In 2025, Luxembourg saw major arbitration developments. The Luxembourg Arbitration Center (“LAC“) updated its rules effective 1 October 2025. Courts addressed issues including applicable law for arbitration agreements, asset freezes during annulment proceedings, and whether foreign arbitral awards after company liquidation count as administrative debts (dettes de la masse). These actions show Luxembourg courts’ ongoing support for arbitration.
The LAC updated its rules effective 1 October 2025
The updated LAC Arbitration Rules (“Rules”) took effect on 1 October 2025 and apply to all LAC arbitrations initiated after this date, unless parties agree otherwise. This marks the first revision since Luxembourg’s arbitration law was modernized in April 2023.
Digital-first communication
Recent updates to the LAC Arbitration Rules have placed a strong emphasis on electronic communication and have broadened the use of videoconferencing in arbitration hearings. These changes mark a significant shift from previous procedures, which only permitted videoconferencing for case management conferences.
The revised rules now allow for videoconference hearings, whereas the earlier regulations restricted such technology to case management conferences alone. This change is outlined in Article 18 of the 2025 LAC Arbitration Rules and Article 14 of the 2020 version.[1][2]
Under the current rules, requests for arbitration must be submitted to the LAC Secretariat exclusively through the online form provided on the LAC website. This process improves efficiency, as the arbitration is considered to have commenced on the date the Secretariat receives the online request, which is nearly instantaneous.[3]
In contrast, the previous set of rules required the submission of hard copies, and arbitration proceedings began only when the Secretariat received those physical documents.[4]
Unlike the LCIA and CEPANI Arbitration Rules, the LAC Rules do not clarify whether the “receipt of the request for arbitration” by the Secretariat includes payment of the filing fees.[5][6] This lack of specification can lead to uncertainty, particularly in circumstances where the statute of limitations is close to expiring.
The process for submitting requests for arbitration and emergency measures under the LAC Arbitration Rules has been streamlined. Similar to the procedure for arbitration requests, parties seeking emergency measures must submit their application to the Secretariat using the designated online form.[7]
Only in cases where it is not possible to submit requests via the online form—and if the Secretariat consents—may requests for arbitration or emergency measures be sent by email.[8] If these conditions are not met, the Secretariat is not obliged to consider the requests for arbitration or interim measures.
Previously, notifications and communications between parties, the Secretariat, and the arbitral tribunal were permitted using delivery with acknowledgment of receipt, registered post, courier, email, or any other telecommunication method that provided a record.[9] A notable update in the Rules is the adoption of a secure digital platform (the “Platform”) as the primary channel for notifications and communications. Communications placed on the Platform are considered valid on the day they are uploaded. If the Platform cannot be used, communications may be made by email.[10]
Identify verification
The revised Rules introduce articles on identity verification, granting the LAC authority to request identification and verification documents from any party involved in arbitration. Individuals may be asked to provide a copy of a valid government-issued identification document. Legal entities may be required to submit a recent extract from the commercial register, consolidated articles of association, and valid identification documents for legal representatives and/or ultimate beneficial owners.[11]
Data protection
Supplementary provisions on data protection have been added to the Rules. Article 37 empowers the LAC and arbitrator(s) to issue directives relating to information security or data protection, which are binding on both parties and arbitrators, subject to mandatory requirements of applicable laws.[12] These provisions are designed to reassure parties that personal data and confidential information will be protected throughout arbitration proceedings.
LAC arbitration awards must be signed
The Rules have addressed a previous omission regarding arbitral awards: for an award to be valid, it must be signed by the arbitral tribunal.[13] While this requirement may appear self-evident, its absence previously created enforcement challenges under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958. Article IV of the Convention stipulates that a party seeking enforcement must present an authenticated original award or a certified copy. Regarding notification of the award to the parties, the Secretariat is now required to provide such notification in paper form.[14]
Judicial developments in Luxembourg
1.1. Luxembourg court refuses jurisdiction in arbitration clause dispute
On 27 January 2025, the District Court of Luxembourg (“Luxembourg Court” or “Court”) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over a dispute due to a valid arbitration clause governed by Swiss law. The Court referred the parties to arbitration, noting that the contract was subject to Swiss law and the arbitration clause was therefore valid.[15]
Case summary
A Swiss company participated in a construction project in Luxembourg, supplying aluminum joinery and glass curtain wall. For part of the project, it entered a sub-subcontract with a Romanian company.
The sub-subcontract included an arbitration clause stating that disputes related to interpretation, performance, or termination would be settled by Swiss jurisdiction and referred to a panel of arbitrators in accordance with the agreement adopted by the Conference of Directors of the Cantonal Justice Departments.[16] While the arbitration clause did not specify its applicable law, the contract itself was clearly governed by Swiss law.
A dispute arose, and the Swiss company sued the Romanian company in the Luxembourg Court. The central issue was whether the arbitration clause was valid. Both parties asserted that Swiss law applied, as stipulated in the contract. The Court confirmed that Swiss law governed the arbitration agreement but did not elaborate further.
This approach aligns with previous rulings by the same court.[17] Though it may conflict with a Court of Appeal decision from 26 April 2005,[18] the decision is in line with the party autonomy principle.
Autonomy of arbitration agreements
The Court of Appeal previously held that an arbitration agreement is autonomous from the main contract and may be governed by rules different from those applying to the underlying contract. The parties, or even courts, may subject the arbitration clause to a different law. In the referenced case, the parties selected a permanent arbitral institution in Brussels and applied Belgian law to the arbitration clause, separate from Luxembourg law.[19] [20] [21]
In the present case, the Luxembourg Court based its decision on the parties’ agreement that Swiss law applied to both the contract and the arbitration clause, highlighting the principle of party autonomy.[22]
Party autonomy in arbitration
Party autonomy is a cornerstone of international commercial arbitration, allowing parties to decide the scope, applicable laws, rules, and procedures. The Court respected the parties’ choice of law for the arbitration clause, even though this choice was made after the dispute arose.
1.2. Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Luxembourg: Freezing orders despite pending appeal
On March 13, 2025, the Luxembourg Supreme Court (“Court of Cassation”) upheld a freezing order based on two Italian arbitral awards, even though the Italian Supreme Court appeal to set aside the second award was ongoing.[23]
Case summary
Two main questions were examined: (i) whether a freezing order could be issued while annulment proceedings were pending in Italy, and (ii) whether assets could be frozen based on two conflicting awards.
In the first arbitration, the Luxembourg company was ordered to transfer shares to the Italian company. In the second, after failing to transfer shares, the Luxembourg company was ordered to pay damages and fees totaling EUR 7,028,805.
The Luxembourg company sought to annul the second award in Italy, but enforcement was not suspended under Italian law. Meanwhile, the Italian company enforced both awards in Luxembourg and sought to freeze the Luxembourg company’s assets.
The District Court and Court of Appeal ordered the asset freeze. The Luxembourg company appealed, arguing that ongoing proceedings in Italy should prevent enforcement, but the Court of Cassation rejected this argument. The award was enforceable since issuance, and annulment proceedings had no suspensive effect. The asset freeze was valid.
The Luxembourg company also challenged the use of conflicting awards for asset freezing, but the Court of Cassation noted that only costs related to arbitration were targeted, not the transfer of shares.
1.3. Arbitral awards issued after liquidation filing: an arbitral award issued after the entry into liquidation constitutes an administrative debt (dette de la masse)
On 20 November 2025, the Court of Cassation addressed whether an arbitral award issued in arbitration initiated by the liquidator after liquidation constitutes an administrative debt. The Court found that since the liquidator-initiated arbitration after liquidation, in the interest of creditors, the award is an administrative debt.[24]
Case summary
A Luxembourg company and a US company entered into a contract with an indemnity and arbitration clause. The Luxembourg company filed for liquidation in October 2009. In July 2014, the liquidator-initiated arbitration against the US company. On 29 March 2018, an arbitral award required the Luxembourg company to pay damages and legal fees. The US company obtained enforcement in Luxembourg, and the debt was recorded as unsecured liabilities in the liquidation.
The US company challenged the classification, arguing the award was an administrative debt. The Court of Appeal agreed, and the Luxembourg company disputed the ruling, arguing the debt existed before liquidation due to the indemnity clause. The Court of Cassation upheld the decision, finding the award was an administrative debt because the arbitration was initiated after liquidation for creditors’ benefit.
Criteria for administrative debt
The Court of Cassation identified three criteria for classifying an arbitral award as an administrative debt:
- Chronological: The debt must arise after the company enters liquidation. Here, the debt arose with the issuance of the award in March 2018. The indemnity clause was not activated when liquidation began.
- Functional: The liquidator must commit for administering the estate to ensure proper liquidation. This applies when the liquidator performs contracts made prior to liquidation.
- Connection: The debt must be closely linked to the administration of the estate. Even if unsuccessful, the arbitration aimed to benefit the creditors.
This decision is significant for creditors seeking to record arbitral awards in liquidation estates.
[1] Article 18 of the 2025 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[2] Article 14 of the 2020 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[3] Article 3 of the 2025 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[4] Article 3 of the 2020 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[5] Article 1.4 of the 2020 LCIA Arbitration Rules.
[6] Article 3 of the 2023 CEPANI Arbitration Rules.
[7] Appendix III, para. 2 of the 2025 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[8] Article 3 and Appendix III, para. 2 of the 2025 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[9] Article 2 of the 2020 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[10] Article 2 of the 2025 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[11] Article 38 of the 2025 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[12] Article 37 of the 2025 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[13] Article 24 of the 2025 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[14] Article 27 of the 2025 LAC Arbitration Rules.
[15] Trib. Arr. Lux., 27 January 2025, No. TAL-2021-01904.
[16] The original version in French states : “Tout différend qui pourrait survenir entre les parties concernant l’interprétation l’exécution et/ou la résiliation du présent contrat sera soumis à la juridiction suisse et transmis au jugement d’un groupe spécial d’arbitrage conformément à la Convention d’arbitrage acceptée par la Conférence des directeurs des Dicastères cantonaux de justice le 27 mars 1969 du Canton du Tessin – Suisse (Recueil officiel des Lois du Canton du Tessin No. 3.3.2.1.5) connue des parties.”
[17] Trib. Arr. Lux., 24 April 2007, No. 103840.
[18] Court of Appeal, 26 July 2005, No. 27789.
[19] Court of Appeal, 26 July 2005, No. 27789: “le principe de l’autonomie de la convention d’arbitrage par rapport au contrat principal dans lequel elle se trouve insérée, commande de considérer que celle-ci n’est pas nécessairement régie par des normes et de même origine que celles qui régissent la convention de fond”.
[20] Court of Appeal, 26 July 2005, No. 27789.
[21] Court of Appeal, 26 July 2005, No. 27789: “Or, les parties en désignant à l’article 14.2 de l’Agreement une institution permanente d’arbitrage, le CEPANI établi à Bruxelles, pour trancher les difficultés susceptibles de surgir quant à l’exécution de la convention du 19 mars 1999 en conformité au règlement de cet organisme, ont soustrait la convention d’arbitrage à la loi luxembourgeoise. La loi applicable à la convention d’arbitrage est celle choisie par les parties pour régir au fond la clause compromissoire, soit en l’espèce la loi belge.”
[22] Trib. Arr. Lux., 27 January 2025, No. TAL-2021-01904: “Il convient ainsi tout d’abord d’identifier les normes sur base desquelles le tribunal est amené à se prononcer sur la validité de l’article 16.2 du contrat (a), [i.e. la clause d’arbitrage,] étant rappelé que les parties s’entendent sur le fait que le Contrat est régi par le droit suisse, conformément à son article 16.1, de sorte que se pose la question de savoir quelles normes de droit suisse régissent la question de la validité d’une convention d’arbitrage”.
[23] Court of Cassation, 13 March 2025, No. CAS-2024-00082.
[24] Court of Cassation, 20 November 2025, No. CAS-2025-00057.
