CHRISTOPHE DUGUÉ - AVOCAT - INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION - PARIS FRANCE
Avocat au Barreau de Paris
75008 Paris France
Independence and Impartiality – Disclosure Obligations
Christophe Dugué is independent and makes every effort to preserve his independence and impartiality in compliance with the General Standard 1 of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration of 2014 (“Every arbitrator shall be impartial and independent of the parties at the time of accepting an appointment to serve and shall remain so until the final award has been rendered or the proceedings have otherwise finally terminated”) as well as applicable arbitration rules such as, for example ICC rules, Article 11(1), and applicable laws.
Parties to an arbitration proceeding in which he is considered a potential arbitrator or serves as an arbitrator should be aware that:
Parties to an arbitration proceeding in which he is considered a potential arbitrator or serves as an arbitrator should not consider such connections as being relationships likely to affect his impartiality or independence “in the eyes of the parties” (ICC rules, Article 11(2), or “in the eyes of a reasonable third party” (General Standard 2 of the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration of 2014).
Parties to an arbitration proceeding in which he is considered a potential arbitrator or serves as an arbitrator shall disclose promptly to Christophe Dugué any facts or circumstances considered relevant to his impartiality or independence as soon as that information is known or made available to such party and shall thus be responsible for making reasonable and continuing search of publicly available information promptly after learning of his prospective appointment or his appointment as arbitrator.
Toute personne dispose d’un droit d’accès, de limitation, de rectification ou d’effacement de ses données personnelles, en s’adressant au responsable dudit traitement (Me Christophe Dugué) et a la faculté de former une réclamation auprès de la CNIL, dans l’hypothèse où il considère que ses données n’ont pas été protégées.