International arbitration News, analytics and practice

15Dec/100

The ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in RosUkrEnergo v. Naftogaz Ukrainy JSC case

As we announced earlier the Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled on enforcement under the New York Convention of a Swedish arbitral award rendered in RosUkrEnergo v. Naftogaz Ukrainy JSC case. Recently the SCC published the unofficial translation of the Court’s ruling. For those who are interested it is available here.

Posted by International Arbitration Team

logo Final point in RosUkrEnergo v. Naftogaz Ukrainy case

6Dec/100

ICSID announces its tribunal’s award in Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine case. The claim is commercial, not the investment one!

On December 1, 2010 the arbitration tribunal of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes announced its final award in Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. V. Ukraine case.

26Nov/100

CIArb Costs of International Arbitration Survey. Participate and obtain the results of the Survey!

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators commenced collection of information on the costs of international commercial arbitration proceedings. The aim is to gather data which will inform parties, legal representatives, and arbitrators about the overall costs of international commercial arbitration. The survey is also gathering data about how those costs are made up, the allocation of costs by arbitrators and the extent to which these may depend upon the nature of the dispute, the seat of arbitration, the amount in dispute, the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the costs incurred prior to, and during, the arbitration.

 The findings will be analyzed and disseminated through a report and a conference, organized by CIArb, which will take place on 27 – 28 September 2011 in London, England.

24Nov/100

Final point in RosUkrEnergo v. Naftogaz Ukrainy case

On November 24, 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine adopted its final ruling on RosUkrEnergo v. Naftogaz Ukrainy JSC case. The Court supported the position of the court of first instance and the appeal court. As we informed in our previous posts that after the arbitral tribunal had issued its award in favor of RosUkrEnergo, the respective motion on its enforcement was filed to the Ukrainian court. The court of first instance satisfied the motion, however its ruling was appealed.

Now, after the cassation instance ruled about the enforcement, there is a chance to challenge the court ruling on the grounds of new circumstances revealed or on the extraordinary grounds. The chance is rather theoretical.

22Nov/100

Swiss Rules play a trick, of Why Ukrainian state courts do not recognize “arbitration in Geneva”?

With this post we continue the Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction set of comments. We already discussed how Ukrainian courts treat ad hoc arbitration and what is their perception of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. This time the arbitration under the Swiss Rules is in our focus.

Arbitration Swiss1 Swiss Rules play a trick, of Why Ukrainian state courts do not recognize “arbitration in Geneva”?

 

21Nov/100

Holen Sie sich für 2011 Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot Wettbewerb bereit

Wie Sie wahrscheinlich wissen, ist der Willem C. Vis Arbitration Moot einer der weltweit größten Studentenwettbewerbe in den Rechtswissenschaften. Die Teilnehmer erstellen ab Anfang Oktober auf der Grundlage eines realitätsnah aufgearbeiteten Sachverhalts in einem fiktiven Schiedsgerichtsverfahren Schriftsätze als Kläger- und Beklagtenvertreter und bereiten mündliche Plädoyers vor. 

18Nov/100

RosUkrEnergo investigation commission of the Verkhovna Rada assumes that Naftogaz Ukrainy JSC lost the SCC case because of change of its legal position

On November 17, 2010 RosUkrEnergo investigation commission of the Verkhovna Rada presented draft report regarding the award of the arbitral tribunal under the rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.

 The draft is subject to consideration of the core committee, thus it is not the final version yet. However, the draft contains assumptions and conclusions that may be interesting for our readers who follow the RosUkrEnergo case. After the arbitral tribunal had issued its awards of March 3, 2010 and June 8, 2010, they were recognized and permitted to be enforced according to the ruling of August 13, 2010 adopted by the Shevchenko District court of Kyiv. The ruling was then appealed. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. As we may say the state officials and bodies pay great attention to the outcomes of the case, which already lead to criminal proceedings instituted against former officials of customs authorities.

12Nov/100

Alpha Projektholding has won the investment dispute against Ukraine under ICSID rules

The Tribunal found that Ukraine conducted the expropriation of  Alpha Projektholding’s rights and interests in the 1998 and 1999 Joint Activities Agreements in violation of Article 4 of the the Agreement for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Republic of Austria and Ukraine (Compensation for Expropriation) and denied fair and equitable to Claimant’s investments in violation of Article 2 of the UABIT (Protection and Promotion of Investments).

However, the Tribunal ruled that Ukraine had not violated Article 8 of the UABIT (Other Obligations) and the national treatment obligation in Article 3 of the UABIT with respect to claimant’s investments. The recognition of violation of the Ukrainian Foreign Investment Law was declined as well.

Ukraine has been ordered to pay USD 2,979,232 with additional interest accruing from July 1, 2004, at a rate of 9.11 percent compounded annually. As stated in the Award, if payment were made on December 31, 2010, total damages owing as of that date would be USD 5,250,782.

10Nov/100

Everything you need to know about international arbitration on one page

International arbitration is a very tricky area, there are too many peculiarities so that even an academic course in this field is only a small amount of knowledge that the practitioner should have. We are often asked by young lawyers starting their practice in arbitration about the general information that could help them to have a general picture of what is arbitration.important about arbitration1 Everything you need to know about international arbitration on one page

9Nov/100

Guerrilla Tactics in International Arbitration and Litigation

Do you want to have a detailed knowledge about what the Guerrilla Tactics in international arbitration and litigation mean and what are counsel’s and the arbitral tribunal’s tools to deal with those? Where does poor behavior end and guerrilla tactics start? How do arbitral institutions view the issue of Guerrilla Tactics? How may arbitral institutions and state courts support fighting Guerrilla Practices? How much state court support is desirable? 

8Nov/100

Sollen die Schiedsklauseln neu verfasst werden?

Ist es rechtmäßig, in der Schiedsklausel die Staatsangehörigkeit oder die Nationalität des Schiedsrichters zu fixieren? Die Praxis zeigt, dass dies möglich ist. Und wenn es um religiöse Überzeugungen handelt? Englisch Gericht feststellt, dass eine solche Beschränkung diskriminierend ist. Die Frage über Diskriminierungsverbote bei der Auswahl der Schiedsrichter wurde wieder aktuell.

28Oct/100

Dear arbitration practitioners, be precise in specifying the name of an arbitral institution in a contract

With this post we continue the Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction set of comments. In our previous posts we already warned arbitration practitioners, attorneys and solicitors who are dealing with drafting arbitration agreements so that they should be precise in specifying the name of an arbitral institution in a contract if the dispute somehow is connected to the Ukrainian jurisdiction. The reason why is that Ukrainian state courts are not trained in favor of arbitration and in many cases do not consider seriously the doctrine of competence-competence in international commercial arbitration.

On October 13, 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled in case upon the petition of VKT ARDO LLC against the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine issued in favor of Аrсеlоrmittal Аmbalaj Сеligі Sanауі ve Тісаrеt Аnоnіm Sіrkеtі against VKT ARDO LLC for app. USD 3 mln. Since I have no interest in that case I believe that I can share my opinion.

26Oct/100

If the case was lost in arbitration, let’s win in the Parliament

After the award in Rosukrenergo (we followed the case in our previous posts)  case was issued against the Ukrainian respondent, Ukrainian authorities and state officials announced several options of further actions, including filing an appeal against the award issues by the arbitral tribunal of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.

Parliament If the case was lost in arbitration, let’s win in the Parliament

In addition to those measures the members of the Ukrainian Parliament invented another one.

25Oct/100

International Dispute Resolution: Ukraine, Russia and CIS countries

On 23 November 2010 Ukrainian Bar Association organizes 1st Ukrainian International Conference "International Dispute Resolution: Ukraine, Russia and CIS countries"

 The conference provides a unique opportunity for dispute resolution lawyers and in-house counsels from Western countries and CIS to discuss practical issues of cross-border litigation and international arbitration. The conference will also address differences in various jurisdictions and how to deal with exchange of experience.

21Oct/100

Document Production in International Arbitration – Where to draw the Line?

The admissibility of requests and orders for Document Production has been a disputed subject for considerable time now. The aim of Document Production is to give the requesting party the opportunity to close evidentiary gaps in their own submissions. It is based on the principle that the two contesting parties will have the option to survey all relevant documents. In practice, it is often used by parties for much more than just the gathering of evidence and the dispute on its admissibility and scope focuses to a high degree on the divide between civil and common law traditions.