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.
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.
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.
Wie Sie wahrscheinlich wissen, ist der Willem C. Vis Arbitration Moot einer der weltweit gr??ten Studentenwettbewerbe in den Rechtswissenschaften. Die Teilnehmer erstellen ab Anfang Oktober auf der Grundlage eines realit?tsnah aufgearbeiteten Sachverhalts in einem fiktiven Schiedsgerichtsverfahren Schrifts?tze als Kl?ger- und Beklagtenvertreter und bereiten m?ndliche Pl?doyers vor.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Ist es rechtm??ig, in der Schiedsklausel die Staatsangeh?rigkeit oder die Nationalit?t des Schiedsrichters zu fixieren? Die Praxis zeigt, dass dies m?glich ist. Und wenn es um religi?se ?berzeugungen handelt? Englisch Gericht feststellt, dass eine solche Beschr?nkung diskriminierend ist. Die Frage ?ber Diskriminierungsverbote bei der Auswahl der Schiedsrichter wurde wieder aktuell.