International Arbitration 2023 Comparisons

Due to its political, economic and social history, there have been numerous investment arbitrations in Venezuela. International arbitration has consistently played a pivotal role in this jurisdiction for dispute resolution.

Historically, Venezuela has attracted foreign investments. However, the current political landscape, coupled with sanctions, has curtailed these investments significantly.

Given that changes to the Venezuelan legal system are anticipated, this jurisdiction could become more attractive for foreign investment in the medium term.

Domestically, litigation had been the preferred route over arbitration for resolving disputes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and the difficulties experienced in the judicial system in recent years have led to a growth in arbitration cases by nationals, who often resort to this jurisdiction by virtue of arbitration clauses included in contracts.

The hydrocarbon sector, along with its affiliated entities, have experienced the most significant arbitration activity in recent years in Venezuela. This trend can be attributed to the prominence of these industries within the jurisdiction. Given their size and influence, it is unsurprising that they frequently experience severance disputes, which can be addressed through either commercial or investment arbitration.

In Venezuela, the two most important arbitration centres are located in the capital city, Caracas. These centres are the Arbitration Centre of the Chamber of Caracas (Centro de Arbitraje de la Cámara de Caracasor CACC) and the Business Center for Conciliation and Arbitration (Centro Empresarial de Conciliación y Arbitraje or CEDCA) of the Venezuelan-American Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VenAmCham).

Both arbitration centres operate at a high level and have handled national and international arbitrations since their creation over twenty years ago.

There are no specific courts in Venezuela that are designated to hear disputes related to international arbitrations and/or domestic arbitrations.

The Venezuelan Commercial Arbitration Act (Ley de Arbitraje Comercial or LAC), passed in 1998, governs both domestic and international arbitration in Venezuela. This law is mainly derived from the UNCITRAL International Commercial Arbitration Model Law.

The Venezuelan legislature chose a monist system, which implies that the same rules govern international commercial arbitration and domestic commercial arbitration in this jurisdiction.

However, there are certain differences between the LAC and the Model Law, such as:

• Unlike the Model Law, which explicitly defines “international commercial arbitration” in Article 1.3, the LAC does not provide any such definition.
• Pursuant to the LAC, the precautionary power of the arbitrators comes into effect once the arbitral tribunal is constituted.
• The LAC makes express reference to institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration.

In the past year, there have not been any major changes to Venezuela’s national arbitration law or to the statute law in general. However, certain adjustments in other national laws – realised through mandatory case law – have indirectly impacted arbitration in the country.

To illustrate, on 25 July 2022, the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice declared “the disapplication by diffuse control of constitutionality” of Articles 41-J and 41-E of the Decree with the Rank, Value and Force of Law Regulating Real Estate Leasing for Commercial Use, which prohibited the resolution of conflicts on that matter through arbitration, which was contrary to the pro-arbitration principle contained in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (decision No 0378).

Pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 of the LAC, an arbitration agreement is enforceable under the laws of Venezuela subject to the following requirements.

• The arbitration agreement must be established in writing in any document or set of documents attesting to the will of the parties to bind themselves to arbitration.
• An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.
• For adhesion contracts, the will to submit to arbitration shall be done in the form of an express and independent declaration.

Said requirements have been reaffirmed by Venezuelan case law, for instance, decision No 1541 issued on 17 October 2008 by the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

Article 3 of the LAC provides that “[a]ny dispute with settlement as an option, arising between people with the capability to settle, may be submitted to arbitration.

The following are exceptions:

• disputes contrary to public policy or involving crimes or misdemeanors, except with respect to the civil liability quantification, insofar as it has not been set forth by a final binding judgment;
• disputes directly concerning the sovereign activities or functions of the State or governmental persons or entities;
• disputes involving the civil status or capacity of persons;
• disputes regarding property or rights of legally disabled persons, without prior judicial authorisation; and
• disputes on which a final binding judgment has been pronounced, except the pecuniary consequences arising from its enforcement insofar as they exclusively concern the parties to the proceedings and have not been determined by a final binding judgment.”

In general, the jurisdiction uses the objective arbitrability and public order approach to determine whether or not a dispute is “arbitrable” (see decision No 1541 issued on 17 October 2008 by the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice).

In Venezuela, the doctrine of separability means that the law applicable to the merits of the controversy is not always applicable to the arbitration agreement itself.

The principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, enshrined in Article 25 of the LAC, bestows arbitrators with the authority to ascertain the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. Consistent with this, the prevailing stance of national courts suggests that issues concerning the arbitration agreement, including its governing law, must be adjudicated by the arbitrators themselves (see decision No 827 issued on 23 May 2001 by the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice).

Further, in alignment with the pro-arbitration stance articulated in Article 258 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, national courts have maintained that when an arbitration agreement is present, unless the parties implicitly choose to abide by ordinary jurisdiction, the matter should promptly be referred to the arbitral tribunal. This ensures the tribunal can deliberate on the existence and legitimacy of the said agreement(see decision No 1067 issued on 3 November 2010 by the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice).

Article 7 of the LAC expressly provides for the separability of the arbitral clause, in the following terms: “an arbitration clause forming part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the terms of the contract. A decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not affect the validity of the arbitration clause.”

In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal Justice has stated that the arbitral clause shall be considered valid until there is a judgment declaring its nullity (see decision No 554 issued on 21 May 2013 by the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice).

Parties can only have recourse to the traditional judicial system in the absence of a new and valid arbitration agreement (see decision No 46 issued on 1 March 2016 by the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice). 

In Venezuela, there are few limitations on the parties’ autonomy to select arbitrators.

First, an objective constraint is outlined in Article 4 of the LAC. It stipulates that “[s]hould one of the parties of an arbitration agreement be a corporation in which the Republic, the States, the Municipalities and the Autonomous Agencies hold a participation equal to or higher than fifty percent (50%) of its equity or a corporation in which the aforesaid persons hold a participation equal to or higher than fifty percent (50%) of its equity, the agreement requires approval from the appropriate corporate entity and the written authorisation from the directive Minister to be valid. The arbitration agreement shall specify the type of arbitration and the number of Arbitrators, in no case to be lower than three (3).”

Likewise, Articles 16 and 17 of the LAC, respectively, indicate that the number of arbitrators shall always be odd and, in case of disagreement, the arbitral tribunal shall be constituted by three arbitrators, and their appointment shall be made jointly by the parties or by a third party appointed by them.

On the other hand, according to Article 12 of the LAC, “[w]ithin institutional arbitration, everything pertaining to the arbitration proceedings, including notices, the establishment of the tribunal, challenge and replacement of arbitrators and the proceedings, shall be governed in conformity with the provisions of the arbitration rules of the arbitration centre to which the parties have submitted themselves.”

Moreover, if at the time of signing the arbitration agreement, the parties to the arbitration have chosen in advance the procedure for selecting the arbitrator(s) that will constitute the arbitral tribunal, they must be governed by said procedure, unless they mutually agree otherwise.

According to Article 17 of the LAC, “Failing such agreement on the appointment of the arbitrators, each party shall elect one arbitrator and the two arbitrators thus appointed shall appoint the third, who will be the president of the arbitration tribunal. Should one of the parties be reluctant to appoint his or her respective arbitrator, or should the two appointed arbitrators fail to agree to appoint a third arbitrator, they may require the competent first instance judge to appoint the missing arbitrator. Failing an agreement in a sole-arbitrator arbitration, the arbitrator shall be appointed, upon request of a party, by the competent first instance judge.” As such, there is a default procedure under the law if the parties’ chosen method for selecting arbitrators fails.

Although the default procedure refers to three arbitrators and, therefore, it does not seem to apply to multiparty arbitrations, under the principle of equality, said procedure may be equally applied to multiparty arbitrations, where each party appoints one arbitrator and then a President is chosen by the designated arbitrators, provided that (i) there is an agreement between the parties; and (ii) the number of arbitrators is odd.

In case of disagreement or the impossibility of achieving an odd number of arbitrators, the parties should request the First Instance Judge to appoint the arbitrators that will constitute the arbitral tribunal.

Article 17 of the LAC stipulates the only cases where a court in Venezuela can intervene in the selection of arbitrators.

Judicial intervention is a last resort when (i) the procedure chosen by the parties has failed; and (ii) the default procedure established by the LAC prevents the appointment of the corresponding arbitrator(s). 

Article 12 of the LAC provides that the Rules of the arbitration centres in Venezuela shall establish, among others, the norms related to the disqualification and recusal of arbitrators.

Also, Article 35 of the LAC stipulates that arbitrators may be disqualified by the parties or may recuse themselves in accordance with the reasons for disqualification or recusal stated in Article 82 of the Venezuelan Civil Procedure Code; eg, in cases where the arbitrators:

• are related to one of the parties by blood;
• have a direct interest in the claim;
• have previously acted as counsel or representative of one of the parties in the dispute; and
• have expressed an opinion on the merits of the dispute.

Likewise, Article 35 of the LAC states that “[a]rbitrators appointed by agreement between the parties can only be disqualified on grounds subsequent to their appointment. Those appointed by the appropriate judge or by a third party, may be disqualified within five (5) business days following the notice of the establishment of the arbitral tribunal in accordance with the procedures set herein.”

Articles 36 to 40 of the LAC, and the rules of each arbitration centre, establish a procedure for disqualification and recusal of arbitrators.

On the other hand, the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice has stated that, under extraordinary circumstances that affect the constitutional rights of a party of an arbitration proceeding, said party may file a special constitutional injunction (amparo constitucional) against the decision that denies the removal of the relevant arbitrator (see decision No 894 issued on 27 June 2012).

Upon being nominated, arbitrators in Venezuela must formally acknowledge in writing their acceptance of the appointment. If they remain silent, it is taken as a refusal of the role, as per Article 18 of the LAC.

To safeguard their impartiality and independence, Article 36 of the LAC mandates arbitrators to disclose any potential conflicts of interest or reasons that might warrant their recusal or disqualification. This obligation requires them to:

• communicate such circumstances within the stipulated time frame; and
• either decline the appointment or cease acting as an arbitrator until a decision regarding their disclosure is reached.

In this regard, Article 23 of the Rules of the Conciliation and Arbitration Business Centre reiterates the arbitrators’ duty of impartiality and independence, including their duty of disclosure. Moreover, Article 26.1 of the same Rules provides that if an arbitrator fails to comply with said duties, he/she can be disqualified or removed.

Similarly, the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Rules of the Arbitration Centre of the Chamber of Caracas establishes the arbitrators’ duty of disclosure, stating that they must sign the “Rules of action and ethics” and the “Declaration of Independence and compliance with CACC rules”. Also, under Article 47 of the same Rules, arbitrators are obliged to be impartial.

Pursuant to Article 3 of the LAC, certain subject matters cannot be referred to arbitration, namely:

• disputes contrary to public policy or involving crimes or misdemeanors, except with respect to the civil liability quantification, insofar as it has not been set forth by a final binding judgment;
• disputes directly concerning the sovereign activities or functions of the State or governmental persons or entities;
• disputes involving the civil status or capacity of persons;
• disputes regarding property or rights of legally disabled persons, without prior judicial authorisation; and
• disputes on which a final binding judgment has been pronounced, except the pecuniary consequences arising from its enforcement insofar as they exclusively concern the parties to the proceedings and have not been determined by a final binding judgment.

The kompetenz-kompetenz principle is applicable and widely accepted in Venezuela. In addition to being included in Article 7 of the LAC, it has been recognised by the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

Article 7 of the LAC provides that an “arbitral tribunal may rule over its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.”

Likewise, the Constitutional Chamber’s case law has stated that the competence to decide on the jurisdiction of the arbitrator (kompetenz-kompetenz) is held by the arbitral tribunal itself (see decision No 1067 issued on 3 November  2010 by the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice).

In general, due to the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, Venezuelan courts are usually reluctant to intervene and address jurisdiction when there is an arbitration agreement, unless the parties voluntarily decide to refer the claim to ordinary jurisdiction.

Regarding this matter, the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice has clarified that the only exception to this practice arises when the arbitration clause is “pathological”, rendering the application of the kompetenz-kompetenz principle infeasible. This was elucidated in decision No 1067 issued on 3 November 2010. In those cases, in order to avoid a violation of the parties’ rights to defence and action, the court has the authority to rule on jurisdiction and, ultimately, hear the merits of the matter if (i) the arbitration clause is unenforceable; and (ii) the parties do not decide to sign a new arbitration clause.

The same Chamber stated that if a claim is brought before the national courts and there is a challenge concerning lack of jurisdiction or a dispute over jurisdictional purview, a mandatory jurisdictional review by the Political Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice may be required, as outlined in decision No 1067.

According to Article 25 of the LAC, “[t]he plea for lack of appropriate jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal must be filed within five (5) business days of the first procedural hearing.”

National courts, when reviewing decisions related to questions of admissibility and jurisdiction, often defer to precedent, especially the case law of the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

In order to protect the right to defence and action, national courts usually allow a party to initiate court proceedings and do not immediately refer the case file to the arbitral institution (if it is an institutional arbitration).

This allows the other party to present itself before the court to:

• challenge the court’s jurisdiction, leading the court to renounce its jurisdiction and instruct parties to begin arbitration proceedings;
• explicitly agree to refer the claim to ordinary jurisdiction; or
• implicitly agree to refer the claim to ordinary jurisdiction by not challenging the court’s jurisdiction (see decision No 1169 issued on 22 June 2007 by the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice).

Under Venezuelan law, it is not possible for an arbitral tribunal to assume jurisdiction over individuals or entities that are neither party to an arbitration agreement nor signatories to a contract containing an arbitration agreement.

Article 26 of the LAC allows the arbitral tribunal to award interim measures in order to ensure the execution of the final award. In this case, the tribunal may ask the requesting party for a bond or other guarantees.

Moreover, Article 38 of the Rules of the Business Centre for Conciliation and Arbitration reaffirms that the arbitral tribunal may award any preliminary relief and even an urgent arbitral tribunal may be constituted to award said measures before the definitive arbitral tribunal is constituted. The same provision is included in Articles 12 to 26 of the Rules of the Arbitration Centre of the Chamber of Caracas.

Although any interim relief awarded by the arbitral tribunal is binding, its execution must be carried out by a first-instance court (Article 28 of the LAC).

Under Article 28 of the LAC, the first instance court has jurisdiction to execute the preliminary or interim relief awarded in arbitral proceedings.

Although the LAC does not mention emergency arbitrators, the use of such arbitrators is very common in institutional arbitration in Venezuela since it is included in both the Rules of the Business Centre for Conciliation and Arbitration and the Rules of the Arbitration Centre of the Chamber of Caracas. Decisions issued by emergency arbitrators are binding on the parties albeit their execution can only be carried out by a court.

Also, the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice has explained that, in order to protect the right to defence of the parties, they can refer a dispute to ordinary jurisdiction before the arbitration procedure begins in order to request a precautionary measure, without this implying a tacit waiver of arbitration (see decision No 1067 issued on 3 November 2010).

Courts initially cannot provide interim relief in support of arbitrations seated outside of Venezuela unless said proceedings have not started by the time of the request.

A Venezuelan court cannot intervene once an emergency arbitrator has been appointed.

While Venezuelan courts and arbitral tribunals theoretically possess the authority to order security for costs through the award of interim relief, this is not a very common practice in Venezuela.

The autonomy of the will is the basic principle of the entire procedure of arbitration in Venezuela. As such, the LAC establishes that:

• each arbitration centre shall have its own rules governing the procedure of arbitration (Articles 12 and 13);
• the default procedure established in the LAC is applicable to ad hoc arbitration, unless otherwise agreed by the parties (Article 15); and
• the same default procedure may be applicable to an institutional arbitration if so agreed by the parties (Article 15).

In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice has stated that, the procedure of arbitration shall “respond to the guarantees and limits established by the applicable legal system” (see decision No 1541 issued on 17 October 2008) and that “in no way is the absolute exclusion of procedure recognised as a possibility” in the LAC (see decision No 572 issued on 22 April 2005).

On the other hand, Venezuela is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), so the execution of the award is governed by said rules.

In Venezuela, there are no particular procedural steps that are required by law but arbitrators must ensure compliance with the formalities that protect the right to defence of the parties, since non-compliance with those rules may cause the annulment of the award, either because “[t]he party against whom it is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator, or of the arbitration proceedings which require said notification, or was otherwise unable to present his case” (Article 44 b of the LAC) or “[t]he composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration proceedings was not in accordance with the requirements of this Act” (Article 44 c of the LAC).

In accordance with the provisions of the LAC, arbitrators are obliged to:

• attend all hearings (Article 41);
• “maintain the confidentiality of the motions of the parties, of the evidence and of everything related to the arbitral proceedings” (Article 42);
• communicate in writing to those appointing them whether or not they accept the position (Article 18);
• order the arbitration procedure (Article 27);
• issue a reasoned award, unless otherwise agreed by the parties (Article 30); and
• reveal conflicts of interest and grounds for disqualification or recusal (Article 36).

The arbitrators also have the power, inter alia, to:

• award interim relief (Article 26);
• charge professional fees for their work as arbitrators (Article 19);
• decide on their own jurisdiction (Article 25); and
• request the courts’ assistance for the collection of evidence and the execution of the awards (Article 27).

There are no particular qualifications for legal representatives appearing in arbitration proceedings in Venezuela.

In Venezuela, the parties to arbitration proceedings are free to collect and submit any means of proof they deem appropriate to assert their allegations, as long as they are legal.

Pursuant to Article 23 of the LAC, the parties in the first hearing may submit documents or refer to documents or other evidence that they will file later. The arbitral tribunal may schedule a hearing for the parties to submit the evidence, if needed.

Typically, the parties do not submit any evidence other than documents during the pleading stage and, therefore, certain procedures such as discovery are not usually allowed in arbitration proceedings seated in Venezuela.

The parties to arbitration proceedings are free to choose the rules of evidence applicable to their case.

The application of the civil procedure rules is not mandatory for the collection and submission of evidence in arbitration proceedings. However, those rules usually involve the minimum due process requirements to produce evidence in Venezuela.

Nevertheless, the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice has insisted on the importance of respecting the constitutional rights and guarantees of the parties in any arbitration proceedings, especially during the evidence stage of the process (see decision No 1328 issued on 16 October 2014).

Article 27 of the LAC provides that arbitrators may order the production of documents or require the attendance of witnesses. Further, Article 28 states that “[t]he arbitral tribunal or a party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal may request assistance of a competent court of first instance in taking necessary evidence and in order to enforce the requested interim measures of protection.”

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, arbitral proceedings and everything related to the arbitral proceedings are entirely confidential (Article 42 of the LAC). However, if the arbitration goes to court because a legal or constitutional recourse is filed, it is likely that the confidentiality of the case will cease because civil and constitutional proceedings in Venezuela are public (Article 24 of the Venezuelan Civil Procedure Code).

The award shall be issued in writing and signed by the arbitrator or the arbitrators (Article 29). Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the award shall be reasoned and, in any case, it must (i) contain its date of issuance and the place of the arbitration; and (ii) analyse the evidence and the claims filed by the parties.

The LAC does not provide any time limits to deliver the award. Nevertheless, Article 22 of the same law states that if the arbitration agreement fails to set the term of duration of the process, it shall last six months from the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

The limits on the types of remedies that an arbitral tribunal may award depend on the law to be applied to the merits of the dispute. Under Venezuelan law, for instance, punitive damages are not recoverable. 

Under Article 20 of the LAC, legal costs of arbitration proceedings are recoverable and shall be set by the arbitral tribunal in the award. Arbitrators shall also decide who shall pay those costs and in what proportion.

In Venezuela, parties are not entitled to appeal an arbitral award.

On the contrary, the only recourse parties have is the annulment of the award (Article 43 of the LAC) for the reasons set out in Article 44 of the LAC, namely:

• “The party against whom it is invoked furnishes proof that at the time of the arbitration agreement the opposing party was under some incapacity.
• The party against whom it is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator, or of the arbitration proceedings which require said notification, or was otherwise unable to present his case;
• The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration proceedings was not in accordance with the requirements of this Act.
• The award deals with a dispute not contemplated by the arbitration agreement, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the matters submitted to arbitration.
• The party against whom the award is invoked furnishes proof that it has not yet become binding to the parties, or has been previously set aside or suspended, pursuant to the terms of the submission to arbitration.
• The court hearing the application for setting aside the arbitral award establishes that the subject matter of the dispute may not be settled by arbitration according to this Act, or the subject matter of the award is in conflict with public policy.”

In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice has stated that:

• The amparo constitucional is not the ideal recourse to review an arbitration award (see decision No 827 issued on 23 May 2001), although it could be filed if there is a breach of the constitutional rights or guarantees of the parties (see decision No 1497 issued on 14 November 2012).
• Said review can only be carried out through the annulment of the arbitration award (see decision No 462 issued on 20 May 2010).
• However, an arbitration award could be challenged through an amparo constitucional if it breaches constitutional rights and guarantees (see decision No 3345 issued on 20 December 2002).
• There are no legal recourses available to challenge a decision issued regarding the annulment of an arbitration award (see decision No 1773 issued on 30 November 2011).
• If the constitutional public order has been breached, the Constitutional Chamber may review the award, without this being considered an appeal against the award (see decision No 1497 issued on 14 November 2012).
• The avocamiento is not available for a case presided over by an arbitral tribunal (see decision No 0151 issued on 30 April 2021).

Parties are free to exclude or limit the scope of any challenge against an award either in the arbitration agreement or during the arbitration proceedings. However, if the award breaches the so-called constitutional public order, the award could still be annulled by the courts.

National courts, when reviewing decisions related to questions of admissibility and jurisdiction, often defer to precedent, especially the case law of the Constitutional Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice.

Venezuela is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, with two reservations:

• It only applies the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards issued in the territory of another State Party.
• It applies the Convention only to controversies arising from legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered commercial by domestic law.

The enforcement of arbitral awards in Venezuela is carried out by the courts and follows the procedures established in the Venezuelan Civil Procedure Code.

It is not possible to enforce foreign arbitral awards that have been set aside by the courts in the seat of the relevant arbitration. If said set-aside proceedings at the seat of the arbitration are ongoing, Venezuelan courts shall suspend any enforcement proceedings pending a resolution of these proceedings.

Defences related to sovereign immunity at the enforcement stage tend to be successful in this jurisdiction.

Venezuelan courts are usually willing to recognise and enforce arbitration awards, unless they breach the Venezuelan constitutional public order.

There is no legal provision nor case law regarding class actions in Venezuela.

Counsels and arbitrators’ ethical rules are contained in the:

• the Venezuelan Lawyers Law (and other applicable professional standards, if the arbitrator is not a lawyer);
• the Code of Professional Ethics of the Venezuelan Lawyer (other applicable professional standards, if the arbitrator is not a lawyer); and
• the Codes of Ethics of the arbitration centres seated in Venezuela (if it is an institutional arbitration).

There is neither statutory law nor case law on rules or restrictions on third-party funders.

An arbitral tribunal can only consolidate separate arbitral proceedings if the parties agree to it.

As an arbitration agreement must be in writing, only those who are parties to it can be bound by said agreement.

Although it is possible that a third party may be bound by an arbitration agreement or award if there is a group of companies, the arbitrators must ensure that due notification of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal is complied with even in respect of that third party.