## Facts

- A Yugoslav company (claimant) and PDR Korea Co. (respondent) entered into a contract under which the Korean company would sell frozen fish to the Yugoslav company.
- The contract contained an arbitration clause providing that disputes not settled amicably could be submitted to arbitration in one of three listed places: Peking (People’s Republic of China), Warsaw (People’s Republic of Poland), or Berlin (German Democratic Republic).
- The claimant initially filed a petition for damages with an arbitration court in Warsaw, Poland.
- The Warsaw proceedings were dismissed after the respondent challenged the Warsaw arbitration court’s competence.
- After the Warsaw dismissal, the claimant filed a petition for damages with an arbitration court in Berlin, German Democratic Republic.
- The respondent received notice of the Berlin arbitration and objected to the Berlin tribunal’s competence, arguing that the clause required both parties to agree on which of the three listed locations would be used.
- The respondent did not select an arbitrator, and an arbitrator was appointed for the respondent under the applicable arbitration procedure.
- The respondent did not attend a hearing convened on the competence objection.
- The claimant requested an interim judgment (interim award) from the Berlin arbitration court on the competence issue.

## Issues

1. Whether an arbitration clause listing Peking, Warsaw, and Berlin required a further mutual agreement on the arbitral location before arbitration could proceed in one of those places.
2. Whether the prior dismissal of the claimant’s petition in Warsaw, after a competence challenge, affected the claimant’s ability to initiate arbitration in Berlin under the same clause.
3. Whether the tribunal could be constituted and address competence where the respondent, after notice, failed to appoint an arbitrator and did not appear at the competence hearing.

## Decision

- The reported decision concerns the claimant’s request for an interim judgment on the Berlin arbitration court’s competence in light of the respondent’s objection.
- After the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, an arbitrator was appointed on the respondent’s behalf under the applicable arbitration procedure.
- The tribunal convened a hearing on competence, and the respondent did not appear.
- Publicly available summaries confirm the competence dispute and the interim-judgment request, but do not provide the text of the interim ruling or its outcome.

## Legal Principles

- Arbitral proceedings may continue, and the tribunal may be constituted, even if a duly notified party does not appoint an arbitrator, where the applicable rules permit appointment in default.
- Tribunals may address jurisdictional objections at an early stage through an interim decision focused on competence.
- Multi-option arbitration clauses that list more than one possible place of arbitration can generate disputes about whether one party may commence arbitration in a listed forum without a later mutual selection.
- A dismissal in one named forum on competence grounds can lead to a follow-on attempt to arbitrate in another forum named in the same clause, raising questions of the effect of the earlier dismissal.

## Conclusion

In *Yugoslav Co. v. PDR Korea Co.*, a dispute over a frozen-fish sales contract led to parallel attempts to arbitrate under a clause naming Peking, Warsaw, or Berlin; after Warsaw dismissed the claim following a competence challenge, the claimant commenced arbitration in Berlin, the respondent again objected that mutual agreement on the location was required, failed to appoint an arbitrator, and did not appear at the competence hearing, prompting the claimant to seek an interim judgment from the Berlin arbitration court on whether it had competence to hear the case.


Yugoslav Co. v. PDR Korea Co., 8 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 129 (1983)