The second panel lively argued about whether the arbitral tribunal has a duty to find the truth. However, the boxing gloves that had been brought along were not used. Dr. Stephan Wilske (Gleiss Lutz) and Dr. Stefan Riegler (Wolf Theiss) discussed questions like these: Should the arbitral tribunal ask for documents that both parties have not produced? Is it the task of the arbitral tribunal to illuminate the dark corners of the facts on its own initiative? Katherine Bell (Schellenberg Wittmer) skilfully moderated the very controversial discussion.
The third and final panel, moderated by Meike von Levetzow (Noerr), dealt with the handling of information provided by the respondents, specifically document production, burden of proof and claims by stages. Hannah Boehm (Hoffmann-LaRoche) and Dieter Hofmann (Walder Wyss) spoke on behalf of Switzerland, while Mag. Roxanne de Jesus (Pitkowitz) and Dr. Veit Öhlberger (Dorda) contributed the Austrian view. The German position was represented by Prof. Dr. Wolfram Buchwitz (University of Würzburg) and the moderator. In the course of the discussion it became clear that the arbitration culture of all three countries, influenced by the respective civil procedural usages, is similar. In each case, a tension exists with the instruments of international arbitration, namely document production. How this tension between national arbitration cultures and international customs, but also between substantive and procedural law, can be resolved was the subject of lively discussions.
In his closing remarks, Dr. Reinmar Wolff (DIS) thanked Flavio Peter (Peter & Kim) as the spiritus rector of the event. He stressed that the conference not only demonstrated the good relations between the three arbitral institutions. At the same time, it showed that the common arbitration culture in the DACH region deserves to be taken into account in international arbitration proceedings. This way, efficiency can be leveraged in the interest of the users of arbitration.