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.
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.
In addition to those measures the members of the Ukrainian Parliament invented another one.
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.
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.
Konrad & Justich's International Arbitration Practice Group is a highly specialised group of international arbitration lawyers, qualified in multiple jurisdictions, trained and skilled in all areas of dispute resolution and with particular expertise in handling high-profile arbitration cases before major arbitral institutions and ad-hoc panels.
Let me start by stating that formally consumers’ rights in Ukraine are protected and even overprotected. They even may file claims which are free of court fees. However, recently new initiative appeared that was aimed at protection of consumers from “deprivation of rights to be protected by the state court system”. Today, October 20, the core committee of the Ukrainian Parliament gave its positive opinion to the bill that excludes the consumers’ disputes out of the competence of arbitration courts. The bill was registered with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on September 9, 2010.
Conducting business internationally it is extremely important to be sure about the bona fide status of your counterparty. This factor is significant for potential disputes and may be considered in two main aspects. First of all the unclear legal status of counterparty may hide certain problems which may cause disputes. Secondly, the outcome of any arbitration or litigation against that party with unclear legal status may be ineffective due to impossibility to enforce an award or court decision.
Recently, Ukrainian economic courts have established a new practice, which hardly contributes to the attempts of Ukraine to become more friendly to arbitration. In the case Signus LLC vs SLAV Handel, Vertretung und Beteiligung AG and others the court of first instance forbade the defendants to apply to the London Court of International Arbitration.
We continue a series of comments on this blog and we apologize to our subscribers and readers for a pause. The reason for the pause was the active involvement of the author of the blog to the process of establishing a new player in the legal services market that has occupied a niche of services in the field of international arbitration, trade and investment. I beg your welcome! Cai & Lenard Law firm!
The firm's lawyers shape the practice of arbitration in Ukraine. This blog will be updated by the analysis of these practices along with other useful materials. Cai & Lenard Website
Wir sind weiterhin eine Reihe von Kommentaren auf diesem Blog zu schreiben und wir wollen an unsere Abonnenten und Lesern f?r eine Pause zu entschuldigen. Der Grund f?r die Pause war die aktive Beteiligung der Autor des Blogs auf den Prozess der Schaffung einer neuen Player im Markt der juristischen Dienstleistungen, die eine Nische von Dienstleistungen im Bereich der internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, Handel und Investitionen besetzt hat. Ich bitte Sie herzlich willkommen! Cai & Lenard Anwaltskanzlei
Die Anw?lte der Kanzlei shaffen die Praxis der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in der Ukraine. Dieser Blog wird durch die Analyse dieser Praktiken zusammen mit weiteren n?tzlichen Materialien aktualisiert werden. Cai & Lenard Website