The Subcommittee on Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards conducted over 2014/2015 a comparative study on 'public policy' as a defence to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention. For such purpose, the Subcommittee has solicited and received reports from Arbitration Committee members reporting jurisdiction by jurisdiction on the treatment of public policy by the domestic courts in the context of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
By Konstantin Pilkov, Cai & Lenard
Ukraine has a reputation of a country with an imperfect justice system. No wonder that the country is also pictured by many arbitration practitioners as one unfriendly to arbitration, though refusals to grant the leave for enforcement of arbitral awards in Ukraine are relatively rare – 10% and 18% of all requests considered in 2013 and 2014 respectively, according to the Statistical Report “Ukraine. Arbitration-friendly jurisdiction: 2013-2014” prepared by Cai & Lenard.
Assignment of benefits of arbitral awards is a standard business practice worldwide, undertaken by companies involved in international trade and supported by credit insurers. However, this practice may face some obstacles in Ukraine considering contradictory and poorly developed court practice of granting leave for enforcement upon an application submitted by any person other than a person who was the party to arbitration. Courts are rather formalistic in deciding on that matter as Ukrainian laws do not directly envisage the possibility to an application for leave to enforce an international arbitration award to be submitted by any person other than a creditor (the meaning of this term is sometimes narrow, so that it is understood as a synonym to a party to arbitration). Actually, until recently there are not so many court cases, if any at all, in which the matter of assignment of benefits of arbitral award was clearly addressed.
Arbitration practitioners often put Ukraine below the average ranking of countries in terms of recognition of arbitration. Ukraine’s image of a not entirely arbitration-friendly jurisdiction is “promoted” with common thought about problematic enforcement of arbitral awards in Ukraine.
However, in recent years Ukrainian legal system demonstrated significant progress in adherence to the arbitration-friendly approach. That progress had been measured during the study resulted in the research paper “Ukraine. Arbitration-friendly jurisdiction: 2011-2012statistical report”.
What is the statistics of setting aside and recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Ukraine?
How often do Ukrainian courts grant the leave for enforcement of arbitral awards?
What are the reasons for refusing the enforcement of arbitral awards?
Do Ukrainian economic courts recognize arbitration agreements?
Are the courts inclined to "restore" arbitration agreements?
Is there any connection between international commercial arbitration and administrative court proceedings?
You may also download it here.
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.