Arbitration Clause as Unfair Contract Term: Some Observations on the ECJ's Claro Case

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of the annulment of an arbitration award by national courts on the grounds that the arbitration proceedings were based on arbitration clause as an unfair contract term under the Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. The ECJ decided in the case Claro v Movil that arbitration award may be annulled by national court if it is based on arbitration clause which turns out to be unfair contract term. Moreover, according to the ECJ, consumer has no duty to object unfairness of the arbitration clause in the course of arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the national court may find the term unfair thus void on its own motion. The reasoning behind this was that the arbitration award was at odds with mandatory provisions of the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts, which form part, in the view of the ECJ, of the so called European public policy.