Answer ... In arbitrations seated in Macedonia, the parties may agree on the procedure for appointment of the tribunal. However, if the parties fail to agree on such, the procedure for appointment shall be as follows:

• In the case of a three-member tribunal, each party shall appoint one arbitrator and the two co-arbitrators shall appoint the presiding arbitrator. If one party fails to appoint the arbitrator within 30 days of receiving the other party’s request, or if the two arbitrators fail to agree on the presiding arbitrator within 30 days of their appointment, the competent court in Macedonia will make the appointment, upon a party’s request.
• In the case of a sole arbitrator, if the parties fail to agree on the arbitrator, upon a party’s request, the sole arbitrator will be appointed by the competent Macedonian court.

Where either a party, an arbitrator or a selected institution/appointing authority fails to perform any task anticipated under the agreed appointment procedure, and unless otherwise provided within such procedure, any party may request the competent court to take any measures necessary to secure the appointment of the arbitrators (Article 11).

Answer ... Under the Arbitration Act, the parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators without any restrictions. If they fail to do so, the number of arbitrators will be three (Article 10).

The Arbitration Act does not require that arbitrators possess specific qualifications; however, the parties may agree on specific qualifications that they find necessary. If the competent Macedonian court is the appointing authority, the court shall have due regard to any qualifications that the parties find necessary and secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator. In case of the appointment of a sole arbitrator or a presiding arbitrator, the court will also take into account the suitability of appointing an arbitrator of a nationality other than those of the parties (Article 11(5)).

Answer ... An arbitrator may be challenged only if:

• there are circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence; or
• he or she does not possess the qualifications agreed by the parties.

However, a party may challenge an arbitrator it has appointed, or in whose appointment it has participated, only for reasons of which the party becomes after the appointment has been made (Article 12(2)(3)). Furthermore, if the parties fail to agree on the procedure for challenging an arbitrator, in accordance with the Arbitration Act, a party which intends to challenge an arbitrator shall submit a written statement to the tribunal explaining the reasons for the challenge within 15 days after becoming aware of:

• the constitution of the tribunal; and
• any circumstances that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence; or
• the fact that the arbitrator does not possess qualifications agreed by the parties.

If the challenge is rejected, the dissatisfied party may, within 30 days of receipt of the tribunal’s decision, request the competent court to decide the challenge. The court’s decision is not subject to appeal (Article 13).

Answer ... In accordance with the Arbitration Act, if a challenge is successful, the arbitrator’s mandate terminates and a replacement arbitrator is appointed according to the rules that applied to the appointment of his or her predecessor (Article 15).

Under the Arbitration Act, an arbitrator must:

• disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence without delay (Article 12);
• treat all parties equally (Article 18(1));
• provide a full opportunity to each party to present its case and evidence, and to respond to the statements and claims of the opposing party (Article 18(2));
• give sufficient advance notice of any hearing and any meeting of the tribunal to inspect goods, other property or documents, and of any procedure for taking evidence (Article 24(2));
• communicate to each party the statements, submissions, documentary evidence, expert reports and similar information submitted to the tribunal by the other party (Article 24(3));
• hold oral hearings upon the request of a party, unless the parties have agreed otherwise (Article 24(1)); and
• upon the request of a party, make linguistic or/and technical corrections to the rendered award, issue a specific interpretation of such award or render an additional award, unless the parties have agreed otherwise (Article 33).

Further, given that the parties are free to agree on the procedural rules, the parties may also agree on further particular duties of the arbitrators in conducting the proceedings (Article 19(1)).

Answer ... (a) Procedure, including evidence?

The parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the tribunal. In the absence of such agreement, the tribunal may conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate. In accordance with the Arbitration Act, the power conferred on the tribunal includes the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence (Article 19). In particular, the tribunal may request a competent court to assist it with the taking of evidence (Article 27). Further, and by way of example, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the tribunal may:

• decide on holding oral hearings (Article 24(1));
• decide questions of language and the place of arbitration (Articles 20 and 22);
• appoint experts as to specific issues to be determined by the tribunal;
• require a party to give the experts any relevant information or to produce (or provide access to) any relevant documents, goods or other property for inspection; and
• order the experts to participate in the hearing (Article 26(1)(2)(3)).

(b) Interim relief?

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the tribunal may, at the request of a party, order any interim measures that it deems necessary as to the subject matter of the dispute. In that regard, the tribunal may order the party requesting the interim measures to post security in connection with such measures. If a party against which the interim measures are ordered fails to comply with the tribunal’s order, the other party may seek to enforce such interim measures before the competent court (Article 17).

(c) Parties which do not comply with its orders?

Tribunals do not have special authority to force the parties to comply with their orders. However, in terms of the taking of evidence, if a party fails to comply with the tribunal’s order, the tribunal may request assistance with taking evidence from the court (Article 27).

(d) Issuing partial final awards?

The Arbitration Act does not regulate the issuance of partial final awards. However, this should be not understood as a general prohibition of the same.

(e) The remedies it can grant in a final award?

The Arbitration Act does not specify which types of remedies may be granted in a final award.

(f) Interest?

Provisions on interest are not included in the Arbitration Act. However, this matter may be treated as part of the applicable substantive law to the dispute.

Answer ... Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, if, without showing sufficient cause:

• the respondent fails to communicate its statement of defence, the tribunal will proceed with the case, without treating such failure in itself as an admission of the claimant’s case;
• the claimant fails to submit its statement of claim, the tribunal should terminate the proceedings; and
• any party fails to appear at the hearing or to produce evidence, the tribunal may continue with the proceedings and decide the case based on the documents, evidence and information available to it (Article 25).

Answer ... The Arbitration Act does not explicitly regulate the arbitrators’ immunity. However, to the extent that the provisions of Macedonian Contracts and Torts Act apply, it could be argued that the arbitrators’ liability for damages may be excluded by agreement (eg, in the terms of appointment). However, under the rules of the Macedonian Contracts and Torts Act, liability for damages caused by intentional or grossly negligent conduct cannot be excluded in any event (Article 254 of the Contracts and Torts Act). In addition, in principle, a contractual exclusion of criminal liability will not be valid under Macedonian law.