Ad Hoc | International arbitration

4Mar/10Off

Intention to arbitrate or Pathological arbitration clause?

With this post we continue the Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction set of comments. We already discussed the approach that was typical for Ukrainian courts concerning the validity and enforceability of ad hoc arbitration clauses till recent times. Ukrainian courts’ practice still is not a pro-arbitration one. However, there is the understanding of difference between a pathological arbitration clause and a poorly drafted clause which though may be rescued.

Tagged as: ad hoc, Arbitration in Ukraine, arbitration-friendly, Ukrainian court practice Continue reading

9Feb/10Off

Ad hoc arbitration

This is the second post in the Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction set of comments after the post dedicated to Ukrainian “perception” of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.

It may sound strange, but in some cases the practice of Ukrainian courts concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards is based not on laws and international treaties that specify international obligations of Ukraine to recognize and enforce the awards, but on domestic currency control rules and even tax legislation. Let the currency control rules be formally interpreted, which was the case during several years, and you may come to a ridiculous result: the monopoly of the International Commercial Arbitration Court and the Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry “on the market” of resolution of disputes where one party is a Ukrainian entity.

ad hoc