New rules of the protection of Ukraine’s state interests in international jurisdictional bodies
On March 15, 2011 the new version of the Order of protecting the rights and interests of Ukraine during the disputes, before the foreign jurisdictional authorities in cases involving a foreign entity and Ukraine came in force. The Order was approved by the Decree of the President of Ukraine.
NO CONSUMER ARBITRATION IN UKRAINE – 2
On February 3 2011 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine passed the Law amending the Law “On Arbitration Courts” which excludes the consumers’ disputes (including those related to consumers of services of banks and credit unions) out of the competence of arbitration courts. In our previous articles we commented that initiative and discussed the main “pro” and “cons” of arbitration in consumer cases.
Posted by International Arbitration Team
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.
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.
A court is not obliged to read an arbitration clause
This is another post in the Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction set of comments. The Highest Economic Court of Ukraine being a body that is responsible for elaboration of the unified court practice of resolution of commercial disputes in Ukraine, adopted the ruling that answers the question: “Is a court obliged to terminate proceedings if a dispute is based on a contract that contains valid arbitration clause?”
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. 
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.
Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. Stockholm
Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
There are not many cases in public domain which may help us to determine all significant issues of recognition and enforcement of the awards of this world-renowned arbitration institution.
In case No. 22/200 the economic court of Donetsk Region adopted decision on 13.01.2010 on termination of the consideration of case since the parties agreed to arbitrate in “Arbitration Court of Stockholm” (not the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)). Thus, you may think that Ukrainian courts are liberal in their attitude to such details as the name of an arbitration institution.
New category!
Ukraine - arbitration-friendly jurisdiction
There are countries whose legal system is very friendly to arbitration. Though Ukraine is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 for a long time, we may find the statements of reputable lawyers that Ukrainian court system is not friendly to arbitration.
There are no grounded arguments against the Ukrainian arbitration legislation. Ukraine is a UNCITRAL Model Law country and a member of all major international arbitration treaties. Its International Arbitration Law was drafted based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The main issue which created Ukraine the reputation of a country unfriendly to arbitration is the disputable practice of recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards by Ukrainian courts.
Herewith we start the discussion whether Ukrainian court system is friendly to arbitration. However, we will share the information concerning the court “attitude” to a particular arbitration institution (LCIA, SCC, ICC, etc.) so that you can have the full picture on what arbitration forums are “in respect” of Ukrainian courts. We will provide you with the details of the descision so that you can apply the court practice properly.
International Arbitration
Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
Archive
- August 2011 (1)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (1)
- March 2011 (4)
- February 2011 (4)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (2)
- November 2010 (9)
- October 2010 (10)
- August 2010 (1)
- June 2010 (2)
- May 2010 (5)
- April 2010 (8)
- March 2010 (10)
- February 2010 (18)
- January 2010 (9)
- December 2009 (2)
Directories
- Arbitration DO’S and DON’T’S (6)
- Cases (16)
- Conferences and events (1)
- Interesting details (3)
- Mediation (2)
- News (54)
- Notes (6)
- Printed articles (1)
- Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (14)
- Stereotypes of international arbitration (5)
- Ukraine – arbitration-friendly jurisdiction (13)
- Без рубрики (2)
Tags
