The judicial decisions confirm the pro-arbitration approach in Germany requiring the validity of arbitration agreements under German arbitration law in order to avoid possible lengthy discussions on the validity of an arbitration agreement, important that: The compromise clause read in the disputed text – translated into English and abbreviated – as follows: ASES Havacilik Servis ve Destek Hizmetleri AS v Delkor UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 3518 (Comm) , a decision of Hamblen J it was essentially a factual issue, two arbitration clauses in the documents submitted by each of the parties were required. The main interest of the case lies in the scholarly judge`s reconciliation to the formalities of an appeal against jurisdiction under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Section 9 (1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 requires a court to interpret its procedure when the dispute is subject to a valid arbitration clause, but that obligation is set aside by Section 9 (4) if the agreement cannot be carried out inoperative, inoperative or inoperative. 5 There are therefore only three different points of connection, the seat which is the strongest of them with regard to the determination of the law which governs all aspects of the validity of international arbitration agreements for six different legal issues (see points 2 and 4) of different legal issues. The parties never entered into the separate arbitration agreement. The question therefore arose as to whether the compromise clause of the main contract was null and void. The material validity of the compromise clause was German law. The court has considered whether the existence of an arbitration agreement is at issue, it is a matter of the court of arbitration or the court. The Court considered the legal situation and the decision of the English High Court on the same issue in the case of Nigel Peter Albon (trade of N A Carriage Co) against Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd and anor [2007] 2 All ER 1075. In that case, the English High Court found that the wording of the English equivalent of s.6 IAA (section 9, paragraph 1, of the Arbitration Act 1996) meant that the Tribunal had to decide whether or not there was sufficient evidence to enter into an arbitration agreement. If, at the time of the application, it was not possible to resolve this issue on the available evidence, the court could not grant a mandatory stay under section 9 (1) of the Arbitration Act (but, separately, it was open to exercise its inherent jurisdiction over the stay of proceedings).

(1) An arbitration agreement is an agreement between the parties, any or certain disputes that have arisen or may arise between them regarding a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. 2. An arbitration agreement may take the form of a compromise clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. (3) The arbitration agreement must be made in writing. (a) The material validity of an international arbitration agreement must be determined in accordance with the law chosen by the parties to this agreement or, without specifying, according to the applicable law at the place (seat) of the arbitration procedure. The applicant submitted that the signing of the guarantee was not its own, which means that there is no valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that, therefore, the Singapore courts, not the tribunal (which was already constituted), have jurisdiction to establish the existence of the arbitration agreement. 3 This meaning of seat law has a significant harmonization effect on the determination of the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement. It serves to avoid the frictions and contradictions that could arise if different laws applied to these issues. The freedom of decision created by the seat is important because the arbitration agreement is the very foundation of the court`s jurisdiction.