CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s3E0E7689 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s94E5961 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 September 2025 SECOND SECTION Application no. 2895/25 JIITEE TYÖT OY against Finland lodged on 22 January 2025 communicated on 20 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns voluntary arbitration proceedings in which an arbitration award containing no reasoning at all was adopted. The applicant company was a party to arbitration proceedings which resulted in an arbitration award issued on 7 December 2022. The award indicated that the applicant company was ordered to pay the counter-party, a limited liability company, 329,781.48 euros and its legal expenses of 87,870.67 euros as well as the expenses of the arbitration proceedings, amounting to 23,900.38 euros. The arbitration award contained no reasoning. The applicant company challenged the award before the District Court which on 5 January 2024 found that the applicant company had validly waived its right to an arbitration award with reasoning. On 8 May 2024 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant company’s appeal. On 26 September 2024 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of any reasoning in the arbitration award. The domestic legislation or the applicable rules on arbitration do not require that arbitration awards be reasoned even to a minimum extent. The right to have a reasoned decision or judgment is one of the fundamental requirements of a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Without any reasoning, the domestic courts cannot control the legality of arbitration awards and protect applicants against arbitrary decisions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the arbitration proceedings in the present case (see Mutu and Pechstein v.   Switzerland , nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10, §§ 56-59, 2 October 2018; and Xavier Lucas v. France , no. 15567/20, §§ 30-32, 9 June 2022)? If so, did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant company validly waive its right to a reasoned decision in a free, lawful and unequivocal manner (see Tabbane v.   Switzerland (dec.), no. 41069/12, § 27, 1 March 2016; Mutu and Pechstein , cited above, § 96; and Semenya v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10934/21, §   197, 10   July 2025)? And was the obligation to give sufficient reasons respected in this case concerning the arbitration award ( H. v. Belgium , 30   November 1987, §   53, Series   A no.   127-B; Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no.   2) , no.   5386/10, §   91, 24   March 2022; and Semenya , cited above, § 194)?