not contingent upon any objective criteria (e.g., the value of the claim) but rather upon the parties’ agreement.
Lowther agreed and referred to the SCC’s successful introduction of model so-called “combined clauses” for parties to insert into their agreements (see also “The SCC’s Combination Dispute Resolution Clauses: A Leap of Faith or the Best of Both Worlds?”). The most-used combination clause provides for expedited rules as the default, but the SCC may, at its discretion and considering the circumstances of the dispute, decide on the application of the SCC’s standard arbitration rules. Moreover, in the absence of such a combination clause but where the SCC notes that an expedited case may be more suitable for resolution under the standard rules, the SCC may invite the parties to consider whether the standard arbitration rules may be more appropriate, without forcing them to do so. This reflects the SCC’s strong respect for party autonomy and the disputing parties’ agreement.
Baltag then proceeded to underscore the reasons why the parties’ consent can be seen as a more desirable criterion for the application of expedited arbitration rules than the value of the initial claim, the latter being a commonly utilised standard by other arbitral institutions. First, she pointed out that such a criterion does not account for possible counterclaims or set-offs, and shared concerns about the possibility of claimants artificially inflating their claims for the sole purpose of circumventing the application of the expedited arbitration rules. Baltag further added that party autonomy on the matter is important in order to account for the cultural differences and specific commercial relationships of the parties to the agreement, which are two areas to which an objective value-based criterion remains undesirably insensitive.
Choosing the Right Arbitrator
Turning to how the SCC ensures procedural efficiency while maintaining fairness in expedited disputes, Baltag opined that selecting the “right” arbitrator was at the core of a successfully managed dispute, especially in the context of SCC Expedited Arbitration, where the parties are given 10 days to jointly select the sole arbitrator.
In the event of a challenge to an arbitrator, Lowther outlined the steps:
- The SCC provides the parties and the arbitrator(s) the opportunity to comment on the challenge,
- The SCC Secretariat presents its proposal to the SCC Board, and
- In the absence of any agreement of the parties or the resignation of the challenged arbitrator, the SCC Board decides on the matter.
Interestingly, in contrast to its other decisions, the SCC provides written reasons in relation to decisions on challenges to an arbitrator, with Lowther citing the fundamental role such challenges play in the legitimacy of the arbitral process and the final arbitral award as the underlying rationale. These reasons, Baltag confirmed, also led the SCC not to include a shorter deadline for the submission of a challenge to the arbitrator. Rather, the same 15-day deadline as set out in the standard arbitration rules applies.
When to Use Expedited Arbitration?
Broadening the scope of discussion, Gessel shared her considerations when advising clients on whether to opt for expedited arbitration. First, she raised the question of whether the dispute is heard by a sole arbitrator or an arbitral tribunal. In her view, this is inextricably linked to the issue of trust and legitimacy, as parties place value in the opportunity to select an arbitrator. This is not granted in certain expedited proceedings, absent an agreement with the opposing party. Gessel’s view is that the ability to select arbitrators lies at the core of the justification for an arbitral award’s very finality, i.e., the award being “unappealable” should there be no procedural irregularities in the arbitral process precedent to it. Parties and counsel alike tend to accept such finality when under the impression that they are the masters of their own fate, which may only be the case where there was the opportunity to select one (or more) of the members of the arbitral tribunal.
On that note, Gessel suggested that the material interest at stake, as measured by its significance to the party rather than its nominal value devoid of such context, is highly relevant. Speaking from experience, she shared that she would be more inclined to advise a client to forgo selecting an arbitrator when the relative importance of the claim is lower to the party.
Gessel’s final considerations relate to time and complexity. Clients tend to be enticed by time-efficient dispute resolution. However, for Gessel it is advisable to place more significance on the complexity of the particular dispute and issues at hand when deliberating on the mode of arbitration.
Ultimately, Gessel asserted that it is the quality of the arbitral award, rather than the composition of the arbitral tribunals, or expeditiousness, that informs her opinion on how satisfactory an arbitral proceeding has been. Thus, the decision on whether to use expedited arbitration is a very case-specific one. She also readily dismissed the notion that clients might be unhappy with expedited arbitration due to a sentiment that they could not present their claim as they would have otherwise liked, and possibly could have in regular arbitration. For Gessel, the party’s main points of interest usually do not encompass such sophisticated procedural or even substantive concerns. What clients are mainly concerned with, however, is for dispute resolution to be swift, just, and cost-efficient.
Does “Expedited” mean “Cheaper”?
When asked to reflect on whether clients enjoyed meaningful cost savings when opting for expedited arbitration, Gessel acknowledged the lower arbitrator remuneration resulting from a single arbitrator replacing a multi-member tribunal. However, she also noted the fact that the party’s overall costs were more contingent upon the fee agreement in place with their legal representative, e.g., a lump sum payment, hourly arrangements, or contingency fees.
Balancing Efficiency, Due Process and Experience
Returning to the issue of time-efficiency in expedited arbitration against the need to respect the principle of due process, Baltag reminded the audience that the concept of arbitration itself presupposes an expeditious dispute resolution. This is because parties often choose arbitration precisely because it presents a more time-efficient alternative to state-court litigation. Baltag referred to the ongoing efforts of arbitral institutions to devise expedited procedures, ensuring parties have a broad range of options depending on how prompt and inexpensive a resolution they need.
Against this background, Baltag underlined the importance of due process as a guiding principle for the arbitration process at all stages. It is an element of arbitral proceedings where no compromise can be made. After all, it is precisely due process concerns that, if substantiated, can lead to the arbitral award being set aside.
According to Baltag, arbitrators ensure due process by providing both parties with the opportunity to comment on all submissions made by their opposing party. At the same time, Baltag distinguished between a “reasonable opportunity” for the parties to present their case and an excessive proceeding. In this vein, the SCC’s expedited arbitration involves a “frontloading” of the case in which the request for arbitration constitutes the statement of claim and the answer constitutes the statement of defence, while hearings are only held where necessary. Moreover, final awards in SCC expedited arbitrations only contain reasons if requested by the parties.
In Baltag’s view, parties tend to understand that the expedited rules provide them a reasonable opportunity to present their case, with the difference being their simplified procedural framework. It is certainly not considered second-best to standard arbitration in terms of quality, where both parties have experienced counsel who understand the procedural differences between the two forms of arbitration.
Approaching the question from another angle, Gessel shared her appreciation for counsel who are not experienced in arbitration. She found expedited proceedings in which they participated to be going “back to the roots” of arbitration, where legal representatives do not focus solely on small procedural issues, but work towards the most business-sensible solution to the dispute.
Can Expedited Arbitration Become the Norm?
Cherkezov then raised the question of whether expedited arbitration could become more prevalent than standard arbitration in commercial disputes. For Baltag, such a development would be understandable in the context of technology and intellectual property disputes, given their inherent need for swift resolution. For Gessel, what dictates the appropriateness of expedited arbitration rules is rather the specific contract that gives rise to the dispute, as the complexity and technicality of its content may require a greater participation of expert witnesses in the proceedings and an overall more time-intensive preparation for both counsel and arbitrators.
Conclusion
It is hoped that the launch of the Bulgarian translation of the SCC Arbitration Rules will support the role of international arbitration in Bulgaria and address the demand for fair and efficient commercial dispute resolution.
The role of expedited procedures has expanded dramatically in recent times, in part as a response to criticisms of arbitration concerning cost and time efficiency. Expedited arbitration rules, characterised by procedural flexibility with an emphasis on party autonomy, help users return to the roots of what made arbitration a preferred method of dispute settlement, without sacrificing the quality of the process. However, institutions and counsel must not become complacent; instead, they should continually refine the system. From the day’s discussion at least, it is clear that expedited arbitration is a dispute resolution tool that many parties will find useful.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Georgi Valev holds an LL.B. from Tilburg University, where he further specialised in international economic law. He is set to begin his LL.M. studies at the University of Cambridge this autumn,focusing on international dispute settlement, international trade law, and international investment law and arbitration. Following his master’s, Georgi intends to qualify and practise in England and Wales in the field of international dispute resolution.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
