diplomsko delo
Hana Šrot (Author), Matjaž Tratnik (Mentor)

Abstract

Pristojnost arbitražnih tribunalov za odrejanje varščine za stroške je v zadnjih letih doživela veliko spremembo. V preteklosti je bila pristojnost za odločanje o začasnih ukrepih pridržana izključno nacionalnim sodiščem, medtem ko so danes takšna pooblastila priznana tudi arbitraži v večini nacionalnih zakonodaj in arbitražnih pravil. Pristojnost tribunala lahko izhaja iz arbitražnega sporazuma strank (in posredno iz institucionalnih arbitražnih pravil, na katera se tak sporazum nanaša) ali pa iz prava sedeža arbitraže – lex arbitri. Nesporno je, da je podelitev pristojnosti arbitražnim tribunalom za odrejanje začasnih ukrepov v veliko vidikih koristna za učinkovitost in doseganje namena arbitraže, vendar pa hkrati pomeni vzpostavitev vzporedne pristojnosti med tribunali in sodišči. V praksi sta glede razporeditve pristojnosti možna dva pristopa. Prvi je t.i. "sistem proste izbire foruma", kjer sta oba organa v prirejenem položaju in med njima velja popolnoma paralelna pristojnost. Drugi pristop pa temelji na subsidiarnosti sodne intervencije, oz. "sistem omejenega dostopa do sodišča", ki daje prednost pri sprejemanju začasnih ukrepov tribunalu, razen v primeru, ko le-ta še ni konstituiran oz. obstajajo druge primerne okoliščine. V skladu z načelom avtonomije volje pa imajo stranke v arbitraži še tretjo možnost, tj. sklenitev dogovora o izključni pristojnosti tribunala ali sodišča. Ko je pristojnost arbitražnega tribunala za odreditev varščine za stroške vzpostavljena, pa se pojavi drug problem. To je pomanjkanje uniformnega testa, ki bi postavil jasne in specifične kriterije za ta ukrep. Kljub temu, da mnogo nacionalnih zakonodaj in arbitražnih pravil pooblašča tribunal za izdajo začasnih ukrepov, pa skoraj nihče od njih ne daje točnih smernic oz. okoliščin, v katerih naj bodo ti ukrepi izdani. UNCITRAL Vzorčni zakon, s spremembami iz leta 2006, določa dva pogoja, vendar pa sta le-ta zelo splošna in ne najbolj ustrezna za tako specifičen ukrep, kot je varščina za stroške. Zaradi presplošnih določb, ki ne dajejo jasnih odgovorov, velja za dodatne pogoje za ukrep varščine za stroške preučiti mednarodno arbitražno prakso. Zaradi kompleksnega sistema obstoječih pravnih sistemov je težko, če ne celo nemogoče, ustvariti enoten test, ki bi bil uporaben v vseh raznolikih sistemih. Vendarle pa obstajajo okoliščine, ki jih tribunali redoma upoštevajo pri odločanju o predlogih za varščino. Med temi okoliščinami so finančno stanje tožnika (in toženčevo ravnanje kot vzrok slabega stanja) ter čas vložitve predloga za varščino. Državljanstvo oz. domicil stranke je danes popolnoma zastarel kriterij in velikokrat izrecno prepovedan, saj je v nasprotju s samim bistvo mednarodne trgovinske arbitraže.

Keywords

mednarodna trgovinska arbitraža;varščina za stroške;začasni ukrepi;diplomska dela;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [H. Šrot]
UDC: 341.6(043.2)
COBISS: 5456171 Link will open in a new window
Views: 969
Downloads: 193
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: Security for Costs in International Commercial Arbitration
Secondary abstract: There has been a significant shift in the last decades towards the recognition of arbitral tribunals' power to order security for costs in international commercial arbitration. Historically, the power to grant interim measures was reserved exclusively for state courts, whereas nowadays, such power is given to the tribunal in most of the national jurisdictions and arbitration rules. The power of the arbitral tribunal can be derived either from the parties' agreement - and consequently, from the institutional arbitration rules - or the law of the seat of arbitration – lex arbitri. Although empowering tribunals to order interim measures is in many aspects beneficial to the efficiency and the purpose of arbitration, it nevertheless poses a new problem, one of concurrent jurisdiction of tribunals and courts. In practice, there are two possible approaches to solving this issue. The first one is the so-called “free choice approach”, where a full parallel jurisdiction is given to both forums. The second approach adopts the subsidiarity of judicial intervention, giving priority to tribunals, unless the tribunal has not been constituted yet or other appropriate circumstances exist. The parties to arbitration, in accordance with the principle of party autonomy, also have an option to depart from these two principles, and conclude an exclusion agreement, by which they give exclusive jurisdiction to either the tribunal or the court. Once the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to order security for costs has been established, a new problem presents itself. That is, the lack of a uniform test for such a measure, which would set clear and specific criteria. Whereas many national laws and arbitration rules empower tribunals to order interim measures, almost none of them offer any specific guidance as to the circumstances under which such measures should be granted. The UNCITRAL Model Law, with its amendments from 2006, sets forth two general conditions, none of which are particularly suitable for a measure as specific as security for costs. Therefore, international arbitration practice must be observed. Due to the complex array of various legal systems, it is hard, if not impossible, to form one set of criteria, which could be applicable to all of those systems. Nevertheless, there are some circumstances, which arbitral tribunals seem to observe on a regular basis when deciding on requests for security for costs. Such circumstances include the financial situation of the claimant (and respondent’s role in its situation) and the timing of the application for security for costs. The nationality or the domicile of a party is a criterion, the use of which is specifically prohibited by many legal documents as it would go against the core principle of international commercial arbitration.
Secondary keywords: international commercial arbitration;security for costs;interim measures;
URN: URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS): Bachelor thesis/paper
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 31 f.
ID: 10863417