International Court of Arbitration Cour internationale d'arbitrage ...

10On October 20, 1999, Valvision confirmed likewise.On October 27, 1999, the Secretary General of the ICC International Court ofArbitration confirmed Mr. Jean-Marie Nelissen Grade as Chairman of the ArbitralTribunal and forwarded the file to the Arbitrators.3. Upon invitation of the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal, Valvision filed onNovember 24, 1999 a summary of its position including a discussion of proposedrelief as well as a schedule listing the parties and individuals involved inthe arbitration and providing a chronology of major events.On November 24, 1999, Vision N.V. and Vision B.V. filed a summary of theirclaims.On December 17, 1999, the Arbitral Tribunal invited Vision N.V. and Vision B.V.to provide their own presentation of the facts as they had limited themselves tooutlining specifically their claim.On January 11, 2000, Vision N.V. and Vision B.V. filed their response to Valvision'sreply dated September 13, 1999 and to Valvision's summary of claimsdated November 24, 1999.Considering the length of this document, Vision N.V. and Vision B.V. filed a briefsummary of the facts on January 18, 2000.On January 26, 2000, Valvision filed a memo "correcting misstatements madeby Respondents in their answer of January 11, 2000 and their submission ofJanuary 18, 2000".On February 17, 2000, the draft Terms of Reference were sent to the parties.4. However, on November 23, 1999, Mr. Eric Morgan de Rivery had informedthe ICC that he had noted that the arbitration procedure might indirectly involvea company called United Paneuropean Communication (UPC) and that one ofhis partners had provided assistance to a company in the UPC group in connectionwith the incorporation of the subsidiary of that company in France (ChelloBroad Band). Although he did not see the situation as constituting a priori aconflict of interest, he asked for the position of the International Court of Arbitrationas well as for the position of the parties.On March 22, 2000, Valvision challenged Mr. Eric Morgan de Rivery as arbitratorpursuant to Article 11 of the ICC Rules and the proceedings were suspendeduntil the issue of the challenge had been decided upon by the Court.On April 27, 2000, the International Court of Arbitration rejected the challengeintroduced by the Claimant against Mr. Eric Morgan de Rivery.MMERCE (NT£NTiv COUR INTERNATIONALE O'ARBITRAGEA02338488/0.31/16 Oct 2002INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION( CHAMBE